Good point, and I do get that. I was a bit unsure if “he sounds like an asshole” is adequately exaggerated — like, maybe it depends on exact body language or tone of voice that needs to be well-calibrated, — but Iʼll trust your experience and give it a try next time. (Assuming I remember, lol... sometimes my brain goes blank on the spot when something goes wrong.)
Have fun and riff. Sometimes when I see that a girl isn't getting the exaggeration, I'll double and even triple down until she gets it.
In fact I use that rule for opening. I'll say three things, sometimes girls are just in their own heads and the first thing you say doesn't stick, but I'll follow through a second time, heightening it, and then I'll even say something a third time, continuing.
At that point they will either A) Register what is going on, and also whatever exaggeration (in the case of a joke at any time, or a funny opener) B) Give you a strong direct look or verbal "NO", to let you know they know that you were attempting to strike up a conversation and have no interest.
In other words, sometimes you have to repeat yourself (up to twice) with a slight variation to get your point across.
So in the case of "him being an asshole", you can then add "and he probably steals candy from children"... "and he probably kicks dogs he sees on the street" (a girl with definitely react to that) and I'd just follow through when she says "that's terrible", like "I know, it is horrible, why are you with him anyway?"
Does that make sense?
Thatʼs something I havenʼt really heard addressed before in seduction circles. Good point and something I should learn to do more reliably.
Studying rhetoric, generally, may serve you well.
Thatʼs a fairly good argument. It does open itself up, however, to an extremely difficult problem of extent.
If we look at the opposite extreme, that we should put some kind of altruism above human nature to a similarly absolute degree, then it could quite easily be argued that we should all overcome our survival instinct and kill all ourselves before we do any further damage to the planet and the other life forms on it. (There is actually a fringe group that
argues quite seriously that all humans should completely stop breeding and go extinct.)
I don't see altruism as being separate than human nature, but a part. You don't believe in kin preferences? Like a monkey will sound a call to alert another monkey of danger (putting itself in danger) more likely if that other monkey is a close relative. You don't think humans have something similar?
Basic altruism can just be seeing a larger and larger community as your "family". Isn't that what all religions hijack, i.e. "Brothers and Sisters in (insert Diety)".
To put it concisely, humans are social animals, and a human without social interest is a broken one. I don't feel you have a strong starting premise.
So clearly, weʼre going to take a position somewhere in between the extreme of “totally follow nature” and “totally donʼt”, and this creates the obvious question of, just where do we draw that line? That isnʼt a question that has a singular right answer. The popularly accepted answers have certainly changed over time. Where I put that line and where you put it may of course differ depending on the sums of all our experiences, knowledge, and personality.
Personally, I feel that the drive towards sexual variety is so strong that going against it to the extent that totalitarian monogamy does is, on the balance of everything, detrimental. This especially when one considers that most of its purported benefits can be realized without it.
I'll try to answer the heart of your question since the premise was flawed (as I stated).
I think humans are naturally polygamous (or polyamorous) and socially monogamous.
Think to your experience, even when you're fucking multiple chicks, you normally have one or two who is your main girl(s), the one(s) you like to just chill and really relate to, while you only want to see you other girls much less. In non-pua circles this is just your "side chicks".
I'm not saying I don't prefer this (I've done it, and do. And also some people what many girls who are equally ranked, to each their own), I'm saying that people can and do become monogamous all the time and it's not detrimental for them, but for plenty of people it is.
But you personally want some sort of open or casual relationships, and that's great! This is the perfect place to pursue how!
Iʼm not entirely sure of what exactly the “red pill” doctrine is — my current perspective on human sexuality initially came more from scientific findings than from mensʼ communities.
It's a common term. And they base a lot of their ideas on science. But there is some toxicity in there, so be careful. I invite you to look it up. Plenty of people throw around terms like "cuck" or "cock carosel" and those are red pill concepts.
Iʼm referring to what scientists call “social monogamy,” wherein society openly structures itself around monogamous pair bonds, but individuals tend to maximize their genetic fitness through infidelity. This could come in the form of male infidelity in order to maximize his reproductive output in the face of it being impossible to do so under monogamy, or it could come in the form of female infidelity, in order to increase the genetic fitness of her offspring. At least one of the two members of any given pair is always under high selective pressure to cheat. If the male is not cheating, then the female is under much greater selective pressure to cheat, because that male is inherently not liable to give her the same number of second-degree offspring she couldʼve gotten with a polygamous male. Monogamy is, in a sense, not mathematically tenable from a pure genetic fitness standpoint. But it is useful from the parental care standpoint, and so a system in which most males (beta) are getting cucked is genetically ideal.
That didn't make sense.
It's pretty straightforward game theory to figure out.
And her genes survival and his genes survival aren't always pursuing coordinating goals.
You're saying because her kids won't have half-brothers and sisters, she needs to bang a guy with higher fitness and cuck her partner (who if he finds this out, could kill her and possibly any of their kids)? And that this is in her genetic advantage?
I think you mean, if he's not high enough value to cheat, then he is not high enough value NOT to cheat on. And that she makes this assessment. Which is sort of true, but you have to consider that a girl in love thinks her guy is the highest value guy in the world, even if everyone else finds him hideous. So it's really her perception. However, I think you're grasping at this idea, but not quite getting it, and mistakenly trying to find some gene maximization in a group setting instead of just "I'm settling for a beta male, but I can fuck around behind his back, so it's ok".
Have you read Marx by the way? Him and Engles actually break down the sexual dynamics in the hunter gathers societies (the communes of communism). And that would help you to think about incentives with various family structures, for instance in communes everyone fucks each other, and inheritance is matrilineal instead of patrilineal.
In a society like that, a man is no child's father, but every child's uncle.
The whole idea behind restricting female sexuality started when men wanted to know that they were the father of any children that came out of a woman, in order to pass on their property to them (personal property, no longer communism). Hence virgin brides.
Just take a look and see what you think.
Of course, we do exercise a degree of socially imposed moral restraint. We also now have birth control, abortion, and paternity tests. Due to these technologies, itʼs difficult to use present relatively low levels of literal cuckoldery in humans as a measure of how common it may have been in past. Infidelity itself is much higher, suggesting that weʼve only gotten better at suppressing the genetic effects of infidelity, not the underlying psychological drives. Literal cuckoldery (technical term being “extra‑pair paternity”) has been shown to be quite high in a number of other animal species that were previously assumed monogamous, and a fairly broad array of physiological and psychological evidence suggests weʼre not intrinsically much different.
Girls like strange dick and adventure sex. They also have to hide this to be seen as dateable or marriageable to the majority of the male population (which is a socially imposed constriction). No one is in disagreement there, this is a pickup forum! haha
I see what youʼre saying. There are other angles to it, though. For one, realistically, “game” is more a matter of learning how not to shoot yourself in the foot, and the rest is just a matter of inherent mutual attraction.
*anti-game. The stuff you do to shoot yourself in the foot is anti-game. Or to use a military term, an unforced error.
It also opens up a tricky philosophical question of just what is self‑determination. For instance, did I just randomly decide one day that Iʼd learn “game” for the hell of it? No, I decided to learn it because of mental distress over not having what I wanted — but where, in turn, did that “want” come from? Instinct. Nature. So really, itʼs an act of nature that Iʼm learning game, and any consequence of knowing it is also therefore an act of nature. Of course, a similar argument could be used to remove responsibility for anything at all — but perhaps we ought to leave that alone for now, being that weʼre already way O.T.
Agree.
A more practical factor at the moment is my limited experience. At this point I consider it a rather safe assumption that if I actually get a married woman in the sack, her relationship must already be so completely toasted that it canʼt possibly matter what I do or donʼt do. She either already was cheating, or was going to anyway in very short order. XD
Maybe. But I don't presume to know. Maybe she saw you, you were just her type, and hit all the right buttons. Maybe she had a void to fill and you filled it with dick, when otherwise she would have found some hobby to fill her time.
I just don't want there to be even a 1% chance I screw up some little kid's life. And I assume marriage equals kids if not now than in the immediate future.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage removes her from "the game", she's no longer "in play".
I obviously canʼt say how my view might change if and when I reach a point of being so much better at seduction as to suspect I could cause cheating that wasnʼt already practically a given. Then again, getting very good at it could also instead just serve to reinforce my notion of monogamyʼs futility.
Go fuck ten hot women and come back and make a thread about it
I havenʼt really thought about it before, but in reflecting on it, I actually donʼt fully subscribe to it; the reason being, it seems to me a bit paternalistic. I prefer to look at sexual interactions through the lens of mutual free agency. So instead, I have a simpler rule of, “treat her fairly,” or, “treat her as I would want to be treated.”
If I see you're about to get hit by a car, and I yell "Get out of the way!", was I being paternalistic?
It's just social interest, caring about others, and especially ones you have sex with.
And, to your point above and speaking from experience, the more you actually fuck women and become a part of their lives and inner circle, the more compassion you will have for them.
When you're on the outside, getting rejected, getting flaked on, dates to nowhere etc., it's easy to become bitter or at least disinterested in their well being.
When they're giving you the best parts of themselves, mentally and emotionally as well as physically, you will start to care more for them.
That will change in you.
...also when you fuck hotter ones, ones with genuinely good personalities, and ones you'd actually consider if not (gasp) monogamy, but at least a long term open relationship with. Fucking bottom barrel bitches probably won't inspire the good and noble in you. lol
Since *I* donʼt place any value on another person self-regulating in order to preserve my monogamy, I likewise donʼt place any value on me self‑regulating to preserve hers.
OTOH, I do place a high value on another person not materially deceiving me for their own gain, and as such, I will not do that to a woman.
As a concrete example, I was reading an archived thread on RooshV Forum on Kampala, Uganda, and the OP strongly recommended dropping hints that youʼve come to Uganda to find a wife, because these girls go NUTS for the prospect of marrying a foreigner. Well, when I read that, my stomach kind of turned — and in a way that it doesnʼt when thinking about cucking some womanʼs husband. Thereʼs no way Iʼm going to try to lead on any woman, much less one in a developing country, like that. I was extremely relieved when I read other posts that told him off for it and related that they get girls there without any such misrepresentation.
And you don't know what red pill is?
And, I have to say, there are plenty of deceptions that happen in most seductions. I'm getting a strong feeling you're the type who is overly logical with no social feeling or social instinct (that you're aware of). It's all how you approach the topics of morality.
I personally believe that my game will be stronger because I refuse to do that shit. And Iʼll be so much more proud of myself when I have an African cutie on my dick without having lied to her. So I do fully appreciate what youʼre saying about sticking to your principles making your game stronger.
Thanks, and I do.
But I'll also make plenty of lies of convenience, like about my age because I look young and will get girls that think I'm lying if I tell the truth (or might judge me for it.). Basically, a detail that has zero relevance post sex (trust me, she doesn't care if you're 27 or 34 post coitus) and only serves to disqualify me or cause a disruption. Seducer's lie all the time, "I live close" for example for a pull. However, the truth, properly framed, is always the best option i.e. going into an explanation why numerical age isn't as important as maturity and vibe when asked how old you are.
Itʼs absolutely
not a matter of my having no principles. Itʼs just that our principles arenʼt exactly the same.
I never thought otherwise.
Those are some valid benefits. Well, at least over a bunch of ONS. Iʼm at least hoping that FwB is a good balance that will still provide some degree of these advantages. I donʼt think non‑monogamy necessarily has to equate to shallow, meaningless sex.
Nor do I. Meaning = how you affect other people for the better, and positive experiences you share.
And (almost) every FWB is trying out for a slot as a main girl, it's only a matter of time. Girls get the monogamy itch, and if you won't scratch it, they'll look for some other guy who will (the majority, with some notable exceptions).
But yeah, that's a good way to go, get a consistent partner and try it out there. And you know, be nice to her from time to time, see how it grows on you!
