Today...

[Ember]

.

[obfuscator]

 

 

 

 

 

Just to rewind (and de-escalate this rather silly row), no one actually said: "stick with someone even when they're not offering what you're expecting from a relationship, in the hope that one day they will". One fellow TIFer, who happens to be female, simply asked that you stopped assuming Statement X was a manipulation of Statement Y based on nothing else except the gender of the person saying it.

 

Seemed like a pretty obvious and reasonable request to me and I think most people outside of this place, especially women, could empathise with that.

I don’t think you understand what we were discussing

I 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.

Was going to wait until I got home and could use a keyboard, but in short, I think there's a lot of unsubstantiated claims about how women think being made by individuals who have no authority to know how women think, which is what a lot of PUA boils down to imo.

I mean, if they're getting results, then that's a pretty clear indication that they do (on average) understand women sufficiently to get laid

[Tesset]

Or they're lucky, or they're throwing lots of spaghetti at the wall, or the thing they're doing is effective not for the reason they think, or their predatory tactics are effective but harmful to the women they date, or there's a survivor's bias in reports, or any number of other reasons. It's hard to know whether their tactics are effective for the stated reason or not without some kind of scientific evidence.

[The Observer]

Do you suppose that many people who are willing to rape are going to be deterred by a poster saying to ask for consent?

I was not referring to simply a poster. Those are meaningless. I meant more ingrained such as what was included in the original sex-ed curriculum Ontario that begins to talk about consent at a young age to make it a regular part of life growing up. This can be substantiated by normalizing consent in other ways. 

[obfuscator]

Or they're lucky, or they're throwing lots of spaghetti at the wall, or the thing they're doing is effective not for the reason they think, or their predatory tactics are effective but harmful to the women they date, or there's a survivor's bias in reports, or any number of other reasons. It's hard to know whether their tactics are effective for the stated reason or not without some kind of scientific evidence.

Possible, but occam's razor applies here...if they are successful with women, it's most likely because they generally understand them

[Tesset]

Wheras I'm unconvinced that they are in fact more successful than other men who are just as persistent/good looking/whatever, but who don't assume secret "biological" reasons behind all of a woman's actions.

 

And we can debate this until the cows come jome, but neither one of us intends to go looking for proof that will be sufficiently convincing to the other. Thus, agree to disagree.

[obfuscator]

 

Do you suppose that many people who are willing to rape are going to be deterred by a poster saying to ask for consent?

I was not referring to simply a poster. Those are meaningless. I meant more ingrained such as what was included in the original sex-ed curriculum Ontario that begins to talk about consent at a young age to make it a regular part of life growing up. This can be substantiated by normalizing consent in other ways.

 

even here you're using loaded terminology: "normalizing consent". Consent (in anything, not just sex) is already normal, and it already has been. That's what modern civilized society exists to protect - individual freedom to do and not do what you want

 

I'm glad you agree posters are useless, I certainly see plenty of them on college campuses (supposed hotspots of "rape culture"). What specifically do you think is effective about ontario's former sex-ed curriculum that is likely to make a tangible difference?

[obfuscator]

And I would say you're just as wrong about "drunk driving culture." Into my 20s, I honestly believed that drinking and driving was normal.

Sure, I had that one uncle who hasn't had a license in decades and just got caught again; his problem wasn't drinking and driving, just that he'd chosen the wrong roads or shouldn't have taken a car with one headlight out.

My sister's boyfriend would run up the old railroad tracks. He rolled a truck with her in it not a week after buying it, and was back to doing the same thing with a beater car within a month. She kept going along.

Cops were a hazard, but you just had to get good at avoiding them or good at losing them.

 

It wasn't until I moved away that I realized how [bleep]ed up that was.

again, anecdotal evidence. I have no doubt that some people, somewhere, think drunk driving is a-okay (in fact I've met one or two). But when you're describing a cultural phenomenon, it isn't enough to provide isolated examples, you have to demonstrate that a significant number of people feel this way

 

DD is also not the best example, because it's a field where we've had legitimate improvements in science and statistics to make it clear that there is a problem. Some of that takes time to develop

[obfuscator]

Wheras I'm unconvinced that they are in fact more successful than other men who are just as persistent/good looking/whatever, but who don't assume secret "biological" reasons behind all of a woman's actions.

 

And we can debate this until the cows come jome, but neither one of us intends to go looking for proof that will be sufficiently convincing to the other. Thus, agree to disagree.

fair enough, but then what does it matter? if all the public signs are the same, is it meaningful that some people think about what they're doing, and to others it comes naturally?

[The Observer]

 

 

Do you suppose that many people who are willing to rape are going to be deterred by a poster saying to ask for consent?

I was not referring to simply a poster. Those are meaningless. I meant more ingrained such as what was included in the original sex-ed curriculum Ontario that begins to talk about consent at a young age to make it a regular part of life growing up. This can be substantiated by normalizing consent in other ways.

 

even here you're using loaded terminology: "normalizing consent". Consent (in anything, not just sex) is already normal, and it already has been. That's what modern civilized society exists to protect - individual freedom to do and not do what you want

 

I'm glad you agree posters are useless, I certainly see plenty of them on college campuses (supposed hotspots of "rape culture"). What specifically do you think is effective about ontario's former sex-ed curriculum that is likely to make a tangible difference?

 

It exists in certain contexts such as, like you said, individual freedom (people know stealing is wrong, generally). However, there are instances like what I was referring to earlier (college parties) where consent is seen as a "blurred line". In what I stated, having consent being a part of teaching from a young age (they were referring to consent with regards to other's peoples bodies), it is one of those concepts that will follow them later in life as it is a behavioural skill taught from a young age. Keep in mind, this was done in consultation with experts in education and healthcare and was not done on a whim. 

[Tesset]

It does when one group comes to the conclusion that negging women, or other such manipulative tactics, is a good idea.

[obfuscator]

It exists in certain contexts such as, like you said, individual freedom (people know stealing is wrong, generally). However, there are instances like what I was referring to earlier (college parties)

where consent is seen as a "blurred line".

do you think consent is black and white in every scenario, practically speaking?

 

In what I stated, having consent being a part of teaching from a young age

(they were referring to consent with regards to other's peoples bodies), it is one of those concepts that will follow them later in life as it is a behavioural skill taught from a young age.

Keep in mind, this was done in consultation with experts in education and healthcare and was not done on a whim.

I agree, but don't think it's anything new - it's a basic thing you teach your children, along with "don't bite", and "don't pull hair".

[obfuscator]

It does when one group comes to the conclusion that negging women, or other such manipulative tactics, is a good idea.

has anyone in this topic recommended "negging" women?

[Tesset]

Nope, but I start with the premise that Muggi's original statement was manipulative, so ya know.

[obfuscator]

Nope, but I start with the premise that Muggi's original statement was manipulative, so ya know.

ok, agree to disagree then

[Estonian dude]

I agree, but don't think it's anything new - it's a basic thing you teach your children, along with "don't bite", and "don't pull hair".

I thought you were supposed to pull hair and lick elbows?

[Estonian dude]

As controversial as Muggi's points are, they kinda make a weird sort of sense. And my limited experience has kinda proved his points. It isn't as black and white, specially when dealing with inexperienced people.

But life isn't black and white.

[Major Dash]

 

And I would say you're just as wrong about "drunk driving culture." Into my 20s, I honestly believed that drinking and driving was normal.

Sure, I had that one uncle who hasn't had a license in decades and just got caught again; his problem wasn't drinking and driving, just that he'd chosen the wrong roads or shouldn't have taken a car with one headlight out.

My sister's boyfriend would run up the old railroad tracks. He rolled a truck with her in it not a week after buying it, and was back to doing the same thing with a beater car within a month. She kept going along.

Cops were a hazard, but you just had to get good at avoiding them or good at losing them.

 

It wasn't until I moved away that I realized how [bleep]ed up that was.

 

 

 

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but what redneck-cousin humping-wife beating trailer park did you grow up in? That is seriously not normal at all outside of poor and uneducated places. What you describe basically sounds like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys.

[obfuscator]

 

And I would say you're just as wrong about "drunk driving culture." Into my 20s, I honestly believed that drinking and driving was normal.

Sure, I had that one uncle who hasn't had a license in decades and just got caught again; his problem wasn't drinking and driving, just that he'd chosen the wrong roads or shouldn't have taken a car with one headlight out.

My sister's boyfriend would run up the old railroad tracks. He rolled a truck with her in it not a week after buying it, and was back to doing the same thing with a beater car within a month. She kept going along.

Cops were a hazard, but you just had to get good at avoiding them or good at losing them.

 

It wasn't until I moved away that I realized how [bleep]ed up that was.

 

 

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but what redneck-cousin humping-wife beating trailer park did you grow up in? That is seriously not normal at all outside of poor and uneducated places. What you describe basically sounds like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys.

 

ehh a lot of people in the US are still poor and uneducated, so I can believe him, even if it's only anecdotal

[Major Dash]

There's a difference between poor and uneducated and "poor and uneducated and normalizing breaking well know laws."

[Ember]

.

[obfuscator]

i like michigan tbh, not like detroit, but i've been through a bunch of it. it reminds me of northern ontario, just american

[muggiwhplar]

It's only illegal if you get caught.

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:

[obfuscator]

 

It's only illegal if you get caught.

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've seen this more with weed now than alcohol

[muggiwhplar]

Wheras I'm unconvinced that they are in fact more successful than other men who are just as persistent/good looking/whatever, but who don't assume secret "biological" reasons behind all of a woman's actions.

 

And we can debate this until the cows come jome, but neither one of us intends to go looking for proof that will be sufficiently convincing to the other. Thus, agree to disagree.

 

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!