Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

Edit: To your first sentence, women will never be alone and unhappy of anything but their own choice. There will always be a man somewhere willing to take in a woman for the right exchange of services.

Well, yeah, but that begs the question that the right exchange of services is preferred given the costs. If women have to compete with AI, women may find competing more costly than hanging out with their cats.


Why do you say women are already bunching up to top men? Sure, by a very small amount, but monogamy is still the name of the game of long-term relationships even at the top. Has there been a recent shift where men with wives also have long term girlfriends that each wife knows about?

[wufwugy]

We'd probably also have to get rid of the very bad k-12 education system where naive child-adults culture each other and "raise" each other. Women evolved to "settle down" so to speak around 14-15 years of age. The education system subverts that and teaches everybody that serial monogamy is the way to go. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing the system teaches. It teaches plenty of bad stuff already, like how to hate yourself and get away with doing nothing. Just saying.

[spoonitnow]

Why do you say women are already bunching up to top men?

Two reasons: 1) They just always have and always will. Monogamy as an institution spread it out a little more (ie: the rationing out of women), but people are still going to follow their basic biology for the most part. 2) There are fewer attractive men available as a percentage, but the number of viable women who want those men has not fallen by the same percentage, and that causes even more bunching in terms of higher ratios of women to these particular men.

Attractive men, especially those with any degree of social status, get insane amounts of pussy. This is a small percentage of men getting with a much larger percentage of women. It has to cause bunching of this type. Don't mistake me by thinking I'm talking about formal relationships with this bunching. I'm talking about sex.

That's not what I'm talking about here, and formal relationships in general are only necessary for A) the men who are using a resource-based mating strategy and B) the men who are using an attraction-based (ie: indicative of good genetic material) strategy who choose to have a relationship for arbitrary reasons.

Take virtually any women who is in a relationship with a man based on resources and not attraction, and it's insanely easy to get her to cheat. That guy is just a placeholder to keep her fed and to put a roof over her head until some boss mack with some gorilla dick that makes dyke pussy wet comes along and knocks her kidney loose.

Related topic: France is a country where it's illegal for a man to test the paternity of his children.

[BananaStand]

Related topic: France is a country where it's illegal for a man to test the paternity of his children.

Makes sense. Women never lie.

[spoonitnow]

Makes sense. Women never lie.

Want to know something fucked up?

Know those companies where you can send in the shit to see if your kid has any fucked up genetics that could lead to health problems? You send in a sample of the kid, the mom and the dad.

Even then, around 10 percent of the samples tested show that the person claimed to be the dad is not the dad.

10 percent

10 percent from a sample of people who know that testing the DNA is why they're sending the shit in

This implies it's a significantly higher percentage in the general population.

[wufwugy]

Ah I was talking about formal relationships. I agree on the non-formal aspects you discuss. I've experienced what it's like firsthand for women to be attracted based on attraction. Sometimes they're open about wanting to cheat, sometimes secretive. But they pounce nonetheless.

[BananaStand]

Fucking someone else's wife is just.....just the best.

[spoonitnow]

Ah I was talking about formal relationships. I agree on the non-formal aspects you discuss. I've experienced what it's like firsthand for women to be attracted based on attraction. Sometimes they're open about wanting to cheat, sometimes secretive. But they pounce nonetheless.

A relationship is an agreement to give a female resources. Nothing more, nothing less. What you get in exchange for those resources and which resources those are is up for negotiation.

There are plenty (but nothing close to a majority of) relationships where a man is likely getting the advantage in the trade, but she's still getting something out of it that she needs, or she wouldn't be there.

[spoonitnow]

Fucking someone else's wife is just.....just the best.

It is what it is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That moment when Ripley cons out the alien queen by appealing to its motherly instinct.
Then Ripley torches the egg brood.
Classic.

[spoonitnow]

That moment when Ripley cons out the alien queen by appealing to its motherly instinct.
Then Ripley torches the egg brood.
Classic.

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

[wufwugy]

The goatest movie that ever goated is appropriate in all threads.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nah. It was a continuation of wuf's post in the other thread, but neither a recommendation, nor even really a continuation of his thought.

So.

Random thread it is.

I remember thinking, wait... we just saw that the alien queen has empathy, some sense of morals, and can be negotiated with... right?
And the human hero took advantage of that and murdered its babies? And we're OK with that? Cool.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A relationship is an agreement to give a female resources. Nothing more, nothing less. What you get in exchange for those resources and which resources those are is up for negotiation.

That moment when Ripley cons out the alien queen by appealing to its motherly instinct.
Then Ripley torches the egg brood.
Classic.

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

Fake news.

[spoonitnow]

Fake news.

Briffault's Law will show you that the first of those is most certainly not fake news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...ault's_Law

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191

[MadMojoMonkey]

[spoonitnow]

Superman can't walk.

[OngBonga]

Well Mark E Smith finally popped his clogs. Saw them last summer, he had a fucking potato growing out the side of his head, I was surprised was was still alive when I got back home. RIFP.

[spoonitnow]

[wufwugy]

k joe

[spoonitnow]

k joe

For fuck's sake, I swear I had no idea lol.

I got it yesterday for the lols from Staples. Originally $22, marked down to $1.

[wufwugy]

and now ur gonna cut a hole in it and do some public jerk videos or something.

[spoonitnow]

and now ur gonna cut a hole in it and do some public jerk videos or something.

Already beat you to it and got my girl to reach in lol

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol

Spoon in a fanny pack.

I'm not sure this tops a selfie in front of a gas station, man.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I got it yesterday for the lols from Staples. Originally $22, marked down to $1.

I got at least $1 worth out of the photo.
Worth it.

[boost]

I still only have evidence that spoon is a real person. This just goes further to confirm for me that the rest of you are his alts.

[wufwugy]

yeah but what if spoon is just a genetic experiment splicing jeremy piven and dave matthews?

[spoonitnow]

ffs don't compare me to those cucks

[wufwugy]

lol they are aren't they.

[OngBonga]

I still only have evidence that spoon is a real person. This just goes further to confirm for me that the rest of you are his alts.

This is such a brilliant post spoon.

[OngBonga]

I finished work an hour early so I can get shit together ready to load up at half five, so obviously I'm sat having a spliff and a cuppa while doing internet, only I'm getting paid for doing it. Sweet.

Also, I fucking leave this town in an hour. A fucking hour.

[spoonitnow]

I finished work an hour early so I can get shit together ready to load up at half five, so obviously I'm sat having a spliff and a cuppa while doing internet, only I'm getting paid for doing it. Sweet.

Also, I fucking leave this town in an hour. A fucking hour.

Getting shit done early is a lot of fun.

[wufwugy]

i feel like this is how spoon interacts with women

https://giant.gfycat.com/LikableSati...lacklemur.webm

[spoonitnow]

Pretty much

I made a new Facebook, add me bros https://www.facebook.com/jesse.g.eddleman

[wufwugy]

What happened to your old fb?

[spoonitnow]

What happened to your old fb?

Someone was repeatedly trying to reset my password.

[wufwugy]

yo i has a q for spoon on that women attraction thing.

when theyre in attraction mode (as opposed to provision mode) do they have the same taste for variety that men do? or is it believed in the redpill community or whatever that a woman with a sufficiently hunky husband wouldnt want to go outside of that when shes in attraction mode?

[spoonitnow]

yo i has a q for spoon on that women attraction thing.

when theyre in attraction mode (as opposed to provision mode) do they have the same taste for variety that men do? or is it believed in the redpill community or whatever that a woman with a sufficiently hunky husband wouldnt want to go outside of that when shes in attraction mode?

You can Google multiple studies that have shown that women are much more likely to cheat during ovulation ONLY if they don't find their husband particularly attractive. Here's one from UCLA: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Ne...13?RelNum=6713

Along similar lines, the same types of studies show that women are much more likely to cheat right before their periods (ie: when they are infertile) ONLY if their emotional needs (read: provider/security needs) aren't being met.

Generally speaking, and I say that because there are some exceptions out on the ends of the curve, women do not give a flying fuck about variety. It doesn't advance their reproductive strategy at all EXCEPT if they need two partners for one to cover the attraction/genetics and the other to cover the provider side.

For men, the reproductive strategy is to knock up as many women as you reasonably can. This comes down to the actual anatomy: On average, a woman can only have between 1 and 2 kids a year, at the most, but men could average having more than that on a daily basis if they picked their targets right.

When you take the above and you apply a shitload of generations of evolutionary pressure, you get the strategies that we have adapted to have now.

----------

Regarding RP terminology, this dualistic strategy women have is the source of the alpha/beta labeling regarding behavior. Alpha is shorthand for behaviors that deal with attraction (ie: seeking out genetic material), and beta is shorthand for behaviors that deal with comfort (ie: provisioning, security, etc.) Virtually all relationships or relationship problems between men and women can be broken down in these terms.

Quick example: The classic "friend-zoned" case is a situation where the guy gives a lot of comfort (ie: beta) and not enough attraction (ie: alpha).

You can also have "good alpha," "bad alpha," "good beta" and "bad beta" with women. Good beta might be rubbing a chick's back when she's having menstrual camps. Bad beta would be letting her boss you around and treat you like a bitch. Good alpha might be taking the initiative to ask a girl out. Bad alpha might be punching a woman in the mouth because she asked you how you liked your eggs.

Physical appearance can be alpha or beta in behavior, but looking like you would be harder to kill is generally more representative of alpha behavior.

Good and bad are relative, and they aren't necessarily under the umbrella of the red pill praxeology because it's inherently amoral. Whether a behavior is alpha or beta can also depend a lot on context, so there's no straightforward list of like X is always good and Y is always bad for every single little thing.

A good rule of thumb is this: If you're acting from a position of strength, you're doing it right, and if you're acting from a position of weakness, then you're doing it wrong.

Edit:

The optimal strategies for different people are going to be different in terms of the amount of alpha/beta behavior. For example, a guy who just wants to bang a bunch of bar/club sluts will need to go high-alpha/low-beta. One reason this makes sense is because bar sluts are more likely to be ovulating on average (ovulation makes women want to go out more, being near her period makes her want to go out less).

For a married guy who just wants a strong marriage, he'll need to bring high-alpha/medium-beta. Most marriage problems and dead bedrooms happen because of a simple lack of alpha behavior, so the guy is low-alpha/medium-beta, for example, and all of the mainstream advice he reads says to do more housework or some shit, so he goes to even lower-alpha/high-beta, which just furthers the problem.

Instead, if you look at the prescribed method in the marriedredpill sub, it's just a blueprint to increase [good] alpha and get [bad] beta under control. So lift, stop eating like shit, read these books on assertiveness, have grown man shit to do and own your shit. They do that for a year, and all of a sudden their wives often want them to blow every load either on them or in them. But hey, if she doesn't, then you divorce her ass, and now you're in perfect position to fuck the dog shit out of some young poon. Pretty straightforward stuff.

[wufwugy]

You can Google multiple studies that have shown that women are much more likely to cheat during ovulation ONLY if they don't find their husband particularly attractive. Here's one from UCLA: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Ne...13?RelNum=6713

Along similar lines, the same types of studies show that women are much more likely to cheat right before their periods (ie: when they are infertile) ONLY if their emotional needs (read: provider/security needs) aren't being met.

Generally speaking, and I say that because there are some exceptions out on the ends of the curve, women do not give a flying fuck about variety. It doesn't advance their reproductive strategy at all EXCEPT if they need two partners for one to cover the attraction/genetics and the other to cover the provider side. For men, the reproductive strategy is to knock up as many women as you reasonably can.

On average, a woman can only have between 1 and 2 kids a year, at the most. Men could average having more than that on a daily basis if they picked their targets right.

Regarding RP terminology, this dualistic strategy women have is the source of the alpha/beta labeling regarding behavior. Alpha is shorthand for behaviors that deal with attraction (ie: seeking out genetic material), and beta is shorthand for behaviors that deal with comfort (ie: provisioning, security, etc.) Virtually all relationships or relationship problems between men and women can be broken down in these terms.

Quick example: The classic "friend-zoned" case is a situation where the guy gives a lot of comfort (ie: beta) and not enough attraction (ie: alpha).

You can also have "good alpha," "bad alpha," "good beta" and "bad beta" with women. Good beta might be rubbing a chick's back when she's having menstrual camps. Bad beta would be letting her boss you around and treat you like a bitch. Good alpha might be taking the initiative to ask a girl out. Bad alpha might be punching a woman in the mouth because she asked you how you liked your eggs.

Good and bad are relative, and they aren't necessarily under the umbrella of the red pill praxeology because it's inherently amoral. Whether a behavior is alpha or beta can also depend a lot on context, so there's no straightforward list of like X is always good and Y is always bad for every single little thing.

A good rule of thumb is this: If you're acting from a position of strength, you're doing it right, and if you're acting from a position of weakness, then you're doing it wrong.

That all makes sense. Thanks.

It also raises the question of long term variety, or perhaps variety is the wrong word, rather variation would be better. What I mean is that given the time constraints of female reproduction, it could be that preferences in variation in genetic fathering might span across years, meaning that a woman might want to seek a different genetic seed a year or so later, as opposed to men who can have the same feeling in a very short time frame.

What is the idea on this? Will a woman with a sufficiently attractive partner still seek outside that over a longer span of years, or is it believed there isn't much of that drive?

[spoonitnow]

That all makes sense. Thanks.

It also raises the question of long term variety, or perhaps variety is the wrong word, rather variation would be better. What I mean is that given the time constraints of female reproduction, it could be that preferences in variation in genetic fathering might span across years, meaning that a woman might want to seek a different genetic seed a year or so later, as opposed to men who can have the same feeling in a very short time frame.

What is the idea on this? Will a woman with a sufficiently attractive partner still seek outside that over a longer span of years, or is it believed there isn't much of that drive?

Don't miss my ninja edit on the above.

The idea on that particular line of questioning is that women in general don't have any particular drive to seek variety for the purposes of acquiring a variety of genetic material if the same male is available, provided that he continues to keep his level of attraction (ie: alpha levels, as detailed in the above post).

In practice, the same male often isn't available, and the one guy she's with will often turn into a fat video game addict with a really bad porn habit, and then she'll go get some alpha dick wherever.

As for the spirit of your question, the general idea is that a woman will acquire the best guy she can get and will generally want to be monogamous to him provided that he covers both the "alpha" and "beta" bases consistently. I think it's because of the inherent and unnecessary risk involved in seeking out another male when a perfectly suitable one is available.

[BananaStand]

How does this explain the commonplace infidelity that exists among celebrities?

These are people that are for the most part, incredibly attractive, and they are among the richest people in America. They meet both the alpha and beta needs that you described, fully.

[spoonitnow]

How does this explain the commonplace infidelity that exists among celebrities?

These are people that are for the most part, incredibly attractive, and they are among the richest people in America.

Men fuck other women because they can. Women fuck other men when one of their needs isn't getting met.

Additionally, a lot of the public pairings between celebrities are 100 percent fiction. A lot of the cheating is also 100 percent fiction. It's a work.

They meet both the alpha and beta needs that you described, fully.

No, they don't. Don't confuse their acting with who they are as individuals.

Hugh Jackman is a good example. He's a total bitch for his ugly ass wife.

[wufwugy]

As for the spirit of your question, the general idea is that a woman will acquire the best guy she can get and will generally want to be monogamous to him provided that he covers both the "alpha" and "beta" bases consistently. I think it's because of the inherent and unnecessary risk involved in seeking out another male when a perfectly suitable one is available.

Thats a good point. Even if women like the idea of outside alpha, the cost of doing so is too high if they already have inside alpha. This suggests that women may have evolved to only want to seek outside alpha (mostly) if the cost is too great to NOT seek it, i.e., the inside is too beta or something.

[spoonitnow]

Thats a good point. Even if women like the idea of outside alpha, the cost of doing so is too high if they already have inside alpha. This suggests that women may have evolved to only want to seek outside alpha (mostly) if the cost is too great to NOT seek it, i.e., the inside is too beta or something.

I want to point something out with your wording here. Within the RP praxeology, alpha and beta are not two ends of the same spectrum. Instead, they each have their own spectrum. A decrease of one does not inherently mean an increase of the other, etc.

This is one reason why the terms attraction/comfort have taken over for the alpha/beta labels in a number of relationship-oriented RP circles. Using the attraction/comfort language (which is what I virtually always use when talking these concepts to anyone ever) is just easier to deal with, I think, because it doesn't come tied with a bunch of the baggage that a lot of people have with the words alpha and beta themselves.

But again, they were only ever meant to be labels for convenience, much like we have the idea of alpha and beta values in poker as short-hands for referring to certain stats.

[spoonitnow]

Since I'm taking a break and apparently have nothing else better to do with the next 30 minutes or so than fuck off on the Internet, I'll give you a brief history of how the terminology developed.

So with the Greek letter approach, there's a separate set of labels for behaviors and for types of men. We've labeled alpha/beta behaviors in the above several posts. However, there's an adjacent labeling system for men that also uses a similar convention. Here's why that is, how each of the sets came to be and what various parts of the RP community have tried to do to handle the problems that came with that.

To being with, the original PUA circles of the mid-late 90s were started by guys who couldn't get laid, so they studied guys who could get laid and tried to figure out how to emulate them. From this came the original usage for alpha male or beta male. These labels corresponded to a binary yes/no on whether women generally wanted to fuck a guy or not. If girls wanted to fuck a guy, that was an alpha male, and if girls didn't want to fuck a guy, that was a beta male, using this distinction. It's a shorthand, and it's easier to use than spelling out the whole fucking thing every time.

This usage was expanded with omega male, which refers to a man who is sexually repulsive. This changed the alpha/beta thing from a binary distinction to a spectrum. From this, you had alpha/beta/omega males, which generally corresponded to men who were sexually attractive, sexually neutral or sexually repulsive, respectively.

Since the whole point of the early PUA culture was to try to emulate who they dubbed as alpha males (ie: guys who were sexually attractive), they started identifying and categorizing patterns of what they saw in men from each category. This led to identifiers for alpha, beta and omega behavior. While this was rudimentary as fuck, it was still pretty effective for its time.

----------

As the PUA culture expanded in the late 90s and early 00s, you started having different schools of thought and different ways of trying to develop the relevant body of theory. What was considered "fashionable" in terms of the relevant theory is a lot of what eventually formed the basis for the distinctions in the RP praxeology.

One of the developments was that PUAs realized what worked for an extroverted alpha may not work for an introverted alpha. This is why in some sections of the community, you'll see an alpha male actually referred to in terms of an extroverted guy who is sexually attractive, but you'll then see the sigma male moniker for an introverted guy who is sexually attractive. Similar happened to beta male (beta for extroverted/delta for introverted) and omega (gamma for extroverted/omega for introverted).

Now I realize all of that sounds like a pedantic circle jerk. However, if you want to see a fun example of this, think about guys who are are very loud and proud social justice warriors. They're typically sexually repulsive to women, but they're also typically extroverted as fuck. The result: gamma male.

Now think of the typical neckbeard who sits in his mom's basement playing video games at 24, who plays with a katana, who has a full-size body pillow of some Asian drawing and who bitches a lot about being out of Mountain Dew. He's sexually repulsive, but he's very introverted. That's an omega male.

So now mentally compare a gamma male and an omega male. They're both sexually unattractive but in a lot of different ways. The distinction is useful in this way.

----------

Very few modern RP groups use the above distinctions for the different types of males, and this is because today's RP game is completely different. It's no longer about trying to figure out what you need to emulate about someone else like it was with really early PUA game. Instead, everything is focused on the alpha/beta (attraction/comfort) distinction for behavior and characteristics, as relates to the dualistic sexual strategy of women we mentioned in earlier posts.

The terminology of alpha/beta and attraction/comfort mean the same thing, respectively, but you'll generally see alpha/beta discussed for single guys and attraction/comfort used for those who are married or in long-term relationships on somewhere like Reddit. The only reason for this is that attraction/comfort was the preferred usage on one particular forum that was the most popular place to discuss relationships through an RP lens, and when that forum shut down, the users just migrated to Reddit.

I personally prefer to use the attraction/comfort labels almost always because it avoids any of the baggage that people have over the alpha/beta language.

Edit: Wording.

[wufwugy]

I'm a little confused on how attraction and comfort are distinct and represent an entire set, perhaps because when you initially said attraction/provision, that made sense, but attraction/comfort seems it could be different in some nuanced ways. Could you expand on those?

[BananaStand]

I've been a New England Patriots fan my whole life. I'm not just some band-wagoner. I was there for the Bledsoe years so I definitely feel blessed to have had Tom Brady as my home-team quarterback for the last 17 years. So I don't say this often...

Go fuck yourself Tom Brady

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/0...r-pissant.html

Here's an idea....if you don't want people talking about your family...DON'T PUT THEM IN A MOVIE DUMBASS!!

While we're on the subject. How does Spoon explain this relationship?

Gisele makes more money than Tom, by alot. And from all the guys Gisele could choose from, Tom Brady isn't exactly the most masculine.

Tom has a job that consumes all of his time for at least 6 months out of the year, and a significant portion of this time the rest of the year. So it's not like he's spending a lot of time helping around the house or fulfilling other beta-male duties.

What's going on there?

[Poopadoop]

What's going on there?

It's called a guy sticking up for his daughter. What, you have a five-year-old and if someone talks shit about her, you're ok with that? Wtf man? She's five years old ffs.

[BananaStand]

It's called a guy sticking up for his daughter. What, you have a five-year-old and if someone talks shit about her, you're ok with that? Wtf man? She's five years old ffs.

Well my question was referring to something else. I was asking "What does Gisele see in Tom Brady?"

And you and Tom Brady are both being over-sensitive. Morning radio isn't exactly known for it's decorum. So if you're butt-hurt about something a jock says at 7am on a sports talk radio station....during super bowl week....then your head is just not screwed on straight.

Furthermore, the comments against his daughter were lukewarm at worst, and were clearly in jest.

Finally, if you don't want your daughter scrutinized....DON'T PUT HER IN A FUCKING MOVIE!!

[spoonitnow]

I'm a little confused on how attraction and comfort are distinct and represent an entire set, perhaps because when you initially said attraction/provision, that made sense, but attraction/comfort seems it could be different in some nuanced ways. Could you expand on those?

Provisions/comfort are describing the same set of things, but that may not be readily apparent. The more provisions you have, the more comfort you have, etc.

If we use the example of the typical guy who is friend-zoned, we'd say he's low-attraction and high-comfort or high-provisions, but the latter two mean the same thing. He's going to be much more likely to give her shit, do shit for her, provide emotional comfort, etc. Those sets of behaviors always come together, in part because the simple act of giving provisions provides comfort, and providing comfort requires the giving of some type of provision, even if it's just time.

While we're on the subject. How does Spoon explain this relationship?

Gisele makes more money than Tom, by alot. And from all the guys Gisele could choose from, Tom Brady isn't exactly the most masculine.

Tom has a job that consumes all of his time for at least 6 months out of the year, and a significant portion of this time the rest of the year. So it's not like he's spending a lot of time helping around the house or fulfilling other beta-male duties.

What's going on there?

On the attraction/alpha side: He's pretty fucking masculine both in how he looks and his behavior. He's a leader of extremely masculine men, and that plays into it as well. There are millions of women who want to fuck him as well, and that plays into preselection, which I haven't recently discussed, but is an enormous factor in attraction. There's not really much you can say to disagree with that unless you're just being ridiculous.

On the comfort/provisions/beta side: She doesn't make that much more money than he does (less than double).

----------

On a related topic, the older women get, the less likely they are to try to branch swing because their value inherently drops, which means the risk of trying to leave increases. This is similar to what we were talking about a few posts above.

[Poopadoop]

if you're butt-hurt about something a jock says at 7am on a sports talk radio station....during super bowl week....then your head is just not screwed on straight.

You're the one getting butthurt and saying 'fuck this guy for sticking up for his kid', like that makes him an asshole, 'cause poor you you won't get to hear him say 'we gotta go out there and give 110%' on the radio for the next week.

[BananaStand]

You're the one getting butthurt and saying 'fuck this guy for sticking up for his kid', like that makes him an asshole,

You're still misunderstanding. I'm not down on the guy for sticking up for his kid. I'm down on the guy for putting his kid in that position in the first place. He has very very dubious standing to be complaining.

'cause poor you you won't get to hear him say 'we gotta go out there and give 110%' on the radio for the next week.

Again, you've totally missed the point. Either that or you really just wanna argue. Count me out.

[Poopadoop]

You're still misunderstanding. I'm not down on the guy for sticking up for his kid. I'm down on the guy for putting his kid in that position in the first place. He has very very dubious standing to be complaining.


Again, you've totally missed the point. Either that or you really just wanna argue. Count me out.

Right. If you put your little kid on TV you should expect some douchebag on the radio to talk shit about them and then expect you to act like it's all good.

[BananaStand]

On the attraction/alpha side: He's pretty fucking masculine both in how he looks and his behavior.

Actually, lately he's shown to be quite an over-sensitive crybaby. And I'm not just talking about his recent spaz-out at the radio host.

Also, "pretty fucking masculine" is a relative term. We're not talking about the dating pool that your typical bar slut or tinder-user has to deal with. If Gisele likes muscles and strength and toughness and competitiveness, she doesn't have to settle for Tom Brady.

[spoonitnow]

Actually, lately he's shown to be quite an over-sensitive crybaby. And I'm not just talking about his recent spaz-out at the radio host.

Also, "pretty fucking masculine" is a relative term. We're not talking about the dating pool that your typical bar slut or tinder-user has to deal with. If Gisele likes muscles and strength and toughness and competitiveness, she doesn't have to settle for Tom Brady.

Cool

[wufwugy]

Spoon, what are the beliefs on how much of this women themselves understand?

An observation I've had is that, well, they seem to understand themselves little, particularly when it comes to this sort of thing.

[wufwugy]

Actually, lately he's shown to be quite an over-sensitive crybaby. And I'm not just talking about his recent spaz-out at the radio host.

Also, "pretty fucking masculine" is a relative term. We're not talking about the dating pool that your typical bar slut or tinder-user has to deal with. If Gisele likes muscles and strength and toughness and competitiveness, she doesn't have to settle for Tom Brady.

High status is a significant player on the attraction side of things. I would argue it's the single biggest component. Just look at women who go fucking retarded at the prospect of fucking their favorite rock star.

[spoonitnow]

Spoon, what are the beliefs on how much of this women themselves understand?

An observation I've had is that, well, they seem to understand themselves little, particularly when it comes to this sort of thing.

Generally speaking, the idea is that most women understand very little of it and often have no idea what they really want. That's why some of the best advice in dealing with women is to watch what they do instead of what they say.

[wufwugy]

Generally speaking, the idea is that most women understand very little of it and often have no idea what they really want. That's why some of the best advice in dealing with women is to watch what they do instead of what they say.

Frankly, I like that rule of thumb when applied to men as well.

[spoonitnow]

Frankly, I like that rule of thumb when applied to men as well.

I mean of course, but in the context of what we're talking about here, the whole point is to try to get guys to understand that beta characteristics aren't going to get them laid (even though that's what most women say they want), which is what gets them into friend-zone type situations in the first place, the nice guy thing, etc.

[wufwugy]

on topic

[spoonitnow]

on topic

That's fucking hilarious.

[BananaStand]

I just went to the vending machine in my building to buy a Pop Tart.

It costs $1.50. I put the $2 in the machine. I pushed the buttons. My Pop Tart was dispensed.

Then, the machine beeps three times and the screen says "WINNER"

Then I received $2 as change.

A vending machine....wtf???

EDIT: Where's Jack? Someone tell him kids could be gambling!!

[Savy]

I assume you then spent 50k in the same machine just to watch the empty row swirl.

[OngBonga]

Someone was repeatedly trying to reset my password.

My money is on that crazy cute chick.

[spoonitnow]

My money is on that crazy cute chick.

I highly doubt it. The IP was from Eastern Europe.

[spoonitnow]

A friend outside of poker and FTR asked me about how the friend-zone works from a RP lens, so I figured I'd share it here (with minor edits to use Hero/Villain poker language because lol why not) since it's somewhat on-topic. I use the attraction/comfort language here since that's what I typically use in general. I've previously described the attraction and comfort behaviors to him, so that's established beforehand.

----------

Modern men in general have been taught to be very good at offering comfort to women. Along with this, they've *not* been taught that attraction is even something they should work on. In fact, most attempts at actively trying to make themselves more attractive in this sense are met with criticism. This leads to scenarios where young men in particular are confused as to why they aren't attracting women when they are doing everything they can in the comfort side of things. They are completely oblivious to the attraction spectrum.

The following is an example of what can happen in these circumstances where a guy is taught to give tons of comfort but is blind to the need for building attraction:

1. Stacy is a cute girl. She meets Hero, and they become friends.
2. Hero is nice and funny. He helps Stacy change her headlight one day when it's out. He takes her out to eat for her birthday and brings her flowers occasionally just because. He's really trying to show her that he's a great guy.
3. Stacy complains to Hero on and off about Villain. Villain is a guy Stacy used to date who cheated on her. They broke up a while back, but she still sees him (ie: fucks him) even though he's an asshole to her and won't commit.
4. Hero really hates Villain. He thinks Stacy should be treated better than Villain treats her, and Hero can't understand why she keeps messing around with a guy who treats her like that.
5. One day Hero gets his nerve up and tells Stacy how he feels about her and that he's in love with her. Stacy acts shocked, and says she doesn't think of him like that. He's like a brother to her. Hero is heartbroken, but he sucks it up and agrees to continue to be friends since he thinks that's the right thing to do (plus it gives him a non-zero percent chance of her "seeing the light").
6. Hero decides that women only want assholes like Villain, so he starts being an asshole to Stacy. Stacy tells him off, and Hero flips his fucking shit because he's confused. He can't understand why being an asshole didn't work either since, to him, that's obviously what Stacy wanted.

From a RP perspective, Hero offers Stacy a lot of comfort with little attraction, and Villain offers Stacy a lot of attraction with little comfort. The natural thing for Stacy to do here is to extract resources from Hero (including time) while extracting genetic material from Villain by giving him some ass on a regular basis. From this example, there are a few important points:

• Stacy doesn't understand why she keeps going back to Villain. She's been told her whole life that she's supposed to want the comfort-based things, so she can logically see that Villain is bad for her with respect to that, but she doesn't understand why she still feels compelled to go to him.
• Stacy may even wish she felt attraction for Hero, but she doesn't. She can't necessarily explain why she doesn't, even if you asked her directly, outside of "I don't see him like that" or "he's like a brother to me."
• Hero is completely blind to the idea of attraction and focuses completely on comfort. This is due to conditioning from the time he was born, and it's the source of his problems in this regard. He probably develops severe misogyny via thinking women are some type of evil, malfunctioning, illogical pieces of shit.
• The RP praxeology, even today, seeks to teach men like Hero that the attraction spectrum exists, that it's important, why it's important, why it cannot be escaped (ie: it's biological, not just because women are evil w/e pieces of shit) and how to go about improving your own position on it. This is the number one point of all of it.

The friend-zoned scenario is the number one most important and most instructive scenario in all of the RP praxeology. Virtually every single core concept can be demonstrated with it.

[wufwugy]

And that's why the best thing Hero can do is focus on himself.

Providing comfort before attraction is established is bad news.

[wufwugy]

Best thing Hero can say in this situation?

I'd go with "are you really that clueless?" and leaving and not initiating contact anymore.

[spoonitnow]

And that's why the best thing Hero can do is focus on himself.

Providing comfort before attraction is established is bad news.

Men are actively discouraged from improving themselves in ways that would improve attraction. This is the "blue pill" conditioning, sticking with the pill analogy. I know you've relatively recently become a big JP fan, and he talks about this same type of idea here and there in terms of the Oedipal scenario where the mother shelters the child from hardship to the point that he can never do anything from himself. Again, using JP's common lexicon, the type of self-improvement that would lead to increased opportunities to mate are tied to scaling dominance hierarchies, and that all gets tied together.

Getting away from the JP references, there are different approaches that you'll find among different segments of the RP community about how to go about improving your position on the attraction spectrum and what should be done about your position on the comfort spectrum (along with how to manage each of those in the general sense). These different approaches and the reasoning behind them are the sources of the biggest fundamental differences between the various present-day RP communities.

It's worth noting that there are different female-oriented and gay/trans-oriented groups that use the RP praxeology to different ends as well. It's seen as a toolbox, and the idea is to learn what the tools are and how to use them. From there, you can go build whatever [life] you want as best you can.

----------

I'll give a quick run-down of the process of how Hero could learn to focus on himself from the lens of the RP praxeology.

Generally speaking, the first step is for a guy to accept it. By that, I mean accepting that there's nothing inherently wrong with women; they just are the way they are. It often takes a while to do this, and it's also generally the period where a man's misogyny decreases substantially. Ideally, he stops hating women and thinking they are inherently flawed, and instead, he starts accepting them for what they are.

There's even the idea that you can never actually love a woman before you do this since you'd just be loving your extremely mistaken idea of her, which isn't real, but that gets into some heavy stuff that's outside of the scope of what I'm talking about here.

Before a guy fully accepts it and passes the anger phase (ie: "completely swallows the red pill"), he'll have an extremely hard time climbing the attraction ladder. That's because his overwhelming emotion and resentment will hold him back in various ways. A significant percentage of men who are exposed to these ideas (arguably over half depending on who you ask and what counts as exposure to these ideas) never make it past this stage.

Once he accepts the reality of the situation, then he has to make it past another important hurdle: He has to learn how to improve for himself and not for women. This is neither trivial nor easy for most men who find themselves in this position because they've been trained their entire lives that their primary calling in life is to serve someone else's wants and needs instead of their own.

The approach for this, in a nutshell, centers around the development of an idea called a covert contract.* A covert contract is when you do X in order to get Y, but the person who would give you Y isn't aware of the agreement. For example, a guy might think if he does A, B and C that he'll then get girl D to like him, and it just doesn't work like that, especially if she has no idea. A married guy might start doing more housework hoping that it'll make his wife want to fuck him more instead of just doing shit because it needs to be done, as another example.

* To use the terminology from the Christianity thread, a covert contract is a kind of senseless/misguided sacrifice where you sacrifice X to someone else expecting them to reward you in some way instead of sacrificing X to yourself for the sake of improvement. This is seen in the friend-zoned scenario with Hero making sacrifices to Stacy expecting to get something out of it instead of making sacrifices to himself and letting good things happen organically from that. Cain had a covert contract in his head with his own sacrifice, Villain is Abel within the analogy (oddly enough considered what we're conditioned to believe), etc.

Seeking out covert contracts in your life and removing/adjusting them so that you're sacrificing to yourself (instead of sacrificing to someone else and expecting something in return without their knowledge) sometimes involves assertiveness training. There's a short reading list that helps to develop this pretty rapidly, and the need for assertiveness training is that it helps with learning to tell people no, etc., which is a critical skill needed to avoid future covert contracts and to end the ones that you have going on already.

Once you have that, you're all set to work on yourself for yourself for its own sake, and you get to decide what that looks like. You can essentially sacrifice yourself to yourself at your own altar on your own terms without getting tripped up or pulled back into a bunch of bullshit.

Edit: Fixed a missed space after punctuation.

[spoonitnow]

Best thing Hero can say in this situation?

I'd go with "are you really that clueless?" and leaving and not initiating contact anymore.

The best thing Hero can do in that situation is to leave it completely, go no-contact with the girl for life and work through the process I outlined in my post right before this one.

She may or may not be that clueless. She probably doesn't really understand why she feels the way she does. It's pretty irrelevant to the big picture because he can't control what she does; he can only control what she does, which is the point (as you can see from the above wrt covert contracts, sacrifice to her vs. sacrifice to the self, etc.).

[OngBonga]

Today I bought a ton of logs. I am officially no longer a townie.

[spoonitnow]

Today I bought a ton of logs. I am officially no longer a townie.

Idk if you mean actual logs or if that's some weed slang I don't know.

[BananaStand]

Idk if you mean actual logs or if that's some weed slang I don't know.

Pretty sure he means actual logs. He was cheering himself on about log-burners the other day. I assume that's brit talk for "I bought some firewood for my fireplace"

I'm not sure what the British translation for "townie" is. In my slang dictionary the term refers to prominent people/families in really small towns. That doesn't sound like Ong though.

[wufwugy]

townie is just another way of saying cookie cutter bummers