CrimsonOcean posted... And for the record I'm totally against the current coddling attitude people seem to have.
Same. I've just gone through enough crap in my life to know that being a jackass isn't necessarily the best way to help somebody and get them to listen to you.
I think a lot of these people that complain about "people don't accept criticism anymore!!" don't seem to understand that having emotions isn't the same thing as being coddled.
The thing about those topics is that they were never aimed at anyone other than my friends. It was random people who would enter the topics to argue with ME. Even funnier was that the opening post was usually packed with constructive criticism and ways to improve yourself. But most people are either like Muffin and stubbornly refuse to admit i'm right, or are so wrapped up in the social brainwashing we've been force fed about falling in love and finding the one and the worst one IT'S ALL ABOUT PERSONALITY without realizing that personality means more than just being funny and witty.
--
Realo won gold at the Sex Olympics with a BROKEN FRIGGIN NECK.-Voltch
From: Mr Lasastryke | #054 From what I remember your opening posts usually linked to some Roissy article that contained nothing constructive in the slightest.
most, if not all of roissy's articles are incredibly helpful if you actually read them instead of getting blindly offended by every sentence.
--
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/984/rvpi.jpg "I was wrong" - SmartMuffin
Also, you didn't make clear at all that your alpha/beta topics were aimed at your friends. If you didn't want random people arguing with you about it, it would've been better to just IM your friends or something instead of post those topics on the board.
most, if not all of roissy's articles are incredibly helpful if you actually read them instead of getting blindly offended by every sentence.
I've read a couple of them. They didn't offend me, but they weren't helpful either.
I'm not disputing that looks/sexual attraction matter in a relationship, because they absolutely do. But I don't understand why some people place so much emphasis on them. Like, I would rather date a 4 or 5 (and have) that I was really personally compatible with than go out with like an 8 or 9 (which I have) that I couldn't stand talking to.
Unless it's just a one night stand or something. But the point of those isn't really to find someone you'd be willing to spend your life with.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/crimjpgpe.jpg Mo' buildings mo' problems ocean kinda grew on me like a flesh eating ...fungus. -BIGPUN9999
From: CrimsonOcean | #061 Yeah. Doesn't that matter? >__> Maybe it's a different dynamic <__<
>.> Quite a different dynamic, yes.
Because with female/female relationships women can project the things they value for themselves onto their mates. Doesn't work that way for hetero relationships.
--
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/984/rvpi.jpg "I was wrong" - SmartMuffin
Funny that you guys who seemed to disagree with me missed it and yet so many guys found the criticism spot on, me being one of them. Every Roissy article I posted had a blunt view of just where men were messing up and why things weren't working. Ask anyone who took it seriously and adjusted accordingly how well its working out. It's not just you guys though. Even a few of my friends off the Board vehemently deny it because they're so coddled.
--
Realo won gold at the Sex Olympics with a BROKEN FRIGGIN NECK.-Voltch
And yeah, the whole "defense mechanism" stuff is stupid. When I disagree with realo or Roissy, that's not a sign of my defense mechanism. It just means I disagree.
From: CrimsonOcean | #064 Mmmh, I see your point there.
And as far as looks go, certainly you could date a 5 who shares your beliefs/values/sense of humor... but if given the option wouldn't you rather date an 8 who shared them as well?
--
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/984/rvpi.jpg "I was wrong" - SmartMuffin
I don't deny that Roissy's tactics to get chicks work. Where I disagree with him is that all guys in the world should aspire to be like him and that beta males are pathetic and stupid.
Mr Lasastryke posted... I don't deny that Roissy's tactics to get chicks work. Where I disagree with him is that all guys in the world should aspire to be like him and that beta males are pathetic and stupid.
I think most guys already know the "secret" about how being an alpha ******* gets women. But personally, that's not who i am as a person, and I feel bad every time I try to emulate it.
From: SantaRPG | #069 but the rest is all kind of nonsense.
Could you give examples of things roissy has posted that you think are nonsense? I read roissy (now he's called heartiste) daily and most of what he says resonates with what I've been experiencing since I've been trying to improve myself with his stuff (and the stuff of others like him).
What do you think is 'all kind of nonsense'?
--
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/984/rvpi.jpg "I was wrong" - SmartMuffin
I think the whole coddled argument is a way for people who didn't get enough love from mommy or daddy to try and gain some feeling of superiority. It's sad really.
Maybe they didn't ask for constructive criticism? Maybe they don't care or value your opinion on them, or that you think they need to be better? Maybe they just want to be who they are without someone telling them that they're wrong. This defensive mechanism might just be their own way of telling you to f*** off. I could be wrong, I don't know. Just throwing it out there!
From: Liquid Wind | #030 you're part of this too you know, look at your post in ayuyu's topic. we've gotten to the point where we coddle people so much that it is socially unacceptable to criticize someone when they are blatantly wrong, you have to treat everyone with kid gloves in this age of political correctness.
Good point. The whole "I'm too cool to care about what you think" thing is also a result of all the coddling. Sure, it's better than "waaah stop making fun of me my mom says I'm perfect", but it's the same mindset.
ExThaNemesis posted... From: CrimsonOcean | #064 Mmmh, I see your point there. And as far as looks go, certainly you could date a 5 who shares your beliefs/values/sense of humor... but if given the option wouldn't you rather date an 8 who shared them as well?
Well when you put it that way I guess it makes more sense. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. Given the option of two girls with equally compatible personalities to my own, but with say average looks or very above average looks, I'd definitely go with the above average looking girl.
In my experience though it's difficult to get both. Which I guess is kind of what I was trying to get at. Generally it's a trade off. Usually the hot girl isn't the girl with the really great personality and vice versa, so in that case I would go with the average looking girl with the personality. Like if I were only able to pick one thing or the other. Make sense?
--
http://img.imgcake.com/crimjpgpe.jpg Mo' buildings mo' problems ocean kinda grew on me like a flesh eating ...fungus. -BIGPUN9999
Where I disagree with him is that all guys in the world should aspire to be like him and that beta males are pathetic and stupid.
This is not his viewpoint. Roissy has stated numerous times that his outlook is hedonistic and if everyone acted like him the dating market would basically cease to function, at least in the long term. Moreover he has never advocated that all guys learn game because there is no certainty that would accomplish anything. If most women are selecting mates based on relative value than there will always be less desirable men compared to others, in spite of the increase in all men's seduction ability.
And again, he only considers betas pathetic in how they pedestal-ize women and fail to recognize what women value. He does not believe they have lower intelligence.
--
"Getting lucky 100% of the time... it's called PRO SKILL." -BlAcK TuRtLe
ExThaNemesis posted... From: Greyfeld | #070 and I feel bad every time I try to emulate it. Why?
Do you the girls who ignore you when you try to talk to them or buy them a beer or friendzone you are going to lose sleep about it?
Do you think girls lose sleep about wearing makeup or clothes that enhance their looks/figure?
No. This was a big step for me, too, getting over feeling bad.
I don't really care if they do or not. I, personally, am not that sort of person. And my personal morals will not allow me to pretend to be otherwise without it riding heavily on my conscience. Whether you feel that to be stupid or not is completely up to you, but it is not an invalid feeling, especially for those of us who have move beyond the desire to play games.
I can cite his alpha quiz in which he states a lower iq and jailtime makes you more desirable.
I see a lot of this personally, a lot of women will throw themselves at "dangerous men" without really thinking about what that entails
I swear the whole system is set up to ensure that stupid people will eventually breed modern humans as we know them out of existence and back into something closer to a neanderthal
Usually the hot girl isn't the girl with the really great personality and vice versa, so in that case I would go with the average looking girl with the personality. Like if I were only able to pick one thing or the other. Make sense?
I disagree. It's just that the hot girl has more options, and YOU'RE the one not up to snuff in her eyes.
Also, eventually those average looks that you feel you were okay with start to get compared to everyone else, real quick. And this is why men are disgusting and cheat.
This is not his viewpoint. Roissy has stated numerous times that his outlook is hedonistic and if everyone acted like him the dating market would basically cease to function, at least in the long term. Moreover he has never advocated that all guys learn game because there is no certainty that would accomplish anything. If most women are selecting mates based on relative value than there will always be less desirable men compared to others, in spite of the increase in all men's seduction ability.
And again, he only considers betas pathetic in how they pedestal-ize women and fail to recognize what women value. He does not believe they have lower intelligence.
Fair enough. These views are still stupid, though.
From: CrimsonOcean | #077 In my experience though it's difficult to get both. Which I guess is kind of what I was trying to get at. Generally it's a trade off. Usually the hot girl isn't the girl with the really great personality and vice versa, so in that case I would go with the average looking girl with the personality. Like if I were only able to pick one thing or the other. Make sense?
I dunno about you, but for me, attractiveness is a 2-variable function (well more than 2 of course, but 2 is a good approximation for my point). A good personality makes a girl way more attractive than one without. I would say that without a good personality, a girl could only be like an 8 at most. Also vice-versa, a good personality and bad looks can only be like a 6 or something... I dunno, I would probably just friendzone her so that doesn't count. But good looks and good personality will get you into the upper 8-9 range.
And that doesn't mean I can't point to a girl and say "that's a 9". Just by watching overall demeanor and body language for a bit you can get a feel for what kind of personality she has. Not any specifics or anything, but if you're looking for specific likes/dislikes in a girl then you're doing it wrong.
If a girl treats me like **** when I'm just chatting with her one on one, why on earth would I want to be with someone like that? Speaking as someone who has never really been part of the "random hookup" scene, I've never had any trouble finding women, even when I was back living in my moms house driving my moms car and working at my minimum wage job.
I'd like to hear an example of her treating you like ****. Are you sure it's not playfull sarcastic flirting? A lot of people (myself included) use minor, harmless little insults as a form of flriting. And god damn does it work, especially on the more attractive girls since their ego is usually higher than others.
Mr Lasastryke posted... I don't deny that Roissy's tactics to get chicks work. Where I disagree with him is that all guys in the world should aspire to be like him and that beta males are pathetic and stupid.
Well, the type of guy who calls a girl a half-dozen times, or keeps sending her emotional emails after they broke up... that *is* pathetic. I don't think you *need* to aspire to dominating a relationship, but you should never accept less than equal footing (even if you are a happy little "beta", you want a healthy relationship).
--
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter? Walter: No, Donny. These men are cowards.
CrimsonOcean posted... Well when you put it that way I guess it makes more sense. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. Given the option of two girls with equally compatible personalities to my own, but with say average looks or very above average looks, I'd definitely go with the above average looking girl.
In my experience though it's difficult to get both. Which I guess is kind of what I was trying to get at. Generally it's a trade off. Usually the hot girl isn't the girl with the really great personality and vice versa, so in that case I would go with the average looking girl with the personality. Like if I were only able to pick one thing or the other. Make sense?
For the record, I think Extha's question is way too loaded for a legitimate answer. The chances of finding two people who are exactly compatible with you in the exact same way, but are clearly two varying levels of attractiveness, are almost nonexistent.
And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that most of us have different ideas of what is or isn't attractive.
Vague hypotheticals will only take the discussion so far.
Also, eventually those average looks that you feel you were okay with start to get compared to everyone else, real quick. And this is why men are disgusting and cheat.
To be fair we're at the point where women cheat just as often, if not more often, than men; they're simply more discrete about doing it because while it's more attractive for a man to have had numerous mates, the same is not true for women. Women cheat for the same "shallow" reasons as men, except they typically follow it up with divorce-rape.
--
"Getting lucky 100% of the time... it's called PRO SKILL." -BlAcK TuRtLe
neonreaper posted... Mr Lasastryke posted... I don't deny that Roissy's tactics to get chicks work. Where I disagree with him is that all guys in the world should aspire to be like him and that beta males are pathetic and stupid.
Well, the type of guy who calls a girl a half-dozen times, or keeps sending her emotional emails after they broke up... that *is* pathetic. I don't think you *need* to aspire to dominating a relationship, but you should never accept less than equal footing (even if you are a happy little "beta", you want a healthy relationship).
Women cheat for the same "shallow" reasons as men,
women are more likely to rationalize cheating for emotional reasons, they'll frequently find some way to blame it on deficiencies in their current relationship. whether or not it's true idk but men generally don't have any excuses beyond "I wanted to **** her"
To be fair we're at the point where women cheat just as often, if not more often, than men; they're simply more discrete about doing it because while it's more attractive for a man to have had numerous mates, the same is not true for women. Women cheat for the same "shallow" reasons as men, except they typically follow it up with divorce-rape.
From what I've experienced, the gender doesn't matter. It's whoever wears the "pants" in the relationship that is much more likely to cheat. Basically if they feel they settled instead of finding someone they REALLY wanted to be with, the thought of being with someone else is pretty powerful.
You know, I never realized how genius Roissy is, really.
His entire philosphy is based around relative value of men to women, so why is he putting out all his "secrets" and methods? Wouldn't that just empower other men and therefore devalue himself?
So what he does is wrap all his lessons in this radical rhetoric like that alpha quiz that santa mentioned, which, unless you are an intelligent and tolerant and open-minded person who knows how to extract the core idea from the superficial words, you will be offended and repelled. To be able to actively filter his audience this way, so that his methods aren't emulated and ruined by those who don't truly understand the philosophy is very impressive.
wg, women cheat more than men. It's a statistical fact.
I don't doubt it, but that falls right under what I was saying because in most cases the female is the one wearing the pants, and the one more likely to settle. It's a lot harder for a guy to get laid than it is for a girl, and they know it.
It's whoever wears the "pants" in the relationship that is much more likely to cheat.
I agree with this. In such a relationship, the person of higher value would be more likely to cheat than the person of lower value. The thing is, if it's a male that has higher value, he's not less attracted to his wife because of it. If the female has higher value, this is problematic because women are attracted to higher value males and she will get bored and lose attraction for her husband real quickly, without ever realizing why. And guess which most of today's marriages are?
--
"Getting lucky 100% of the time... it's called PRO SKILL." -BlAcK TuRtLe