I've heard this one a lot. People always like to blame the man for his lack of sexual or romantic prowess. If you're discussing your issues online, people will say that merely talking about them is misogynistic and therefore a clear example of why you are sexually/romantically unsuccessful (because women can smell your misogyny and nobody with anti-social, anti-intellectual, sociopathic or misogynistic traits ever got laid, ever). Furthermore, if you are getting rejected by whole scores of women, YOU are the common denominator.
And if anyone thinks this is just feminists who say this it's not true. Dating coaches like Mark Manson say this in his book, models:
Just to name an obvious example. Men often come to me and say something like this: “I go out and try to meet women, but the problem is all of the girls in my town are catty and immature. So I guess I just need to move to a new city.”
Really? So, it’s not you who’s screwed up, it’s the 150,000+ single women in your city who are all screwed up... in the exact same way... What are the odds of that?
I don't feel like digging up any more relevant quotes but PUA forums are littered with this kind of advice too. Ok, so Manson and some of those PUAs may be a little bit feminist also (I don't know them personally, I really couldn't tell you). But it really isn't just feminists - oh no, it is traditionalists too like Jordan Peterson see 2m20s onwards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsMqSBB3ZTY&t=2m20s
Apart from anything else this is an appeal to popular opinion but that argument doesn't usually sway intellectuals because it mainly applies to mathematical/logical principles rather than subjective arguments like morals, or indeed attractiveness/dating/etc.
But look, let's see what other common denominators are apart from me, the person actually doing most of the approaching, putting time and effort into myself to make sure I am the best, most attractive, most authentic version of myself I can be.
Social pressures/barriers are the number one reason for GMs falling behind in dating
Normally people only talk about the social pressures on women - that they shouldn't sleep around or flirt with guys (even Good Men - GMs) because then they will be called "sluts", they won't be seen as marriage material. This does actually make dating harder for the GMs falling behind (not saying all GMs are) because the women we do approach will distance themselves from us. I consider myself quite good looking - not a Chad or a Lebron James but still above average when I'm looking presentable and slipped into something stylish. But I do have a bunch of issues with this in spite of possessing many of the traits that should make me theoretically compatible with a lot of high quality women out there. I am compassionate, sensititive, interesting, passionate and I do also work out, pursue my ambitions and other stereotypically masculine things. So what is it then. Why would guys like me be failing in this dating environment. We can't be all the things we say we are because otherwise we would have met someone by now right.
It's because we don't work well with these social circumstances. I'm not saying my experiences talk for all GMs but lets look at some of the guys who have things in common with me:
- GMs like me don't like bars and clubs because of the way people behave in those places: it's animalistic. And no, that doesn't mean I'm boring and I don't like to drink, it just means people act like fucking shitheads in bars and nightclubs. For example you can't go to those places alone because then you are "that guy" - a weirdo, someone who's just gone there looking for sex, someone to stay away from, possibly even laugh at or ridicule, someone who the bouncers will be keeping their eyes on, etc. Even with friends, you've still got to deal with guys trying to push their weight around, bragging about the size of their dicks in the urinals, interrupting your set when your trying to talk to a cute girl to steal her away from you (the same guys who - yes, they are often successful with women) and you've still got to deal with bitchy superficial women, loud music that drowns out conversation, aggressive drunks, arsehole bouncers, etc. Those places are nightmares.
- dating advice sucks. It's either red pill, amoral dating strategy: "be manly man, GRRRR; ignore rejections - those are shit-tests; drive your way past LMR or you're a lil bitch; fuck conversation and getting to know her be manly man" or it's feminist namby pamby crap that doesn't work "just be kind, respectful, get to know her, be gentle". There's few coaches out there who recognise the true need for a fine balance between a masculine approach and feminine sensitivity. Then there's the black pill, it doesn't even give advice unless you have a very specific facial structure to begin with (in which case you should "just lift and lookmax bro") - it tells you that "it's over", even though so many studies have shown the variability in women's tastes in regards to aesthetics compared to men and that most women do not even prioritise looks as number one anyway. All the other mainstream outlets when I was 18 and figuring out how I was going to make my entrance into the dating scene just said vague bullshit as well, "buy her drinks, be smart and presentable, approach her right and be confident". It's because of all this lack of advice that paved the way for the red pill to begin with because deep in that trash can are a few actually semi-decent semi-workable things. You've just got to dive deep (which shouldn't even be necessary). Then there's all the scam PUA gimmicks that's just obviously there to take a large chunk out of your wallet.
- related to the feminist advice that doesn't work, all of the "just get a few hobbies and join some clubs" bull doesn't work because the rules in those environments make it just as difficult to approach women as they do in bars and nightclubs. Sure your typical tennis court or book club are friendlier places than some night club shit hole.
- we don't like being told we have to seek traditional arrangements like monogamy. I know some guys on here want traditional arrangements and marriage whatever but practising that lifestyle and saying it should be for everyone are two completely different things. It's so hypocritical for the feminists who say that we need to treat women right and find one to settle down with, not treat her like fuck meat or whatever but simultaneously argue sex positivity and that women should be allowed to sleep around without being slut-shamed. And it's ironic when Jordan Peterson talks about how (socially) "forced monogamy" is supposed to help "incels" or whatever because they have more choice now that promiscuous men like Lebron James but actually slut-shaming women just makes it harder for GMs to approach because of the women who want to pretend like they aren't sexual or whatever because of the social pressures.
On this last point during his interview with Rogan where he "clarified" his position about pressured monogamy (I did not find it in the slightest bit convincing, this article forms the basis of my opinion why forced monogamy is a shit solution for GMs who fall back) his problem was he was focussing on helping out incels with his "solution". I mean, I get that not all incels are the same (I definitely don't want to start railing against the GMs who fell for incel cult like I did), but a significant part of these fellows we're talking about rape and paedophilia apologists who tell naive and innocent newcomers to their communities (hands up, I was one of them) "it's over", "take the blackpill", "stop coping start roping". I really could not give a fuck about this unsavoury crowd who wants to help them? Besides pressured monogamy wouldn't help them anyway.
So because he was focussing his solution for incels, it doesn't surprise me that when Rogan asked Peterson during the interview - and I paraphrase -
Ok, so you want to help out incels. But what about guys like Lebron James who's 6'5, good looking, athletic, successful, etc. and of course they're going to be successful with women? Why shouldn't they get to sleep around with women, assuming they're using contraception and not having illegitimate kids who will grow up without a father figure.
It really is no surprise to me then that Peterson was basically completely flustered for words and started babbling tangentially about equality of outcome / how hierarchies can sometimes implode on themselves / how feminists do have one or two reasonable points or something. Because he was talking about incels, so he doesn't have a good reason why they (I mean the worst of them, not the ones who can be redeemed) *should get to pass on their genes for any fucking reason**.*
And this is precisely what I mean - if you will look at my subreddit or take a look through my post history - when I repeatedly talk about how the discourse for Good Men has become limited. Usually I'm focussing on the limitations imposed by feminism but today I'm looking specifically at traditionalism. In this case the existence of black-pilled ideologies has completely derailed everyone from what matters - traditionalists, feminists everyone:
we have a huge problem if GMs cannot survive to pass on their genes
Duh! Intelligent social men need to live long enough to pass on their genes. That's the problem if Lebron James is fucking around all the time with no intention of passing on any of his good genes with any of these women and there are intelligent, good looking, worldly men with genuinely attractive, virtuous, authentic traits who are obstacled in dating because of some of the social pressures I made. And that's me being nice to the top percentage of men who are successful with scores of women - assuming they all have good genes to pass on. There are many of them who have machiavellian traits: anti-intellectualism, anti-social behaviours, misogyny, racism and sometimes even blatant sociopathy. These men don't have any difficulty overcoming the same social barriers I mentioned earlier because they have the ability to "play the game" almost remorselessly - maybe even sociopathically. And that is the reason there are so many GMs failing in dating.
And that brings me back to the topic of the OP:
I don't care if I am the Common Denominator, It's NOT My Fault that I'm Single
Seriously. When guys talk about how feminism have held them back, how night clubs are shit, how there is a severe shortage of places to meet women, how there are a small minority of men having sex with a significant proportion of men we're not just looking for excuses. Many of us have the field experience, the repeated rejections, the blood sweat and tears to back up what we're saying: we've tried, we've fucking tried and we can all attest to the fact that this dating environment holds us back.
So what is the solution to the problem so many of us GMs are having in dating. I'll give you a clue. It's not red pill machiavellian strategies that are designed to mimic the traits of some of the alpha male bad boys I described above. You can't fake that shit if you have anything vaguely resembling a conscience or sense of ethics. That's not for us otherwise we would not be GMs to begin with and the proof is in my own post history where I asked a question about addressing the subjects of female history on r/asktrp. An endorsed contributor commented:
You're still stuck thinking that society and culture has your best interests at heart and that you somehow owe society and culture a debt to be "good" and "virtuous". This is pure bluepill thinking, allowing external influences and popular culture to delineate your actions.
This is why arguments about morality are not tolerated here... your morality is not mine is not Sleazy Steves...but since the definitions of what morality is best are asinine, also is using the term "good". What makes a "good man"
So stop spamming a redpill sub with your unrefined bluepill ideas.
... Wonder why your "good guys" can't get laid? Because they don't understand the reality of intersexual dynamics and refuse to play the game, instead espousing and perseverating on how things SHOULD be, ala JBP. Refusal to acknowledge reality. See how that's the base issue?
(As I said repeatedly in this post: we are not designed for this game. It is sick, twisted and Machiavellian in nature. If we were ever able to play this game and win, we would not be GMs in the first place. Conscience is not something you can just condition yourself out of, like the Red Pill naively assumes)
This user added:
Hypergamy - women want to elevate themselves to the highest branch they can reach.
Virtue plays exactly zero role in SMV, the criteria women use to determine which branch is higher. Just like "nice" or "good" these are known as container words because they sound nice, but every individual fill them up with the qualities specific to that individual, so they end up meaning nothing at all.
Your men are therefore displaying attributes that not only don't elevate their odds with women, but hinder them as you know the confident DNGAF "asshole" alpha is picked every time over a timid understanding communicative "good guy".
This is all TRP 101 stuff, it'll do you good to read the main TRP sidebar to start understanding this.
Furthermore, As Jack Miller pointed out, prostitution and pressured monogamy are not the solution either.
I don't have perfect solutions either but in my opinion, we do need:
A platform to discuss our views and raise awareness of our issues.
A platform such as r/GoodMenGoodValues (but in real life) for reasonably minded GMs to have the conversations they want to have:
- the fact that there are so many GMs falling behind in the dating world now and what can be done about it
- what the problems are in this sort of society, and what it means for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent & virtuous genes
- what roles gender politics play in this
- the biological and social conditions of women that contribute to this
- our individual experiences and struggles in the dating world for which we should be able to refer to ourselves as Good Men and whatever virtuous or otherwise desirable traits we may have as it is useful background information
- the warning of the Big Question which is posed by post-wall hypergamous women, a fate that no woman wants to end up with when, after years of ignoring and neglecting Good Men, ridiculing us, calling us "Nice GuysTM", they turn around and ask "but where have all the Good Men gone?" ... the same GMs that already pursued and were rejected, often harshly by these same women, and the same self-respecting GMs that no longer want anything to do with these same women.
Without feminist or traditionalist derailing tactics such as the ones mentioned above or these gems right here:
- "you're not a genuinely nice guy" or "Nice GuyTM!"
- "it's not enough to just be nice!"
- "you have covertly sexist attitudes"
- "you need to man up"
- "ethics have nothing to do with it"
- "pull your boot straps up son, because the world doesn't owe you!"
Furthermore, we need to encourage the public to stop paying attention to incel terrorists and other individuals just because they have committed and extreme act. This is another way the conversation GMs want to have has been derailed. Because we are not listened to - we are far too boring, far too sane, far too reasonable. Hey everyone - let's hear the damnatio memoriae instead: the Isla Vista Killer, the Torronto Killer, all of those other school shooters and spree killers. Who gives a fuck about boring, rationally-minded & sane approaches, right?
Intersectional-humanist systems of representation
(See this post here which explains about intersectional-humanism (IH)).
The only way to combat our feminist and traditionalist detractors is with a system of representation that can be seen as thorough and consistent unlike Modern Egalitarianism that has been hijacked. IH needs to be consistently anti-feminist, anti-traditionalist, anti-masculinist and to be taken seriously, it needs to develop into a real life form of activism that opposes all the insanity equally and also represents GMs from time to time.
State funded tutelage for young men who did not learn certain life skills during their adolescence, mostly due to the failure of education system or their parents.
These fundamentals include the teaching adolescent and young men the following things from an early age:
- learning how to lift with correct form and compound lifts (squats, deadlifts, etc.)
- learning good fashion
- learning how to cook, change tires, drive a car, know basic DIY
- learning how to be financially prudent
- learning how to be career oriented (i.e. have direction for the future) - and potential support with this (qualifications, references, etc.)
- learning how to hold conversations with friends/family acquaintances as well as being able to talk to strangers
All of these things seem to make men more attractive in the eyes of women, and it also gives men the social confidence/awareness to approach women in a calibrated way.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 5y ago
There is one point you made I'm going to comment on.. Moving to a new city.
I move cities every few years because I like the change of scenery. And, my dating life improves because of it. A new city means new everything! Think about it.. You have a whole new part of your country to explore, new places to hang out, regional food to try, and new people who know nothing about you to meet.
When you get settled into a new place the sky's the limit on where you can go. Update your wardrobe, explore new interests, discover new hobbies. You go from being that guy who always sits at the end of the bar on Friday nights to that new guy in town from (place). You're something new and exotic. And, since you're new you can redefine who you are because people have no preconceived notions about you.
And, certain types of people do well in certain areas. I've lived in dating wastelands and dating meccas. The only thing that really changed was where I was.
[deleted] 5y ago
In my life besides travelling, I have lived in three different cities.
Also nobody else has to do that shit just to get laid. So what you're recommending me is something practically no other guy has to do.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 5y ago
I didn't say you have to do it, I said it's benefited me and provided examples of how I have taken advantage. You sound pretty bitter and angry which is just going to push people away.
[deleted] 5y ago
And I told you I've done it, now you're saying I'm bitter and angry?
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 5y ago
You come off as bitter and angry. You've lived in several cities and traveled, that's good. You're still achieving negative results when it comes to women, and you claim no other guy has to do that. It's entirely possible the problem is you.
[deleted] 5y ago
Ok, so why are all these women having to ask the Big Question when they hit the wall? Must be that there are some Good Men being disenfranchised by dating as well as the MGTOWs, etc.
It's possible the problem is me (although you sound like feminists do when they say "women can smell your misogyny", I don't know how you rectify those beliefs with being a mod here so I would be curious to understand). It's also possible women have significantly higher standards; they expect guys to lavish them with monetarily valued gifts and attention; and only guys with Dark Triad Personality types become the exception to the rule of benevolent sexism. So the social circumstances where the dating game operates under these particular rules, that is the other common denominator besides me. And that's what the thread is about.
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 5y ago
Women ask the big question because they've set themselves up with impossible standards. They really believe the 10/10 guys who swipe are interested in more than a P&D. So, they get attention/sex and keep chasing it like it will always be there. And, suddenly it's not. And, they're left wondering just what the Hell happened.
As far as me.. I'm not Dark Triad, I'm as average as average can be. Yet, somehow I have a steady flow of dates/FWBs, etc. If you're striking out consistently then there's something you're doing wrong. How do you approach women? What apps do you use? What are you like on dates? If you're anything other than aloof, relaxed, and having fun women pick up on that. They're not robots nor are they stupid.
[deleted] 5y ago
Have you ever slept with a woman who 1. you approached and were the first to state attraction, 2. met in real life rather than online, 3. you did not have to provide anything of monetary value, 4. was in your league of attraction (or above) - as you perceive it - rather than below?
sleepyweaselisawake Mod 5y ago
[deleted] 5y ago
So did you do all four of those things with one woman that you slept with? And also were you ever a virgin into your mid-twenties like I am (for non-religious related reasons and not because you didn't want to)? Because if you did not have the experience of overcoming those hurdles, how would you be able to understand or relate to me?
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
You guys think you have it bad? I was born mostly deaf and am unable to even carry on a minimal conversation in a crowded area. Day game and one-on-one are my only options.
This may be "feminist advice" but it is also PUA, Red Pill and Married Red Pill advice. The difference is with Red Pill you join clubs FOR YOU! You don't join clubs or become active to game and bang. You do it so you are an interesting person and so that YOU are the prize. Not her. You do it for YOUR confidence and YOUR experiences!
So at the gym you see a hottie. Do you approach? Usually not. Perhaps you say "Hi" and then you continue your routine. Then, perhaps weeks or months later you standing in line at a restaurant and Joila! There she is, standing right in front of you. THAT is when you start the games. In her mind she "knows" you even though you have never had a rational conversation. Execute a change of venue and in her mind you are old friends! See how that works?
AKA "Marriage." It worked for thousands of years and let us almost reach the Stars before feminism fucked it up. Forced monogamy works...IF BOTH GENDERS ARE COMPELLED TO BEHAVE. If only men must "behave" while women have no responsibilities then it is a disaster. Like today.
No, it is not "dating" but the hostile environment to men and the womenarewonderful effect- aka "Feminism." Women can do no wrong. Men are completely at fault. Also, women can become fat, disgusting, and intolerable and this is good!
The common female/White Knight response is "Oh, you must have been hurt."
I say, "Oh, you have not been hurt enough if you don't think men can LEARN to be more "Red Pill" and Machiavellian." The trick is to truly not give a fuck. It is exactly like sales. If you are trying to push the sale, the mark is going to pull back.
Wanna bet? Try 5 years of a disrespectful wife and a Dead Bedroom and we can test that naivety.
STOP WORSHIPING WOMEN. TREAT THEM LIKE CHILDREN. PAY ATTENTION TO THEM BUT DISREGARD WHAT THEY SAY AND WATCH WHAT THEY DO. SPEAK CONFIDENTLY AND WITH SELF ASSURANCE. LIFT. LEARN TO NOT GIVE A FUCK. LEARN SEDUCTION. LEARN KINO. LEARN HOW TO FUCK.
Women certainly don't. You are trying to logic the vagina people and it doesn't work. They run on emotions, not logic. You are digging in concrete when you should be digging in clay.
You came through with the solution all by yourself in the end. Good job. Now what is the problem?
[deleted] 5y ago
u/BluePillProfessor
PART 1/?
Since you responded to various of my comments, I am trying to reply to you in one place. I will say "FINAL" in the last comment of mine after I've covered everything that is worthwhile addressing.
Firstly, I believe you may also be the owner of the Blue Pill Professor youtube channel (or perhaps your name is just a reference to that, I wouldn't be sure). It seems to me like you mention a lot of red pill talking points though on here and on the channel itself (for example your flair says "MRP mod"). So I am curious about your username and why it says "Blue Pill Professor" rather than "Red Pill Professor".
I have certain developmental issues as well which makes communication with women difficult in general because of the traits required for rapport building (paying close attention to details about herself she mentions in the conversation). I realise a lot of RPs don't think that's especially important. But lets look at the things they do tend to believe are important:
Or game and defusing shit-tests [click here] is something that get's mentioned a lot:
But to go back to my developmental issues, that's something that's difficult. I mean, obviously I can have one-to-one conversations about the weather and things like that. But in a fast paced environment like a bar or night club where people are drunk and say what they feel like and in a place where women are edgy about creepy guys and also prone to "shit-testing", that poses obvious challenges that poses for a guy like me.
In the article I just cited the assumption is either that
or,
Now I will show why that's a false dilemma [click here] as an example to add to my case studies [click here] of why red pill reasoning hurts GMs [click here].
For example,
As you can see, in a fast-paced environment where it is difficult to hear what people are saying and auditory processing disorder [click here] in interpreting meaning to what people say adds to those sorts of complications for guys like me in the first place. I may also have difficulties thinking of a smooth response such as with the alpha male example above. But it would be wrong to assume by some sort of fallacious process of deduction that I'm trying to paint a good boy image of myself such as with the weak response because I don't even care if girls see me as a player. So in response to the above, I would be more likely to say something like,
I used to go full rationalisation hamster and start talking about how it wasn't wrong for guys to try and seduce women and that 21st century women shouldn't have limiting ideas about sleeping with alphas anyway. But I later came to the realisation that I need that kind of thing in my bar game like a hole in the head. So old me was a bit like that with the weak/beta response but not really because I was still effectively taking ownership of my sexuality. So you see, the RP conception of how people are supposed to defuse shit-tests is very damaging and I have only listed one reason why.
You're probably wondering why I mentioned this.
Firstly, I just wanted to point out that you're not necessarily as majorly disadvantaged when compared with me as you say. Social spontaneity may not be quite the same sort of issue for you as it is to me (for example). You can tell a chick your deaf and she will understand. My own issues are much trickier to talk about and harder to explain. What's more when I do so most people will just assume it's some kind of autism which is not exactly the case anyway.
I mentioned this because your post is literally littered with things I consider RP advice and therefore destructive:
I have been down this route and yes I am aware of the feeling. To use a cheesy movie analogy, it is like when spiderman gets his black suit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkeiEBaOOXA
In a same way, I realised it is not that helpful to fall prey to DTP type and ultimately I suppressed the negative emotions I had. And men without DTP [click here] can be successful as well. Besides if you are not truly a born-sociopath, DTP strategies will never be as effective for you as men who naturally have those traits. This is another reason that RP is not as good and why I propose the purple pill [click here] instead.
A lot of this is covered on my primer, but none of this means we white-knight women or that we are feminists, etc. We still recognise and vent our frustrations about an inegalitarian dating game and do our best to be sexually and romantically successful. We just don't want to waste our time trying to adopt traits that don't match our personality and we consider to be unethical anyway.
I've been through this in posts you have referred to but don't seem to have read. I don't have nice guy syndrome.
WikiTextBot 5y ago
Auditory processing disorder
Auditory processing disorder (APD), also known as central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), is an umbrella term for a variety of disorders that affect the way the brain processes auditory information. Individuals with APD usually have normal structure and function of the outer, middle, and inner ear (peripheral hearing). However, they cannot process the information they hear in the same way as others do, which leads to difficulties in recognizing and interpreting sounds, especially the sounds composing speech. It is thought that these difficulties arise from dysfunction in the central nervous system.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 2/?
I am aware there is plenty of overlap in the way men get derailed by both kinds of detractors. However for the purposes of my primer I wanted to address masculinist and feminist perspectives separately. So I assigned certain beliefs to masculinists rather than feminists and other ideas, I described exclusively as feminist ones. Having said that, there is a "general" section that covers overall hostility towards GMs [click here].
Actually, feminists and progressives - general ideologies that could be described as being "blue pilled", say the same thing. The problem with this sort of reasoning is a number of things:
The bottom line is, if we're doing all these things and we're not finding dating success and we still don't feel especially content with life, the way things are for us, this means there is something going wrong externally that we can't control internally.
Anyway, this is going to be a new section in my primer - "why can't GMs just do things for themselves?" - because people mention this so often. It will go in the section about general detractors rather than the ones specificaly about feminists or masculinists.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 3/3 - FINAL
u/BluePillProfessor
I covered this in other messages I wrote about this dating gurus perspective about breathing. I mentioned that I practice yoga - ujjayi breathing as well as pranayama. I don't have problems with my breathing and I have a significantly higher lung capacity than most people do.
I prefer to discuss verbal game. That's something PUAs and seduction "experts" either cover superficially with gimmicky tactics and childish routines. Otherwise they leave it out completely (with the premise that any effort dedicated to expanding your repertoire of things you should be able to discuss with another intelligent human being in a vast information body of general human culture must be).
As this is something not addressed by red pill (which is heavily focused on frame, masculinity and lifting), it is yet another reason why red pill is harmful to GMs.
Well maybe that is a problem for authentic GMs who pride themselves on their efforts to become worldly, experience and knowledgeable and want to convey a genuine passion to intelligent women who are not gullible about made up stories. Again, this is another reason why RP and PUA gimmicks are harmful to GMs: because they don't appeal to the authentic and vulnerable nature of GMs. Only men with DTPs and men that are willing to use gimmicky stuff to succeed can benefit. GMs need real authentic knowledge because we are the real deal. And we only want to attract women that are the real deal as well. That's why RP & PUA is useless for us.
GMs are not Nice Guy^(TM)s. Authentic GMS dedicated to self-improvement and hobbies such as martial arts, strength and conditioning and other related disciplines can offer protection to women as well. So again, if there are SRUP GMs, we have to ask, why is that the case? What's going wrong.
No it just means that men and women both have to marry people they don't want to. And when men get the choice, they do not have the satisfaction of knowing that their partner voluntarily chose them. Besides, men wouldn't get to marry virgin women anymore if that was what they were worried about because most women in this generation have had sexual partners already. So it would be pointless. So I say "absolutely no" to forced monogamy. I want sexual experience with women that are genuinely into me before I settle down with a wife who already has a history herself. And that's it: being equal in baseline sexual experience. Forced monogamy would never bring me this, so fuck that: it's a useless concept.
The GMGV tri-fold solution [click here] on the other hand ... now that's something which could actually work. But shaming women for being promiscuous will just create a disincentive for women to sleep with SRU GMs. So clearly, it's not a good idea. Besides, it's hypergamy that causes SRUPs, not promiscuity. So pressuring women to "behave" or whatever is not only useless and unethical, it's counter-productive for men who want genuine intimacy and sexual experiences they feel like they earned.
In that context, it was exactly what I meant by "dating environment": the impacts of feminism and traditionalism on dating. Not just one of those ideologies is negative but both of them are. Intersectional-humanism [click here] is the only feasible alternative to these belief-systems that are both equally harmful to GMs.
I'm saying DTP tactics will never truly help someone who is not a born-sociopath.
Purple pill has the superior theory - in my opinion - for escaping DB [click here].
Way to take what I said out of context.
I was talking about the need for a platforms [click here] that does not cater to the damnatio memoriae [click here]
Obviously an approach has to have that spark. SRU GMs are not all boring overly rational people. Relevant reading [click here].
p_and_q 5y ago
I've struggled with similar issues and through much thought, I have come to the undesired conclusion that the problem is indeed me (or you in your case).
I came to realize that I don't have any meaningful hobbies that I'm passionate about, or any passions really. It doesn't matter that I have a good paying job, above average height but with average looks, bulk from lifting, and just generally have my shit together. I'm not passionate about my job. I enjoy working out, but wouldn't call it a passion. Without a true passion/drive, I become focused on finding a girl to help fill that void in my life.
Even though the TRP reddit has some toxic waste mixed into the community, at it's core, the system that is laid out is in fact how intersexual dynamics work. We can kick and scream all we want but that doesn't change the truth.
You don't need to be a sociopath to get girls, just confidence. The problem is becoming confident. To do this you have to make yourself the center of your thinking. This can be difficult, especially without confidence. So what's the advice that's given? Find a passion or hobby that you are proud of. Something that no one can take away and that no matter how rejections you face, you can still fall back on your passion, which in turn, gives you confidence.
But without that passion, that drive, or without being a sociopath, there's no foundation for you to build that confidence up from. There's just a void of overthinking and doubt.
Also, listen to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcn-9L8MtrA ) (dont watch because it makes it impossible to take this guy seriously). It made me realize that some of the traits that I believed made me a GM, were just excuses to avoid different types of confrontation (still working on this).
You can either improve yourself, or try to change the thinking of everyone around you. The former is vastly easier then the latter.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 1
"Also, listen to this video"
So I'm listening to this video as I did not get around to it earlier and I still don't understand why you think this applies. I don't think you've taken the time to look fully understand my ideas. He's just talking about the fake Nice Guy stereotype I already distinguished Good Men from on my sub. The whole point is that there's men without these manipulative traits who can still fall behind in dating. This really is something a lot of Good Men (GM) detractors don't seem to understand. Early on in the video he's also distinguishing your basic regular "good guy" from Nice Guy^(TM) (NG) which is what makes this video so difficult to watch because I feel like my intelligence has been insulted a bit. GMs understand already that NGs have manipulative traits, we don't need to have it covered for us a million and one times. The problems are the limitations in discourse which I've explained myself a million and one times as well but nobody seems to have a decent refutal. That is the issue with talking about NGs - because guys can't talk about their issues (the limitations in discourse thing I was talking about):
without all this bullshit from feminists:
and traditionalist and red pilled detractors:
Since your stance is more in line with TRP:
"[GMs] are mad that being "good men" doesn't get you the result you want. Like I said above, the TRP sub is full of toxicity and misogyny, but all and all it gets how intersexual dynamics works. OP understands how the game works but is mad that the way he plays it doesn't lead to success. "
I don't know why you're linking me this video, really - because it caters to more of a feminist perspective on dating.
Also, strawmen everywhere. The reason we don't bother with red pill is because we know we cannot condition ourselves to be dark triad personality types. Not to be lack so much self-awareness as to compare myself to Gandhi, but something that would also be preposterous would be to wondering why Gandhi didn't use Hitler's style of rhetoric. In a similar vein, how could an amoral machiavellian strategy ever work for us GMs? It simply won't. Most of us here have probably already flirted with red pill and PUA strategies and found them ineffective. I have - been there done that and it was a waste of time, energy and expenses. GMs are better off working a way to navigate the traditionalist/feminist double bind madness and social pressures/barriers and working on the tri-fold solution proposed by GMGV than looking into red pill and PUA shit that helps no-one.
So back to the video.
These are all typical beta male white knight and NG strategies that GMs don't even employ. I went through this in a more recent section of the GMGV FAQ:
"Although GMs can be diverse, here are a few other categories but happen to tick most of the NG boxes:
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 2
So respectfully, this makes it seem awfully patronising when you say things like,
"I've struggled with similar issues and through much thought, I have come to the undesired conclusion that the problem is indeed me (or you in your case)."
...
"listen to this video [...] It made me realize that some of the traits that I believed made me a GM, were just excuses to avoid different types of confrontation (still working on this)."
...
"You can either improve yourself, or try to change the thinking of everyone around you. The former is vastly easier then the latter."
...
"Then are mad that being "good men" doesn't get you the result you want. Like I said above, the TRP sub is full of toxicity and misogyny, but all and all it gets how intersexual dynamics works. OP understands how the game works but is mad that the way he plays it doesn't lead to success. That's like investing in a non-profit and then being mad that the monetary value of your investment didn't increase. You guys are doing a disservice to yourselves"
...
"If I want to be the guys who gets the girl, I have to make myself the guy who gets the girls. This means putting myself at the center of my decision making."
This sentiment is the whole reason I'm going to do a section in my OP on "incel tom" phenomena: virgin and single guys who "stop identifying as incels" (as they should) or "never identified as incels" because of the toxicity of the culture but then proceed to say all of these stupid things about how
You're not making these exact same arguments but there's similarities everywhere, where you say about how you used to be a Nice Guy^(TM) but then you took a look deep inside and we should all do the same thing. I mean, great for you that you admit these flaws for yourself but we not all of us suffer those issues, you should stop projecting yourself. We've identified real problems with the dating world and what women's higher overall standards mean for men and Good Men in general. It's not entitlement or "I'm a nice guy why isn't that attractive by itself" or whatever other bullshit you think it is. It's one thing: awareness. And that's what you don't seem to be getting and all the "incel tom" types have the same lack of deep understanding on these issues.
To recap, these issues are:
FatFingerHelperBot 5y ago
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "14"
Here is link number 2 - Previous text "15"
Here is link number 3 - Previous text "16"
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 3
"without ever stating things that they actually want"
Not the case for GMs. GMs are often assertive and do go for what they want. Personally I have approached over a thousand women through nightclubs, bars, streets, networking and regular social activities like sports and other societies. Again this is all part of the
"well if you had x trait you'd be successful. You don't have x trait, so you're not successful"
argument which ignores a nuanced array of potential barriers to success for men (mentioned before):
And such a misconception about niceness too because the assumption is the only way to be a virtuous man is to indulge in acts of generosity with time, effort or money to a particular individual. It's the whole,
"NGs are just puppies who follow hot girls round at the heels showering them with gifts and attention"
What about men that represent firm, entrenched values?
Why do you think I tried to escape from this lost boy mentality and called my sub Good Men Good Values? Rather than "puppies 4 dominatrixes" or some shite?
Because that's what everyone - feminists, traditionalists, red pillers, youtubers, everyone - are focussing on when they're discussing "Nice Guys". Nobody gives a shit or are having the talk that we have in the extended GM communities:
This is real shit, real business.
Why are there men with genuinely virtuous and attractive traits falling behind in dating?
When you understand what that question really means, you don't come out with the kind of bullshit sentiments that feminists and traditionalists everywhere are coming out with, like I highlight exhaustively through the OP and GMGV FAQ because nobody really gets this shit or what angles GMs are coming from.
FatFingerHelperBot 5y ago
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "14"
Here is link number 2 - Previous text "15"
Here is link number 3 - Previous text "16"
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 4
So again, I'm not really sure why you linked this video to me. Ok, we can attribute those personality defects to NGs. I'm fine with that. But it really does have nothing to do with me and barely anything of semblance to the GM community. I'm aware that some GMs are former NGs or may have certain traits or be able to rationalise certain tendencies (because hey! we've all been there, done that at some point). I'm even cool now referring to NGs the way people do. I've got over the whole, "can't we just talk about fake NGs" thing and just begun talking specifically about the kinds of discourse I originally felt were limited for GMs. But overall, there's no way this video reflects GMs at all. Pointing a fully-fledged GM to a video on how to overcome NG syndrome is like trying to teach your grandma to suck eggs. We actually have more awareness than most people about these topics and that's why already know: the whole NG conversation is bullshit. The arguments are all "pull your socks up, sunshine" sentiments that apply to an extremely weak, low status and artificial segment of the population that they aren't even worth bothering to help in the first place. Talking about their issues just detracts from all the worthwhile discussion points I've mentioned above. That's why it's a type of derailing strategy.
But hey, I'll cover this video, because it helps strengthen my FAQ to talk about derailing strategies that are employed against GMs. As you can see, this whole video is just another long-winded hour long detour away from the conversations that need to be had. The only way I can facilitate the necessary discussion in the first place is to raise awareness of these issues. So again, I don't mind covering the video. It's just a shame these issues are common place to begin with.
Ok ... whatever. Can I say this statement is bollocks without invoking a pun?
I already seen enough emasculated white knight and NG^(TM) types to not want to be like them either. So the phenomena cancel each other out. It's the reason why this whole conversation is pointless. Don't pick heads or tails: be the coin. I get it already. It's so blatantly obvious it's painful. Thing is real men with real bollocks and real positive qualities are getting shunned by women. Long story short, dating is fucked up for men. The more we deny this issue, the more we're going to get all these white knights and NGs and incels and red pill bullshit. Literally GMs are the only guys doing things the way they're supposed to be doing them and still falling short in a fucked up dating world. So how about we address this and stop wasting time talking about all the other subtle breeds of lunatics in the asylum? It's like GMs are the sane men who got locked up for some reason, now they're trying to find a way out but the man in charge is the man with the advice; the man with the pills; the man with the strait jackets, nurses and tranquilisers; the man with the way in to and out of the asylum and he's asking you,
"but why would you want a way out of the asylum if you weren't insane: here, take your medication. TAKE IT!"
It's madness. It's a schizophrenic catch-22 situation and reasonably minded single/virgin men are the victims of this awfulness.
I mean, if there ever was a straw man it's right there. Yet another reason why GMs and NGs must be considered separately.
Wow. I'm starting to think this guy should have wrote the GMGV FAQ himself. I mean he's really preaching to the chorus here. I just can't believe I got linked to this dreadful video.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 5
Ok, finally we might be about to hear something relevant to my points. Let's hear what he has to say.
Then again, maybe not.
Ok sure. I mean we can all admit this. But that's not the whole point of GM discourse. The point is in spite of whatever subtle flaws we have, which everyone does. Overall we don't just redeem ourselves - we bring something positive, something worthy to the table. And it's not "acts of kindness" or whatever. I'm talking about actual value. Some of the qualities he mentioned earlier - leadership, alpha male traits, etc. - and a host of other things. If we've got shit sorted internally then what's going wrong because I'm telling you there's nothing wrong with me, so why aren't women buying the product. No you've got to look at what's happening systematically. It's the only way. GMs are failing because they've been struck a bum deal by society and the women who won't listen to them, try to figure out where it is they're coming from, try to understand what it is they have to offer.
They expect us to advertise ourselves like we're some cheap gimmicky commodity. Whereas actually, we're the kind of novel that's only a page turner when you get stuck in. We don't do flashy magazines and nice picture covers. We do substance, authenticity, raw knowledge, meaning. And that's why we're not selling and it's the reason the next generation is doomed to failure: because people keep falling for cheap old tricks like PUA and Red Pill. It's the way things have always been and internet, technology, night clubs and so-called "dating technology" are making things a hundred times worse for guys with authentic value and a good hand of cards to play. No-ones calling the raises anymore because there just isn't the stomach or integrity out there.
No it's not a great book. He says all the same bullshit and failure to approach the issues that genuine men have in dating in order to facilitate these weak minded dweebs. And the author of this video is just parotting him.
Look man. None of this had anything to do with NGs. NG syndrome is when you're chasing your unrequited love around for months, if not years buying her stuff, or you're telling girls who reject you "fuck you bitch, I'm a nice guy" and all this shit. If you want to talk about more subtle aspects of dating crises, the author would have been better of talking about someone other than NGs because non-NGs are going to watch this video and fucking hate the guy.
Oh my god, way to project your tendencies not to assert yourself on everyone else listening to you talk. This is all part of the "incel tom" mindset.
It's like this guy read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and took all of the "never criticise", "smile and listen attentively" bullshit tips seriously. I mean it's the only reason it wouldn't occur to you the natural way to resolve a conflict. And the whole problem with all this self-improvement literature - it provides counter-productive advice to the people who need help the most.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 6
Here we go ... Basically his underlying premise was the Hollywood
clichetrope that unassertive nice guy dork finally mans up and states his feelings. Again, this is all undermining the kind of discourse GMs want to have because it assumes the premise that, failing in dating? ----> unassertive nice guy dork. It just does no justice to men's dating issues when they don't fall into these stupid categories. It's what causes a lot of problems for guys in the first place and the underlying reason why mainstream dating advice sucks.It's not that arseholes are attractive, they just have the ability to easily navigate the dating difficulties mentioned earlier:
They have no reason to give a fuck about any of that because anti-intellectual, anti-social traits lead to an
Basically this is magnified for sociopaths. These guys are just not held back by ethical constraints and that's why they win the game so easily - because they cheat the game in the first place. They lie, steal, bend the rules and make sure they don't get caught. They're not willing to put in the same rigour, the same authenticity as GMs who value the challenge and honour of doing things the difficult way. And that's why GMs get held back but arseholes don't. It's like the story of the alpha ram and beta ram who fought for the female's attention while she was busy copulating with the omega ram. Which is why red pill strategy doesn't work for GMs. Because we value work, ethics and integrity. We do things the way everyone else is supposed to be doing and of course, a few weak individuals rise to the top of the pyramid by taking all the short cuts. How are we supposed to compete with that?
I'm going to wrap it up here for tonight. But obviously, the rest of his video is about the issues Nice Guys have based on a bunch of flawed premises of this cartoon like character that is fake, unlikeable, unassertive and a bunch of other things. For example, his next tips are about how NGs can slow down and calm their breathing and shit. Bitch, I do yoga stop teaching your grandma to suck eggs. I bet this poser hasn't even heard about ujjayi breathing. This isn't what the GM communities are about. We're about well-rounded men with strong characters and other aspects who are still falling behind in dating. We don't care about the guys who don't deserve helping. The guys who are stuck in a rut and don't deserve to be there, instead of focussing on useless platitude-y type advice for them we look at what is wronger with the conditions. We take a look at the broader circumstances of society and the dating game which everyone else is too afraid to explore because,
At GMGV, we already know you take a guy like me who does have attractive qualities, an interesting personality and someone that's passionately engaged. I am in higher education; I am into functional strength training a la Rippetoe style; I love dogs and have owned them for nearly 20 years; I have a diverse interest in culture, music, politics, philosophy and economics; I have practiced brazilian jiu jitsu and muay thai for a couple of years now; I do yoga; I condition my body (strength, flexibility, fitness and bone density through lightly shadow boxing hard surfaces); I have frequently approached women in the past; I have read great works of fiction; I have a great taste in television series like Game of Thrones, Westworld, Breaking Bad, Black Mirror, Dexter and others; I have travelled and am a worldly person; sometimes I play chess against the computer; I make interesting and informative posts; I have my own youtube channel. If women don't like me, there's something wrong with the dating game, not me.
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
If the girls are not buying that, perhaps it is time to restock the shelves and offer something else?
I know it is easy to say nonsense like this because women all say this is what they want. Trust us, they don't.
Let me run the Hamsturlator again and see what women REALLY mean:
The Devil's Number: 666
6 figure income; 6 pack; 6 feet tall
You are a man with options who chooses her to bang, for now.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Women don't care what you know. You can make shit up and they will follow along like a child listening to your story.
Because women want PROTECTION. They want SECURITY. Assholes will step in and protect them. Assholes will provide security for them- even if they are smacking them around!
Nice Guys don't. They hold doors and don't take care of themselves first.
I really believe that most women would rather be "abused" than "neglected." They would CERTAINLY rather share a strong man than be tied to a faithful loser who cannot provide and secure them.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 7
Also, when I hear the thing about breathing exercises I immediately become sceptical because I think, hmmm PUA product peddling maybe? I mean I know Liam McRae is definitely not the first dating coach to teach the validity of breathing exercises and whilst they're important it's so easy to just teach that rather than focussing on the other, more difficult aspects of interacting with women like building rapport, sexual escalation, logistics and all the rest of it. But the breathing thing can be emphasised on the basis that it is a foundation. Ok, it's an important foundation. But what else does your course have to offer and how much are you charging to teach these "foundations" and help me escape "Nice Guy syndrome" - whatever you think that is - and maybe even assume must be the automatic problem with most guys who struggle in dating.
Well in a way yeah. I don't give a shit about overcoming NG syndrome. I already don't have a lot of the issues he's talking about. Sure, these things can manifest themselves in subtle ways and everyone is guilty in some respects but I already know there is no way that is my main issue in dating or even life. It's not even something worth addressing for me so why would I bother? The guys who "suffer" from this "problem" are in some ways so weak-willed they are barely worth offering help but whatever. They already have dozens of articles on this thing. It's already been covered by Jezebel and Heartless Bitches International. We don't need hour long discussions from dating coaches. What we need to hear about are the issues GMs are struggling with. That's the bread and butter sandwich that's got the meat in it here.
Plenty of guys myself included would be perfectly happy to start from this square at least. If NG syndrome was really a thing for us, we could worry about it at a later stage.
Well I mean it does seem a bit rude to do that. I'd have given her a call personally. Maybe this is the point of the video I start to relate with the criticisms of "underlying NG syndrome" or whatever? In any case it's not as socially appropriate to leave her by herself stuck in a hotel room for hours like Liam McRae says when you said you would meet her earlier. The guy should have dropped her a call or something. Or maybe he doesn't think the coaching is particularly valuable at this point. I mean he has a hot chick in a hotel room for him. Why does he need to spend half a day getting dating tips from a dude? The woman is already there for him. But alright, let's see what other "subtle, underlying NG traits" this guy has.
Ok sure. It's a bit early to tell this kind of thing. But hey, you only live once and sometimes we make passionate spontaneous decisions. It's not that beta or whatever to believe in love at first sight. Sometimes people just feel an instantaneous connection. But this story isn't going to work out for this guy. Ok, I get it.
Look, at least the guys getting laid. Blah blah blah spirituality, finding a deeper purpose, findiing you soul mate, etc. Yeah I know. But some guys aren't even getting the poon. We've got to start at square one.
"There's more to life than fucking women"
Ok fine. But a lot of guys are looking for purpose elsewhere and just not finding it. The thing is, our happiness is not purely related to one thing:
Realistically it's a bit of both. And plenty of guys miserable because they can't get laid. That's just their aesthetic - they love women and want someone the same league as them. And what's wrong with that?
Validation, yeah I get it. But to be honest though, it sounds like this chick just liked having cash splashed on her by an older, richer businessman.
Ffs. Does everything have to be turned into a game with these PUAs? What happened to authentically and directly stating your interest? And he's covering this in a video about NGs, seriously? When we blur the lines like this, we forget what NG was originally meant by feminists in the first place. It's a guy who
If we start blurring the lines like this, we're just extending the victimisation process - which means that guys with legitimate struggles in dating are just being referred to as NGs now. Literally, GMs can't discuss the problems they have in dating because of this narrative. McRae could have referred to these guys as anything but NGs and had a constructive discussion about the many nuanced struggles guys are having in dating. But no, he had to make it about NG syndrome, extending the bounds of what we refer to as NG syndrome and victimising more GMs with legitimate complaints about dating and the bullshit we have to deal with.
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
It works when you get "flooded" and anxious so that you become tongue tied around hotties. If you can't control this then any seduction tactics you might use will fail.
Would you want to be around a man who is a nervous and terrified mouse? Fix that first. Then we can talk about seduction and kino.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 8
I mean this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to generalise GMs on communities like this because there are a variety of issues guys face. But true self-respecting GMs with alpha characteristics don't engage in these kinds of behaviours. They just don't. I don't want to say the guy doesn't have positive traits just because he made a mistake and that's what I mean about not generalising. But like I stated on the GMGV FAQ, the issue with these NG discussions is so painfully obvious:
A Good Man is someone that:
The conversations we want to have are about guys like this. Not guys who do all these other subtle NG traits:
Again, GMs have more awareness of these sorts of things than the average guy, or NGs etc. And there's already heaps of dating coaches and so-called experts talking about this NG crap on their platforms. So again, the relevance of these sorts of videos to guys like me is ...?
And the other stereotype that GMs don't fit into is the idea of
My point with the whole GM community is that there's guys everywhere struggling to find intimacy, We don't want to feel obligated to. We want genuine passion, genuine emotion: we want the real experience. We deserve that but the problem is women don't recognise our attributes in this society. They don't see the good things we have going for us. And again it's because of the social social pressures/barriers that are a result of being in a society polarised between traditionalist and feminist ideologies. This is what prevents GMs from being successful. We don't do any of this bullshit that people keep saying about NGs. We have the genuine, authentic stuff: we're the real deal, you know?
And that's why the title of this thread is what it is:
Because I already know. I've done what I could do solve my problems. The issues obviously lie elsewhere than me.
Please man. None of this applies to my GM community. I'm aware there are genuinely good guys who have struggled with these things before but we've got to talk about guys with the actual charismatic and alpha traits who fall behind and what's going wrong. We can't just assume if guys fall behind in dating it's because of some generic reason like they are ashamed of their sexuality. Ok, some guys do and he's not assuming this about every guy. I get that. But still, the bigger problems, the structural issues - the fact of these social pressures/barriers that are a result of being in a society polarised between traditionalist and feminist ideologies - where are the dating gurus looking at these problems that aren't some douchebag like Rooch V or some blue pilled douch. Where are the purple pill dating gurus that don't charge guys all these rip-off prices for their bullshit seminars and in-field coaching? I mean, come on, where are the real bootcamps that actually address these problems here? Where are the dating coaches with the balls integrity to just straight up say it like it is:
"Hey guys, not all of your issues are your fault. There are structural issues that make it harder for us to date. That's why we've got to dig our nails right in the crevices and climb that cliff the hard way. That's why you will face rejections, shit-tests, loud bitchy women in night clubs, crazy girls who give you crap for no reason and the macho guys that will compete for their attention. Let's figure out how we're going to deal with this."
But instead it's all of this new age spiritual crap
"No, no, no, no, guys. The problem is deeeeep inside maaaaan. You've got to - like - soul search."
*smokes a spliff and opens up a chapter from Eckhart Tolle"
So come on. Where are the dating coaches that are having the real conversations GMs want to have?
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 9 - FINAL
u/p_and_q
I get that this lecture is about the facades NGs put on and this sort of thing is problematic. But really? Do we have to talk about this as part of an NG topic. This is just extending the bounds of what NG traits are and bringing new limitations to the discourse GMs can have, like I mentioned earlier.
I mean, these are things that it's hard to disagree with, like a lot of the guys points. But again, assertiveness - that's not necessarily something GMs necessarily have problems with. We need to discuss advanced dating strategies - you know, for guys who have a lot of these positive traits but struggling. We need to actually grit our teeth and get into the hard subjects: winning the dating game when the whole thing is an uphill battle to begin with.
You don't hear feminists saying to women "it's all you, you're the problem not society". Similarly men with balls who have already taken care of themselves need to hear what can be done about situations that are tricky and difficult to begin with.
You know, talking about this subject just reeks of a lot of the double standards in this society. We hear women talking about how they don't communicate their feelings directly because the guys just won't understand, or they apologise but don't put words into action or whatever to show how things are going to be different next time. But too often, we don't try to understand the complicated reasons guys might decide to stay silent on an issue. Like if you bring something up and the woman is just going to say you're being unreasonable and that leads to an argument what was the point? You might as well have just saved your bullets for a time you found something that was worth bringing up anyway.
Ok. I can get this. It's important to assert your boundaries and sometimes it's difficult even for masculine men. But again? Where are the conversations for attractive, virtuous men with desirable qualities such as assertiveness, responsibility and masculinity who are falling behind in dating. What are we doing about this? Where are the nuclear strategies for a dating game that's not just difficult but potentially impossible? I'm not saying assertive, masculine traits are always obvious. But the whole NG discussion just appeals to all of these weak, pathetic men that aren't masculine, assertive, charismatic, diligent or even particularly nice. Come on. Where's the real advice for real men that's not just blatantly sexist and outrageously offensive like with Roosh V?
Again, that's all great. But we can't assume this is a trait GMs don't have. It's the old,
"guys with x trait are successful. If you're not successful it's because you don't have x"
For sexually unsuccessful GMs, we'll take that on board (and again, it's pretty obvious): when we make it into the bedroom in the first place.
So this was the crux of his argument for authentic, masculine behaviour. And it's fine - I don't disagree with any of that. Let's just not make out like there aren't guys who can do all the right things and fall behind. It's the way dating is now. We've got to look at some of the conversations that GMs want to have and we've got to make it a reality. We've got to take an honest look at the traditionalist/feminist double bind madness and social pressures/barriers and working on the tri-fold solution proposed by GMGV rather than looking into red pill and PUA shit that helps no-one or this feminist blue-pilled stuff that blames men for virtually all their own problems.
That's my message and what I took from the video.
[deleted] 5y ago
Congratulations. You have just met Step 1. YOU are the problem. Fix YOU. Make yourself into the best version of you you can be, and that you want to be.
p_and_q 5y ago
That's what I'm doing. Anyway, ban me from this sub because from reading the side bar I can tell that you're sub is for purple pillers in the anger phase. You guys howl "we're not like those nice guys, we're good men". Basically the same thing that nice guys say about machismo alpha guys. Then are mad that being "good men" doesn't get you the result you want. Like I said above, the TRP sub is full of toxicity and misogyny, but all and all it gets how intersexual dynamics works. OP understands how the game works but is mad that the way he plays it doesn't lead to success. That's like investing in a non-profit and then being mad that the monetary value of your investment didn't increase. You guys are doing a disservice to yourselves.
"Make yourself into the best version of you you can be, and that you want to be."
I am working on that. I do this with the understanding that the person I choose to become will impact the success I have in different areas of my life, including dating. If I choose to continue to be the person who avoids confrontation because "I have a conscious and a good man doesn't should be a pacifist unless absolutely necessary", then I'll will continue to fail when it comes to things that require confrontation. If I want to be the guys who gets the girl, I have to make myself the guy who gets the girls. This means putting myself at the center of my decision making. Not avoiding doing something for myself because it might cause another person to be slightly inconvenienced. Having a conscious but letting it go into overdrive. Someone's I'll be the "Good Man" and sometimes I'll be a jerk, but both will need to become a necessary part of my personality.
You guys are paralyzed between avoiding being the nice guy, white knight in waiting, and the jerk who "slays pussy". You're so focused on not being labeled the wrong thing, that you put too much value into the label itself. Try being more assertive, more of a jerk and see what happens. Worst case scenario, you put someone in a bad mood for 10 min. Is that really that bad?
You can try to change the rules, you can optimize your strategy, or you can continue playing as you have been. But if that were working, you wouldn't be here.
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
No way. It is for Red Pillers to wind down for a good laugh AND for the few young women who might read and learn before they destroy their lives.
[deleted] 5y ago
or....
You could just, oh, I don't know, I'm just spitballing here --
NOT POST HERE.
[deleted] 5y ago
Thanks for posting.
That's a perfectly fine and reasonable thing for you to think so about yourself but,
... well, let's see.
We're two different people while that might have been you at one point - and I commend you for owning up to this if it was you - it's not me. I'm an interesting, cool, passionate person.
If RP is "women and men are fundamentally different" whereas BP is "women and men are fundamentally the same", then we also have the purple pill which is just, "women and men have some similarities and some differences". I don't think that's me kicking or screaming about how intersexual dynamics work, it's just an alternative theory to RP which is not an infallible theory by any means.
Relevant reading which might inform your opinion: http://21stcenturygentleman.net/index.php/2018/07/16/building-self-confidence-will-exude-confidence/
The problem is - in all your eagerness to give people advice - you haven't taken into account the social conditions that GMs can fail in dating (covered in OP) or how the pretext to this is a society that is highly juxtaposed in it's contrast between certain ideological positions (feminism & traditionalism - the major polarities). You're talking about how guys who haven't already tried all this stuff can succeed but not really focussing on guys with many of the fundamentals already that get stuck in a rut. If you have a lot of good things going for you, then is it an intellectually honest thing to do to assign blame to the individual? Is it true, just or rational? That's my question.
I'm going to go chop some onions but I will read/respond to the rest of your points after.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 2- FINAL
I haven't watched the video yet but is it just about Nice Guy syndrome? Because I've covered that quite extensively in my sub and most GMs aren't happy about the way they are being lumped in with NGs by feminists, etc. So that's why I'm asking what the purpose of the video is before I go ahead and watch it (it's an hour long) and if you really think it is relevant to me.
p_and_q 5y ago
The video was a good listen. It goes a bit deeper then the typical explanation and lays out behaviors that on the surface may not seem like "Nice Guy" behavior but in fact are.
[deleted] 5y ago
Ok I will give it a listen when I have a chance.
[deleted] 5y ago
Ok, I'm trying to address your points here, but there is just so much of it. I feel like to grasp the overall encompassing point you are making almost requires me to create my own outline of what you wrote.
In the future, I would recommend (and this isn't a requirement, but a personal suggestion of mine so do what you want with it), to break these kinds of posts up into parts. Make you case at the top with a summary of your main point, then use the body for the details, and conclude it with some way that the reader can glance to make sure they understood what you were after. Again, this is my personal suggestion, because I want to comment on everything here, but it doesn't seem feasible to do so, and it would detract from what I really wanted to say. /rant
The reasons why we have a growing incel population and shrinking GoodMen population is multifaceted. Your post doesn't attempt to understand the root of these problems, just solutions to fixing them moving forward. But how can we fix something if we aren't fully aware of why the problem exists in the first place. This is being reactive to the effect rather than proactive to the cause. Prevent the problem from manifesting itself, and you won't have to worry about playing wack-a-mole with the symptoms that crop up.
What psychologists and geopolitical analysts (not engineers) fail to realize is that people are not just going to take their advice to heart and start doing the hard work the way they are saying they should be. People are lazy, they don't want to better themselves, they don't want the accountability of their own actions. When a society allows its people to attain luxuries at the expense of other people that support them, then that society in its current form no longer fosters an environment that rewards hard work. When hard work and self sacrifice bar little effect on the survival or living arrangements of its people, they do little to better themselves and in effect allow foreigners to capitalize on their complacency. This attitude is the primary driver of allowing fraud to be used as a means of control in that society. Your argument that GoodMen can simply be created by doing X or not doing Y, may work in theory, as it attempts to supplement this defensive deficiency by catering to the effects or results you know you should be seeing in societies Men.
This statement makes no mention of how to actually accomplish what it is you know you should be seeing in society. You are looking at the big picture and saying, "ohh, look, there is an empty spot, and the left side has this hanging chad thingy, lets make a piece that fits there", so you craft your solution and place your piece, and then you look at your puzzle again, and now you have another problem, your piece fits physically, but does not visually. So, you attempt to construct a new picture, one that fits your narrative, and when you are finished crafting all the missing pieces and redrawing all the new lines and all the different colors, you look back at your picture, and it doesn't look like anything, its just a bunch of pieces that fit with no cohesion to a recognizable image. You need to step back and think about what the puzzle is supposed to look like before attempting to fix the missing pieces within it. Am I making sense here? Like I said, I really didn't want to go this route with my response.
Anyways, you cannot just add a solution to a broken system and say "its fixed now" because you actually need people to accept whatever system you are altering with your solution. And the only way they are going to do that is if they benefit from the new system you have created. What incentives have you laid to ensure tax dollars are going to be spent raising Good Men? And not just incentives upon the tax payers, but of the people that the taxpayers have allegiance to. Because they have claimed stake on the system that is currently pumping out bad men, and they like it that way. They need division among the masses in order to confuse them and have them be dependent upon their broken systems. They aren't going to accept any such methods that go against their narratives and will fight what ever people decide to impose upon them to change their ways. GoodMen pose a problem for TPTB because they are strong willed and good natured. They defend themselves, their honor, and create cohesive, united families. You can't just say, "hey, here is what we need to do to make Good Men again" and then have the individuals that build society respond back, "Yeah! We want to work harder for nothing more than what we are getting now." You see the dilemma? GoodMen cannot be created by the machine like BadMen. They get that way by their own self sacrifice and creative defensive strategies. That is their disadvantage and why GoodMen will continue to be created less and less, while lazy, liberal, and disillusioned people cry for the heads of whomever TPTB are saying are the cause for all their problems.
If you want to create an environment that fosters GoodMen, you need to make yourself a part of that environment, but as separated from the benefactors of the systems that create it. This means, you need to become a Man unaccessible by the hands of those that run the machines that create BadMen. You need to remove your time, energy, labor, property, and agency from the system before you can alter its course. Then, you need other men to do the same. Then, and only after a recognizable minority is formed, of men that have sacrificed themselves, their sweat and blood, for their own principals if nothing else, will such a broken system no longer be able to thrive upon its crude interworkings of slavery and controlled democracy. That is the solution, the only solution, to all of societies problems. The ability to be your own man, outside of the vices that other weak men consent to by their sloth, complacent conduct, illegal activities sanctioned by the state or corporate profits, is the only way to attain a Freedom worthy of GoodMen to fight for, and therefore a reward for working hard to be one.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 1
I have a few ideas. When I've got the FAQ section improved on my site posts I make will be so easier as I can make shorter posts and link people to specific sections I'm referring to. I might even start using acronyms and specific expressions that refer to larger ideas.
That's a good point. I think because the creator of these subs already did a good job of how dating isolation in their twenties leads to disenfranchised men in their 30s I kinda just assumed the GM community here already did a good job of covering this kind of thing. But I should have drawn out some of my own theories on the subject. So apart from disenfranchisement (often red pill ideologies and PUA are leading disenfranchised GMs astray now also). I really wanted to address this with a solution that would make it so GMs could be sexually/romantically successful in their 20s, therefore not leading to later in life disenfranchisement because I kind of just took it for granted that GMs are dying out and there's a lot of thick shits posting on places like braincels now (I'm trying to be nice to the more redeemable incels but there's just so many assholes in those communities now). I don't know what the allure of the black pill is exactly. It offers a simple explanation which is "looks = no. 1, women = hypergamous roasties". BOOM. Thousands of brain dead idiots love this idea because zero responsibility.
On most of the GM communities, sure we analyse what has gone wrong with our environment but we are still taking responsibility for ourselves - because that's what GMs do: we look inside and see what has gone wrong. The reason we don't like it when people with their platitudes come along and throw them at us is because this is precisely the kind of thing we're already doing. Contrast that with a lot of the braincels populace and the reason they don't like it is because they have no intention of doing anything vaguely related to self-improvement. And I don't believe they are all shredded gymcel trucels who have lookmaxxed through plastic surgery and finance maxxed or whatever else. But there are, on the other hand, a lot of confused, irresponsible boys and manchildren who refuse to take a look inside and see what is wrong with them. Because GM platforms are not like that is the reason we really are picky about whatever advice/solutions people have to begin with. I mentioned this in point 13 of the current FAQ.
Sorry, I got side-tracked there.
There is also the question of genetics I mentioned in the OP which means of course that if GMs are not successful in dating, they won't be successful in passing on their genes and more to the point, they won't be raising more GM. I guess I focus on the solutions a lot because I just want to create a feasible alternative for GMs. Everyone's talking about prostitution and monogamy, etc. for singles/virgins which, as I linked to in the OP, that won't work at all. And a small problem of course is that people are talking about incels when there are so many men with actually virtuous, attractive and redeemable qualities who frankly deserve to be happy. That's why, I don't have problem with GM platforms like whereareallthegoodmen when they talk about the Big Question, or occasionally, circumstances leading up to the Big Question (on step closer to the sources of and solution to the overall problem). It simply asks the question what are we to do about it when we're not posting pictures about hypergamous post-wall women or investing the required time into self-improving as GMs, how specifically do we analyse the problem. And you're right: how GMs came to be is an important subject that needs to be addressed.
The thing is, people actually are becoming aware there's a problem - at least with incels. And if the rising awareness of incels is anything to go on, what it proves is people have all kinds of crazy ideas about solutions to the problem when they have even the slightest incline of an idea that it's going on.
[deleted] 5y ago
PART 2
What I am doing with my "proposed solutions" is I'm jumping in with my chips so to speak before too many other people are calling the big blind. I want to get my ideas out there before awareness starts to raise. Because in my opinion that's dangerous. Again referring to the Jack Fisher article and even intellectuals like JP are saying stupid things (see OP). But also people on the left: here I wrote this critique of "Bonobo Therapy for Incels" from my old account.
I know, I know. Tell them why they're wrong. It just that it's obvious why they're wrong. Telling them why they're wrong doesn't incentivise people to come up with better solutions (I mean, OK, I might be jumping the gun with some of my proposed solutions in OP as well). Instead, telling these people why they're wrong will just provoke a reaction, "yeah, well I don't see you coming up with anything better, Einstein". What happens is they become more firmly entrenched in their ways of thinking. That's why my number 1 solution is actually discussion. Simply talking about what problems it is GMs face (and the root cause of why GMs are diminishing in number - again, a lack of values that are passed on to the next generation which can be attributed to a lack of sexual/romantic success GMs have) is a good start.
To be fair, I created the IH platform in response to a criticism that GMGV doesn't address broader issues. It is still looks vague because it is in construction but then ideas are kind of like buildings. They look ugly as shit when they are still in construction. That's why I'm trying to sell the goal of the extended GMGV-IH platform rather than what it looks like right now. I'm not really trying to hide the fact the ideas are in an early stage.
The thing is, education and civil discussion are such powerful game changers because they influence people's values. And it is the existence (or lack thereof) of values in the way they are now that make society what it is. That's why two of my solutions were so adamantly focussed on education and discussion. The extended GMGV-IH platform represents just that a need for advocating GMs and there needs to be met through education and discussion. If people are taught to be GMs and successful in dating, surely they will pass on their values to the next generation.
This is a complicated issue and obviously I don't consider myself fully qualified to tackle an issue like this. At this point we're moving away from the subject of GMs to much broader complex political issues that have existed since like, Plato and nobody really knows the answer to this. What I will say is that the underlying problem is a lack of notoriety, a lack of public transparency at the top of politics and I think both left and right can agree on this. The reason these things are not notorious as it stands because people don't care about crony capitalism, or in this case the allegiance of crony capitalism to bad men. Bringing the discussion back to GMs, GMs don't have a widely received discussion platform and therefore, people don't hear the things GMs have to say, which would surely make the goals of corrupt politicians and businessmen at the upper echelons of society far more notorious.
I highlighted the need for a discussion platform in the FAQ and I guess that this is something to add to the topics. that we do actually need to discuss IH, and more generally, centrist politics because centrists are the guys looking for solutions to both, corrupt state actors and crony capitalists at the upper echelons of society. I can tell you think conservatism is the way forwards but the thing is there are an underclass of people who truly want to work and improve themselves but they don't have the tools, the means, or the education to drag themselves out of the dirt. I don't advocate social redistribution for the sake of giving money to people but to create actual opportunities for people to lift themselves up. The problems with left and right are different both in my country and US, where left hasn't truly figured out what to do about a failing welfare scheme and the right have looked at the system and assumed social redistribution is the problem to begin with.
Even free market economists like Milton Friedman were advocating solid social redistribution schemes like negative income tax which would mean an underclass of people could carry on claiming and working until they got to a certain wage level. The idea of a true centrist redistribution scheme, in my opinion, is to drag people out of the dirt and make them self-sufficient again - not making them dependent (like the left) or shaming them (like the right does). And of course IH is just centrism applied to gender politics rather than economics. GMGV as I have defined it is essentially an IH platform but I haven't really had time to get on to the centrism yet or why that's relevant. But the bottom line is that politicians and crooked businessmen everywhere are dragging the common man down kicking him while he's down and then making it a popular thing to do that. And the problem again is that, it's just not notorious partly because people don't know about it but also because they don't know why it's so wrong and why it's so fucked up. Education and discussion.
I think there is reward for creating GMs. Firstly, if we create GMs in the under 18 schooling system rather than teaching them all these useless subjects then they really don't take extra cash from tax payers. Less is anything, because I see the GM schooling system as a "less is more" kind of thing (and yes, girls can benefit from learning the skills listed too). Secondly, of course there will be tremendous benefit for the tax payer to have a society have hard working, moral, tax paying citizens. The results would speak for themselves I just haven't gone into a great level of detail yet. But GMs would be successful in dating and they would continue to pass on their values to the next generation, so there would be more GMs to come still. I'm sure there's holes to poke in the logic somewhere but the overall spirit of what I'm saying can only be a good thing.
Less focus on enzymes, Shakespeare and trigonometry, more focus on instilling core, fundamental values in young people. Less is more. Teach kids the three Rs and then give them a choice of two academic subjects they want to focus time, energy and passion on. Let them decide for themselves if they want to be an academic or some kind of skilled labourer or whatever. Other than that they learn core, essential skills and values, they spend fewer hours having information spoon fed every day, concentration span goes up and they actually end up learning more. Less is more. Probably, such a system would require significantly less tax expenditure because the quality of teaching cannot be enhanced simply by paying
teachersmentors more money. Let's get people who are actually passionate about their job and guide kids through education and life, like they do in the Scandinavian countries.[deleted] 5y ago
PART 3 [FINAL]
The problem with this is that outsider communities just get laughed at as outcasts anyway. People don't want Nietzschean ubermensches in the forests, they want GMs in suits. In other words they want GMs to benefit the system: commerce, internet, technology, city lights and capitalism. I know money needs to go where the mouth is but sometimes you've got to start from square one. Words and ideas have to level up to concrete plans, have to level up to actions. Maybe I'm not the man with the plans yet but perhaps someone somewhere will read my words and be inspired. All I can do for now is advocate. There's a lot of GMs saying to women/society "this is what could have been." Maybe one day, I will do this as well but while I'm still young, I'd like to point out what could be. And if no-one listens to me before I truly GMOW (or get sent my own way, whatever) maybe, I will point out what could have been. If I still think it's worth it (energy is precious, after all).
[deleted] 5y ago
Guys today get little to no sympathy from society in dating and dealing with the opposite sex.
It’s an unfortunate reality; ladies get to talk crap about men they want and ignore men that want them. However, there’s a problem of collective vs individual responsibility here.
Say a man has GM qualities but still gets rejected by a representative group of women and has nothing to show for his efforts. Then say he moves elsewhere and bitches at a woman who rejects him, saying that all women are trash and only want assholes.
Is he wrong? Probably not collectively(all the rejections), but individually he would be considered wrong.
The woman would say “what does this have to do with me? I am free to date who I like, I don’t owe anything to this man.” And she would be right.
But women collectively tell this man that he is undateable/unloveable and individually tell him to shut up and stop whining.
This is the issue.
To help him individually, he needs to learn how to sexually arouse and attract women. To help GM’s collectively, society needs to incentivize women to sexually prefer GM qualities.
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
That is not genetically possible. Women are attracted to bad asses. What CAN be done is to incentivize women to FEAR and RESPECT all men. When the typical man is FEARED by women, then we can start being "nice guys" again and the Nice Guys will be seen as "attractive." When the typical man refuses to adjust to conditions on the ground or adapt his strategy of catering to women, worshiping women, and bowing down to whatever women want then women have no fear, no respect and no passion.
OhIMeMine 5y ago
IDK... I'm thinking it's definitely your fault. State funded classes on how to be a normal person? How is that not the most bizarre idea ever? You can literally learn all that stuff on youtube anyway. You sound like an odd duck.
[deleted] 5y ago
Show me one person that can do all the things in that list naturally.
OhIMeMine 5y ago
That's not the point. We don't do much naturally other than breath. The point is that taking tax money from people so that you can learn how to squat properly is ridiculous. Personally, I don't even support socialized medicine, so this is idea is wayyy out in left field for me.
I learned these things, some from my parents, some from internet research/books, and some from trial and error. There are books on these topics. State funded classes on these subjects would be just as weird as state funded prostitutes.
Also, I think men take this stuff too far because they are trying to overcompensate for some odd personality defect. Most women don't care if you dress like a male model, if fact, most of us don't like overly fashionable men because it comes off as being girly and feminine. Just make sure your cloths fit you properly. Invest in a good, basic pair of Levis, don't bedazzle your butt. There is nothing in the world wrong with a nice, clean white t-shirt.
Simply stand up straight, brush your teeth, shower, and make sure your cloths are clean and that they fit you properly and you're half the way there.
Also, and I feel like this is key: If you present yourself as nothing more than a bank, it is only logical that you would attract the kind of girl who sees you as simply a bank. I grew up in a small southern town. My parents have been married for 28 years. My mom home schooled five kids, made dinner every night, kept the house running. My dad come home and spent time with his kids, he didn't zone out to the tv with a beer. All my friends' parents are still married. I have seen amazing men and women be strong and loyal to each other through impossible tragedies, from financial hardships to the loss of a child. I have four amazing brothers who will be great dads and husbands one day. Great men do exist. So do great women, but you won't find them in a Miami night club.
[deleted] 5y ago
We already take tax money from people to enslave young people and make them learn about enzymes, Shakespeare and other useless subjects. If we're going to take tax money, I'm saying that people could learn useful life skills that would actually help them instead of all that nonsense. People could actually spend less time in education and benefit more. Hell we could probably take less money from the tax payer. Programs for post 18 year olds would mainly be for the current generation who were failed by a dreadful prison like education system that dulled their brains and spoon fed them useless things to memorise for a pointless exam for employers to judge them on irrelevant skills both for academia and the professional world. People that haven't learned these things are not adults: they can't take responsibility because they haven't been conditioned by education or parenting to do that. If they've been failed as kids and adolescents they deserve a chance to learn again in the same way that society deems people have a right to certain things:
- healthcare (in most of the developed world, just not the cranky US)
- emergency services
- national defence
- education (for under 18s)
- social redistribution (even in US)
It is not too controversial then to say that young adults who have been failed to learn the necessary fundamentals to being a mature and responsible adult should be given that opportunity. I would say they deserve the chance until 30. The tax expenditure is worth it to create a generation of people who are
Rather than all of these low lives who are
You could go as far as to say this kind of policy addresses all of the typical complaints conservatives have about certain demographs of the population who suffer from poverty and lack of education and their resultant anti-social behaviours. So many things would be fixed the tax expenditure would not just be worth it, it would be minimised because of all the other social problems tax expenditure is already devoted on because of these fundamental problems that have not been resolved.
All of the western world's social problems have their roots in education (or rather the lack of education).
Look at Scandinavian and other European countries where their education systems are so vastly superior and ask yourself what they are doing differently. It is so painfully obvious and yet Anglicised countries and social conservatives keep ignoring the elephant in the room and the simple solution to all of it.
Your traditionalist sentiments that we're not owed anything (which is funny because I'm only talking about basic education have all been covered as typical derailing arguments that GMs face in my extended FAQ. I don't believe any of this is in line with the spirit of GM communities as these are essentially just another way of shaming GMs and telling us to man up.
Your focussing too much on the specific things rather than the general gist of it. I have no doubt that if this ever became an official policy certain things on the list would be altered, disregarded in favour of other things I haven't considered.
You're saying don't worry too much about fashion and they you recommend one of the most expensive designer brands there are? Please. You can dress nicely, cheaply and smart-casual at most regular retailers with well fitting clothes and straight jeans. You say this is obvious - well ok. Why do so many men have virtually no sense of style?
Are you seriously proposing all the same kinds of platitudes to intelligent GMs that they hate, have considered and personally find useless on a GM discussion site? All that stuff is obvious. We are intelligent, resourceful posters in the extended GM community ( r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre & r/GoodMenGoodValues ). We have already considered most of these obvious suggestions. The reason we are posting here is because we have genuinely attractive and virtuous attributes. Clearly that is not enough for the women who have been conditioned with the particular standards they have in our western society and this is because of the social barriers and pressures I mentioned in the OP. Are these topics things that you are disagreeing with? That GMs can struggle in dating in spite of great efforts or that there are no post-wall women who rejected GMs in their youth? Because these are basic established premises in the GM community. We don't deserve to be shamed or belittled with such condescending advice.
OhIMeMine 5y ago
"Why do so many men have virtually no sense of style?"
I think most men do dress just fine.
Also, $50/$60 for a pair of Levi's that will last you years isn't crazy. I recommend them because they are basic and traditional and they look good on most men.
How do you explain all the hard working blue collar boys who are able to marry nice young girls and start families? Many of my friends got married rather young and they are all very happy and have started families. These men they married are not 10s in the looks or fashion department. One married a fire fighter (not a particularly attractive/buff one), one married a turbine engine mechanic who is 5'4"/5'5". I'm just saying, other guys seem find really great partners even when they aren't 10s driving around in European sports cars. Your excuses just sound like excuses.
[deleted] 5y ago
Splitting hairs like a pro. You should consider applying to a salon.
OhIMeMine 5y ago
Focus less on fashion.
Focus more on coming off as less angry and bitter. That would probably help. Most girls are going to shy away from men who seem to hate women. Just the same way a guy would steer clear of a woman who believed that all men are dirty, raping, pigs. You sound like the opposite equivalent of a pink haired femanazi. This is probably more of a problem than you want to admit.
Perhaps you are going after girls out of your league. Looking for the full package that doesn't exist. I would be single if I thought I deserved nothing less than Leo DiCaprio. I'm pretty attractive, but I'm no super model. I found an amazing guy, I love him and we plan to get married in a few years, he is slightly knock kneed, has a week jaw line, and can't grow a beard, and I'm still very sexually attracted to him. These thing's just aren't quite as important as you think, they aren't deal breakers for girls who have their priorities in line. My boyfriend is funny and family minded, we have fun together and he's smart and hard working. I know he will be there for our children. He is so kind and sweet to his mother and he respects his dad. This is the important stuff.
You seem to be lacking here. A woman would be afraid to have children with you. Will you love her daughter? Would you simply think of her as a little slut in the making? Will you convince her son that women are all dirty and not to be trusted?
Maybe you don't want kids, but right there you limit your pool of decent options. Most conservative "good girls" want marriage and kids. I would never get into a relationship if I had reason to believe that family wasn't the ultimate goal.
[deleted] 5y ago
You have offered very little to the discussion here. But the reason why you are banned, is because you attack the poster rather than the arguments presented. We don't want that.
[deleted] 5y ago
Could I request that she is allowed to post again after a few days? As she may have had a chance to review her sentiments towards GMs in that period of time and come back with a more willing to contribute constructively.
[deleted] 5y ago
These are extremely generalising sentiments. True GMs do not hate women or any of the other things you accused us of. It seems like you are trolling the GM community and using shaming tactics to belittle us. What you need to understand is that subreddits like these are places we come to get away from all the bullshit things feminists and traditionalists are saying about us everywhere else on the internet that aren't even true. We don't need people like you littering up our communities with more shaming tactics because then it means that we don't have a place to escape from them. I covered most of these shaming tactics in the GMGV FAQ as previously mentioned/linked to. You would do well to read it as you seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what GMs truly are.
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
When you become angry and frustrated enough to truly begin to hate, that is when things will turn around. Hate is a motivator. Hate takes care of anxiety. Hate makes you more Machiavellian, more Sociopathic, more Narcissistic. In a word, more attractive to women.
If "Hate" is what it takes you to shake yourself out of the nice guy syndrome then run with it my brother.
OhIMeMine 5y ago
I'm not shaming men. I'm telling you what I see off putting about you based on what you wrote.
In general, whining is unsavory. Saying that you know you are the common denominator and still insisting that the problem is everybody else is so silly it's hard to believe you are serious.
EDIT: And yes, the advice is a bit general, but I don't know you personally so it's hard to tell you anything specific other than you seem a little angry through your writing.
[deleted] 5y ago
That is making assumptions about me in a condescending, belittling & shaming manner.
No. I am attempting to have a constructive discussion. This is a derailing tactic.
I said the problem was to do with social pressures & dynamics.
You didn't read the damn OP.
This isn't about blaming other people but more to do with the way the dating game is sexist and rigged so it won't ever work for GMs.
Or you could just stop making assumptions about me as a person?
[deleted] 5y ago
All women are fucked up. Take the redpill, traditional women are few and most of them live in Amish communities.
[deleted] 5y ago
Red pill hurts guys for reasons mentioned in the OP:
So what is the solution to the problem so many of us GMs are having in dating. I'll give you a clue. It's not red pill machiavellian strategies that are designed to mimic the traits of some of the alpha male bad boys I described above. You can't fake that shit if you have anything vaguely resembling a conscience or sense of ethics. That's not for us otherwise we would not be GMs to begin with and the proof is in my own post history where I asked a question about addressing the subjects of female history on r/asktrp. An endorsed contributor commented:
(As I said repeatedly in this post: we are not designed for this game. It is sick, twisted and Machiavellian in nature. If we were ever able to play this game and win, we would not be GMs in the first place. Conscience is not something you can just condition yourself out of, like the Red Pill naively assumes)
This user added: