muggiwhplar

I didnt know that— how strict?

We're both driving, so drinks are off the table. This one, if it does go right, is way more than a hook up. Known her for 8 years, but as I said, always thought she out of my league, so never really even considered asking her out.But damn, I did already have a bit of a crush on her back then and she still hot as. And not only that, but she also interested in quite a few of the same stuff. I just have 1 drink, sometimes 2. Never more than that, since were always both driving

can anyone recommend fun couch co-op games for the switch?

Letting her control the logistics is a bad idea IMO... I always just do drinks or coffee for dates. I only had a restaurant date like once or twice when I was a total beginner. If I were in your shoes I would’ve said something like “I’m just going to want to relax that night— had a long stressful week. Let’s just hang out and talk [at my place -or- over drinks] Keep doing whatever you’ve been doing with the girl complaining about not seeing you enough. If you start seeing her more often because she’s complaining about it, her interest in you will go down

Sorry saqs :(

boards better not kick the bucket before the conclusion of the coveted miss hottie 2016 finals

1. Neither did I-- I thoroughly enjoyed turning heads at the gym when they'd see the 125 lb twig benching more than the 200 lb buff guy sitting on the bench next to him. But the look on women's faces when I'm turning them on is more satisfying than the look on strangers' faces at the gym; I'd never go back to being 125 lbs after being on the other side. 2. I'd imagine men are less picky than women and mostly just care about your looks-- and they also probably don't care if you look like a rugged, masculine dude or a twink. Women, on the other hand, strongly prefer masculine dudes, so it's in your best interest to steer yourself towards that end of the spectrum. 3. Not entirely sure what you mean by this-- there's certain parts of my personality that I'd love to reveal to women, but I won't because I know they either don't care or don't understand/appreciate it like some of my guy friends would. But I have plenty of guy friends who appreciate those traits of mine, so I don't feel too bad about not having any women to appreciate them. 4. Because you've only been going to the gym for a couple of months and, like me, you're probably genetically predisposed to have a slower response to training than the average person. It's not fair but that's why lifting's fun-- swimming against the current of your genetics builds character :P 5. Go to a good hairstylist (not SportClips or w/e) and tell them that and see if they can give you a better haircut to make your face look more attractive 6. By the time a girl sees your loose skin she won't care Focus on getting your main lifts up to the intermediate range. Some will progress slower than others. After years and years, my bench was in the advanced range while my squat was still novice. My legs didn't start looking strong till I was approaching the intermediate range on squats. The intermediate range is essentially level 85 in a skill on RuneScape, with Advanced being level 92 and elite being level 99+ You're not going to start looking strong until: 1. Most of your lifts are in or near the intermediate range 2. You're dieting correctly (long read, but it's what worked for me); in a nutshell, you download myfitnesspal, record everything you eat, and see what it says your macros are. Your goal should be muscle gain until you reach 165 lbs, then when you're 165 it should be recomposition. Following the chart, that means you should be consuming 2788.5 calories per day till you're 165 lbs. Of those 2788.5 calories, they should be 26% protein, 47% carbs, and 27% fat. When you're 165 lbs, you should be consuming 2103.75 calories per day, with those calories being 36% protein, 39% carbs, and 25% fat. The closer your diet is to those numbers, the leaner and more muscular your body will be. The further away you are, the fatter/weaker you'll look

Funny you brought this up-- a guy I know from college is a 28 year old virgin, and I saw him for the first time in years this weekend. He's close friends with my old roommate from college, who was in the closet throughout college but is now openly gay and dating another guy. The group they all hang out with is mostly gay dudes, domineering women, and effeminate men dating the domineering women. I hung out with them this weekend and it made me wonder if part of the reason why he's still a virgin is because he's just completely out of touch with his masculine sexuality as a result of spending so much time with that crowd. Whenever I hang out with that group, I have to do it in small doses because the feminine energy of the group is so overwhelming lol. Or maybe my friend's just in the closet >_>

Most people are. Comes with practice.

that's impressive-- my squats suck. how much do you weigh?

Thanks for being honest. If sex is something that men get from women, what do women get? Attention. I agree that she has the agency to either have sex sooner or later, just as he has the agency to decide if he's willing to wait for sex or not. I elaborated on my stance here. Sometimes sex is transactional, sometimes it isn't. There's a reason why you hear stories of wives and girlfriends withholding sex from their partners, but not usually the other way around. Men and women view and prioritize sex differently. I disagree with that-- I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Sure there's plenty of men out there who don't give a shit about their partner's enjoyment, but it's usually in the man's best interest to make sure his partner enjoys having sex with him. The topic of "being genuine" goes back to the points I made here and here. If you're not satisfied with your dating life despite being 100% genuine, then that means you're doing something wrong and you need to do something differently. In order to do something differently, you have to change in some way. And if you're going to change, then you have to discard a piece of yourself in order to transform into something new and adapt to your current challenges. Like a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly. It's still the same creature; but it's also different. So you could say the lost freedom to be genuine is worth it when you're rewarded for your efforts in ways you weren't prior to your transformation. And after the transformation is complete, you regain the freedom to be genuine-- but this newfound authenticity manifests itself differently; and if you were to behave like you did prior to the transformation, you'd no longer be behaving genuinely. Hope that makes sense. Success is subjective and varies wildly from person to person. Within the context of dating and relationships, some people consider getting married as the ultimate form of success in that area. For others, they don't consider marriage a success unless it lasts for the rest of their lives, without either of them cheating, and without either of them resenting each other. Some people view success as simply being able to get laid, or to get a girlfriend. For me, personally, my idea of success is being able to have enough control over my dating life such that I can go meet and have sex with at least two new women within 30 days; as well as the ability to date 2-3 women simultaneously, without getting monogamous, and without lying to them. This requires me to put in a lot of time and effort into understanding how to meet women and how to successfully and ethically communicate my desires to them. You say you disagree, but what you wrote doesn't seem to counter what you were replying to. With regard to "roles, expectations, desires, and priorities," I believe there are more variation among men or among women than between either group. I think you're ignoring or understating the challenges that accompany being constrained by the role played; the things you must do, or the things you would do but can't, desires forbidden by your role, or pretended interest. You don't seem to acknowledge that you also narrow your options by conforming to those roles; those people wind up in your "not interested" bin, and you might never know (or care) why. Maybe one is more severe than the other, or more desirable. I place a much great value on being true to myself than on having sex with someone who might only be willing as long as I fill a certain role. I disagree that sex is all about men, however more often than not I'd argue that women are the gatekeepers of sex. The necessity of fitting into your predefined gender role mostly depends on what your idea of success is with regards to dating/relationships, like I just covered. If all you want is to have sex with one girl, or just have one girlfriend, or just get married to one woman, then your idea of success will be easier to reach than mine since mine requires consistency. However, in my experience, as well as the experience of others (just ask Veiva or browse through the past month's posts in the relationships thread), the more you behave within your gender role, the easier it will be for you to find a partner. There's exceptions obviously, but generally if you're a heterosexual male looking for a heterosexual female, the more traditionally masculine you are, the more options and "room for error" you have when dating. I'm privileged in the sense that I was born a cis heterosexual man that seeks heterosexual women. However by the time I was an adult at age 18, I wasn't very masculine at all; I had to dedicate a lot of time and effort into exploring my masculinity and cultivating it. Again, I'm privileged in that I find it satisfying to become more masculine because there aren't many downsides to it. Someone like Veiva doesn't have this luxury since he's bisexual and enjoys being feminine, unlike me. I don't think there are many people (regardless of gender or orientation) who are more interested in people who dress poorly, severely lack confidence, and treat their bodies like garbage; never mind people who are more interested because of those things. Selling it as "what women want" seems disingenuous. I agree. My point was that PUA, ideally, is meant to be self-improvement for men, within the context of dating. Unfortunately, given the nature of sexually-frustrated men or men who have become jaded, a lot of this gets warped in unethical, misogynistic ways. It's like manufacturing guns for the purpose of self-defense, but acknowledging the fact that there's some psychos out there who will use guns maliciously. The aspects of PUA that I've studied the most were essentially how to become a more confident, well-rounded person. It sounds like common sense but it's not something that I was taught growing up. I was taught to simply "be myself," change nothing about myself, and eventually I'd find someone who liked me for who I was. That never happened. And after I expanded my goals to more than just finding one girlfriend or wife, that also required me to evolve as a man. I was also raised to feel somewhat ashamed for wanting to have sex with women so I never learned how to explore my own sexuality, and how to ethically and effectively communicate my sexuality to women until I discovered PUA. That's certainly part of it, but I also don't like painting around half the planet's population with a single brush either. Any assertion that women or men are a certain way, or should be a certain way, is going to ruffle my feathers. Even if you qualify it with "most," you're using very broad strokes.Presenting women as machines with buttons for a potential partner to press is upsetting in a visceral way, that sex is the reward for pressing the right buttons probably doesn't help. We'll have to agree to disagree, especially with regards to "most." There's plenty of variation among everyone-- everyone's unique in their own ways. But we all still have the same basic blueprints for our brains and our bodies. Our upbringings and genetics are what make everybody unique; and some people have mutations and disorders. As an extreme example, if you were to randomly punch 100 strangers in the face unprovoked, I think it's safe to say that "most" of them would react negatively. Does that mean I'm painting humans with a single brush? Technically yes, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say here. I've been on hundreds of first dates now over the years, and so have many of the PUA gurus-- so when they give advice based on experience like that, I'd like to assume that there must be some merit to what they're saying. Whether they're right for the right reasons or not is up in the air, but I think it's silly to dismiss everything they're saying just because they're speaking in generalizations.

I think that's the issue. There doesn't seem to be any objective, specific definition for things like "rape culture" or "toxic masculinity"-- which means anyone can interpret them as they see fit and apply them whenever they want since they're such broad, vague terms.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. It seems like the idea of men consciously doing something "unnatural" in order to get laid, as opposed to being 100% "natural" or "being themselves" is what's leaving a bad taste in your mouth. Does that sound about right? I appreciate the clarification

Sounds like we're going to have to agree to disagree about what an "endorsement" is then. I don't agree that "it works" is an endorsement, given the context of the statement: He himself does not neg, and the fact that he says "I do admit..." makes it sound like he reluctantly concedes that they can be effective, despite the fact that they're unethical. To me, if he were endorsing negs, he would say, "Negging works, and not enough men utilize this technique. Now here's how to do it..." Imagine if I said, "Though I personally do not own a firearm, I do admit they can often work if you want to murder someone, specifically a defenseless person." Does that mean I endorse murder or buying a firearm for illegal and malicious purposes? I accused you of dodging the other discussion since you never responded to my points here and instead to chose to nitpick the negging thing.

I think you’re grasping at straws at this point by focusing on the negging and ignoring my other arguments as well as the overall point of the article. If he doesn’t neg, and doesn’t recommend negging, then you can’t argue that he’s endorsing it. I agree that he isn’t condemning them either though, however you seem to be issuing a false dichotomy here where you’re either endorsing or condemning; I’m arguing he doesn’t neg, doesn’t recommend negging, but also isn’t telling you not to neg. That’s neither endorsing nor condeming. Again, nuance. You’re viewing this as black and white when it’s more complicated than that. Similarly, you seem to be confusing the fact that he’s referencing it as an example to prove his point, as opposed to writing a full blog post dedicated to “techniques” including negging, and how negging works and therefore everyone should learn how to do it, and here’s how to do it. Negging has never been a technique that any modern dating expert pushes. The author doesn’t go into any further detail about negging because the article isn’t about negging; it was just used as an example to illustrate his point (which you seem to be avoiding discussing) Regardless, you’re focusing too much attention on one minor part of the greater article, and you’re focusing on something which nobody on this board has even discussed until you guys read it in the article and decided to hone in on it rather than looking at the bigger picture as well as my other arguments.

Why? Short list, because I'm on my way to bed and don't want to pull it up again:Sex is something women allow men to have or that men earn from women. Sex is all about men, and women are the gatekeepers who can be placated by filling a role and acting in a certain "manly" way that isn't necessarily in their nature. Any individuality of the particular person sitting across the table from you is irrelevant, because women are all similar enough that they're pretty well interchangeable. I think you're oversimplifying things and putting words in his/my mouth. This goes back to the nuances I talked about in a previous post today. To concisely address your points: 1. Generally, yeah. There's a reason why I'm the one expected to make the first move and lead things along-- it's because I was born as a male. Until a significant number of women insist on assuming roles traditionally reserved for and expected of men, and vice versa, you have to operate under traditional expectations if you want to be in control of your dating life. Is that fair? Not really, but pretending that the world exists how you wish it would exist, rather than how it actually exists usually leads to unhappiness and a lack of success. 2. Disagree; both genders both have their own unique roles, expectations, desires, and priorities. Generally speaking, if you act outside of your expected role, your options will be narrowed and your experience will be more challenging. If you behave in a way which suggests you desire something you actually don't, your experience will be more challenging. 3. Every woman's different. But most women will react favorably to the three things I listed here, which are emphasized in the blog post you're criticizing. I don't think there's any women out there that would say, "I dislike men who dress well" or "I dislike men who are self-assured and confident" or "I dislike men who take care of their bodies." Or, at the very least, if such women exist, they're in the extreme minority to the point where it's safe to assume that a woman you're on a date with doesn't belong in that category.

It was mentioned in the article you linked earlier. And the author said so himself that he doesn't endorse them. If all you guys got from reading my essays here are "muggi and his sources recommend negging" then this discussion is hopeless because you guys are just cherrypicking I don't even know what negging is. I know that reading what you linked makes me feel like I should shower thoroughly. Why?

I wish one of the mods would create a new thread (or two/three) and move all the posts into there... sucks having to dig through a 2000+ page thread to find discussions like these in the future

It was mentioned in the article you linked earlier. And the author said so himself that he doesn't endorse them. If all you guys got from reading my essays here are "muggi and his sources recommend negging" then this discussion is hopeless because you guys are just cherrypicking

There's a lot of nuance in PUA literature that I think most people (both PUAs and people who condemn PUA) either lack the willingness or the ability to carefully examine. The fact that you used negging as an example suggests to me that you haven't really spent much time researching PUA-- like obfuscator said, nobody on this forum has said anything about negging within the last 10 years. That's a term that became popularized with Mystery in like 1998, and by 2008 nobody used it anymore both because it's unethical and because it's ineffective. I don't really want to identify as a PUA or anything because whenever I look at PUA forums, or /r/theredpill, or any subreddit or forum associated with PUA, men's dating, men's rights, etc. I roll my eyes at 99% of the stuff I read there because it reeks of insecure men who can't get laid, but think they understand how things work due to faulty logic and trusting the wrong dating authority figures. I've been studying PUA literature since like 2005, and experimenting with different things over the years to figure out what works and what doesn't work for me-- and that's a big part of it. What works for me might not work to you due to differences in our physical appearance, personalities, beliefs, and geographical location. For that reason, I think it's important for men to be "proactive skeptics." Meaning, they should read some piece of advice online, and then they should go out into the real world and see how it works for them. I'd argue that the vast, vast majority of men are too afraid to do that; they'd rather just sit in the comfort of their computer chair, devouring knowledge that they'll never put into practice to determine its validity, while simultaneously boosting their egos as some sort of ladies man because they think they have all the answers, despite not having any experience to back it up. With that said, there are indeed some pieces of advice that are almost universal for all men to follow, which will definitely help them be more successful with women, regardless of what their goals are, and regardless of what their personal variables are which I mentioned above (appearance, personality, location, etc). 1. Maximize your physical attractiveness: go to the gym and if you're underweight, go put on muscle. If you're overweight, go lose fat. If nobody consistently compliments your hairstyle, go to a stylist and have them give you a fashionable haircut that works with your facial structure. If you never receive consistent compliments on your attire, upgrade your wardrobe and get cool clothes which accentuate your physique. 2. Develop good social skills like a normal human being: get a job which forces you to be social, depending on where you fall on the "social skills" bell curve. If you're in the bottom 10% and you're afraid to make eye contact with strangers, then go work as a cashier where you're forced to interact with tons of people, but conversation is optional. If you're comfortable around strangers but don't know how to talk to them or how to deal with them, then work in sales and you'll be forced to learn that skill. 3. Develop confidence: this comes from both experience and success-- I had to go on literally hundreds of first dates before I got to the point where I'm at now. and I had to get rejected, both online and in person, by hundreds of women as well. most men aren't willing to subject themselves to such a difficult path to self-improvement. it's easier to whine and complain than to put in the effort. but now I'm confident enough to make a move on a woman and see where things go, and I'm confident enough to be completely verbally upfront and straightforward about my desires if I want to be. #3 is the one where most guys get confused. they don't have the confidence to go out and see what works with them, so they never develop any confidence until they do. they might even know what they "should" be doing, and that it's worked for others, but they still can't bring themselves to do it because they're so terrified. take a look at the relationships thread over the years and it's filled with guys who are too afraid to ask women out or to make a move on them during a date because they lack confidence. and unsurprisingly, those who do eventually break the cycle and make a move find that... it works!

Do people with that mentality not recognize the danger they're putting innocent people in? Sadly I met a lot of people in college who didn't give a [bleep] about drunk driving. I think the Dunning Kruger Effect is in play a lot of the time here-- these people are so arrogant and lacking in self-awareness that they genuinely believe that they're capable of driving correctly despite being hammered. Unsurprisingly, most of those people ended up with DUIs by the time they graduated. Some even got multiple DUIs. :wall:

I don’t think you understand what we were discussingI dunno, I feel Ginger hit my point pretty square on the head. In any case, it looks like this conversation is heading in a direction I don't really wanna take it, so I'm gonna back out and "agree to disagree" as the saying goes. Don't you think it's a bit silly for Ginger to call it "obvious and reasonable" when it's only obvious and reasonable to you guys? If it were "obvious and reasonable" we wouldn't be discussing this. Given the fact that neither of you really responded to my clarification, I'm assuming you either more-or-less agree with me or you can't argue otherwise. If you're gonna agree to disagree, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you provided the rationale behind doing so.

I don't know anyone who was killed by a drunk driver, but I know better than to suggest drunk driving isn't dangerous. And you know that because it's strongly supported by tons of statistical data and research, which the scientific community more or less unanimously agrees with

I don’t think you understand what we were discussing

Just realized I forgot to respond to this. To be clear, I'm not assuming the worst out of every woman when they say "we should wait." I'm not really assuming anything because at that point, it doesn't matter why she wants to wait; all that matters is the fact that she wants to wait, which means we're incompatible. At which point I politely excuse myself and find someone else. Sometimes women have valid reasons for wanting to wait, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're manipulating you, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they're unintentionally manipulating you without realizing it, sometimes they know what they're doing. We'll never know, only she does. All we can do is make assumptions based on her words and actions (with her actions having more weight). While her reasoning behind withholding sex is irrelevant to me since I just move on and spend my time with other women, it's more relevant to people like Noxx and Ginger who are willing/eager to not see any other women and instead cross their fingers, waiting for their girl to eventually come around (which she rarely does). This discussion is about guys like them who enter the friend zone, thinking that by being nice, and complying with her preferences, they'll eventually get to sleep with her. In my experience, complying with a woman's preferences when you don't want to leads to frustration and rarely leads to where you want it to lead-- especially if she knows you're doing something you'd prefer not to do, just to make her happy. That kind of thing murders female attraction. The sad reality is that women ironically become more attracted to you when you're willing to say no to their demands or when you're willing to walk away; they respect you and view you as a man with a backbone when you prioritize your preferences over hers (I really hope you don't take what I'm saying and try to twist this into "OH so you should have sex with her without her consent, and then she'll be more attracted to you and respect you?!" NO, that's not what I'm saying). So back to my original quotes which struck a nerve with you: Chances are she's probably not actually consciously thinking this. But it's very common for her to feel that way on biological level. Complying with a woman over something you don't want to comply with is going to make her lose attraction for you-- but the reason why this isn't common knowledge is because despite losing attraction, women will often outwardly express joy and happiness when you choose to comply with them, leading you to believe that you're making the right decision when you're doing the opposite. Conversely, if you say no to a woman's demands she'll probably express frustration with you... despite the fact that she's actually become more attracted to you for doing so. This blog post sums the concept up pretty well. Women change their minds all the time and make exceptions to their own rules constantly, which is why I'm usually skeptical about taking what they say at face value. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the right guy came along, and the girl Noxx is seeing suddenly had sex with him right away because she was so attracted to him, despite telling Noxx that she "wants to wait." So, Tesset, I'd probably agree with you that this girl isn't trying to manipulate or control Noxx-- or, at least, she's not trying to do so intentionally or maliciously. I'm just examining what I believe is probably going through her mind, to make her say something like that, as someone who's been with many women who have either said that to me, or told me about how they said that to other men despite sleeping with me after knowing me for less than 2 hours.