On the Ethics of Seduction: How Far Does Leadership Go? Part 2

[metalbird]

Alright, I'll admit, the ethical question I'm about to describe is probably not something anyone should even think about when it comes to dating or seduction, but the truth is, I think about it a lot:

Suppose you know a woman you find attractive. Suppose she does not know you, or at least she does not find you attractive, yet; but you know that you have the power to enter into her life, seduce her, and form some kind of sexual relationship with her -- maybe it's a ONS, maybe it's an LTR, doesn't matter.

Do you ever stop and ask yourself, "Why should this woman sleep with me, in particular?"

If I ask myself, "Why might a woman want to sleep with me or date me?", I can immediately come up with a list of good reasons. I can provide good sex, companionship, emotional support, guidance, introduce her to friends and social connections, share expenses for meals and such... but at the same time, I can't really argue that I'm the best option in any one category, or any combination of categories. Out of all the men in this world, I am almost certainly not the best choice for any woman. I'm unlikely to even be the best choice for her amongst the options in her immediate surroundings. So why then should any woman date me? Simply because I have the guts or skills to approach her and seduce her? What if there's a guy who's more attractive, and a much better fit for her, that simply isn't quite as aggressive or fast-moving as me? Haven't I denied her of a better opportunity?

I never feel like I'm the "best choice" for any girl, and so ethically, it makes me think I'm doing them a disservice if I try seduce them. If this is just utterly ridiculous, how do I stop thinking about it? And if it's not, how do you rationalize seducing women if you're not a truly exceptionally high-quality man?

- metalbird

 

[Conquistador]

Interesting question. I think the premise might be flawed, though.

Do you ever stop and ask yourself, "Why should this woman sleep with me, in particular?"

If I ask myself, "Why might a woman want to sleep with me or date me?", I can immediately come up with a list of good reasons. I can provide good sex, companionship, emotional support, guidance, introduce her to friends and social connections, share expenses for meals and such... but at the same time, I can't really argue that I'm the best option in any one category, or any combination of categories. Out of all the men in this world, I am almost certainly not the best choice for any woman.

No one, not even a beautiful woman, is automatically entitled to get the best of everything.

I'm unlikely to even be the best choice for her amongst the options in her immediate surroundings.

Really?
And if so, so what?

So why then should any woman date me? Simply because I have the guts or skills to approach her and seduce her? What if there's a guy who's more attractive, and a much better fit for her, that simply isn't quite as aggressive or fast-moving as me?

Girls don’t make moves. Most leads go nowhere. It’s not at all certain that a woman will find “happiness” (or even a suitable hookup), let alone in the time frame most people want things.

Haven't I denied her of a better opportunity?

This argument, besides assuming that all eligible women are entitled to perfect ideal partners, rests on an incorrect model of the sexual marketplace.

I never feel like I'm the "best choice" for any girl,

That’s not how real life works. Most girls are not in the league of a “super high quality” dude, especially (but not only) if said dude wants an LTR.
A high quality guy often has incentives to seek out an LTR, whether from productivity concerns, BTDT having had enough of hookup culture, or the fact that he might be able to get exclusive access to a unicorn at the price of being exclusive to her.
(There’s a reason rock stars sometimes toss girls out right after they’re done hooking up.)
Plus a lot of high quality guys are at ages where their priorities are often different.

Furthermore, as I think Chase pointed out (with stats and calculations) in an article, blackpill myths about an 80/20 marketplace are ludicrous even in the most competitive, unbalanced dating markets.
The theoretical matriarchy where hot dudes get ahead and the pack gets treated like trash doesn’t exist anywhere. It never existed outside fevered nightmares and never will. There are too many countervailing factors and feedback loops that promote equilibrium.
Also worth noting, sexual liberalism allows women to hook up with guys they never could dream of getting for long term. But sexual liberalism also tends to let average dudes get laid borderline-satisfactorily often.
Unless your entire marketplace has truly awful sex ratios and you can’t go anywhere else, this is how it is.
Women are human. They can’t have their cake and eat it too, any more than us.
Girls can’t both have unrealistically high standards and also get laid. Ofc there are very high visibility girls who command far more attention than they actually deserve, but they are a pretty small minority.

and so ethically, it makes me think I'm doing them a disservice if I try seduce them.

As was pointed out by several guys in part 1, in seduction, women, if anything, often have more agency than they might otherwise have. Unless you’re one of those old-timey caddish rakes seducing a naive teenage virgin (or you’re actively encouraging false hopes of LTR), you’re not taking advantage of a woman. She is making her own choices to dance with you.

If this is just utterly ridiculous, how do I stop thinking about it? And if it's not, how do you rationalize seducing women if you're not a truly exceptionally high-quality man?

If you really still can’t get past this, look at it as follows:
Maybe right now, you aren’t a super high quality guy.
But if you are really committed to steady, relentless growth, then years from now, you probably will be.
Now as we know, women think in terms of potential future value, not spot price. Women have evolved to be futures traders, not day (night) traders
And women (at least young/idealistic ones) dream of getting together with a high-quality guy early in his rise to greatness, the earlier the better…
QED, no?
If it’s still an issue, do some self-examination and disassemble your frames so you can find the issues.

As I said, the dilemma rests on common confusions about stuff.

This is gonna be a fascinating thread. Can’t wait…

 

[Chase]

@metalbird,

Wow, that’s some interesting thinking.

I guess that clarifies where you were going in that previous post.

It’s some kind of hardcore 20th Century Americanism mixed with a sort of paternalism.

First thing I’d ask is imagine how ridiculous it would be if everyone in your life treated you this way:

• Met a great new business contact but he blocked you because he realized as good as he’d be for your career, someone else could be even better.
  
  
• Went to a new car lot to buy a car you loved, but the salesman denied you the sale because he realized while it was a great car and you clearly loved it, there’s some other car out there somewhere that’d be EVEN BETTER for you.
  
  
• Leaving the car lot you tried to order an Uber, but every driver passed you up, realizing they weren’t the best possible driver for you and a better one awaited. So you had to walk home.
  
  
• Arrived home to find an eviction notice on the door. Frantically called your landlord, who said his conscience started bothering him when he realized that as much as you might’ve liked the place, it wasn’t the best possible apartment for you, and that the moral thing to do was to send you back out there to find the place that was truly best for you.
  
  
• Next got a call from your boss, who realized your job was holding you back from finding the best possible career for yourself, so decided to fire you for your own good.
  
  
• Called your best friend to vent about all this, but when he answers he says he realizes he’s not actually THE BEST friend you could have, and that to not waste your time from finding that truly best friend he’s not going to talk to you anymore. He hangs up the phone and blocks you too.
  
  
• Went to a bar to drown your sorrows in some booze, met a super cute girl, hit it off hard, had an amazing connection. Asked her on a date. She said she was really attracted to you and felt an amazing connection, and it was really hard for her to do this, but she knew that while the two of you would have a beautiful relationship, it wouldn’t be THE BEST ever for your, so she’s turning you down. An hour later you watch her leave the bar with some guy she met after you.

BEST DAY EVER because everyone’s looking out for you so hardcore, right?

lol

This is the problem with “misfiring empathy” — people get this stuff in their heads about how they’re helping other people out SO MUCH by doing these things that are really not helpful, or even actively harmful, instead.

====

Anyway.

How do you KNOW you’re not “the best” a girl is ever going to have?

How well do you know her exes? Her future guys? Every guy she’s ever hooked up with or dated?

Not just “know them”, but know the secret ins and outs of their relationships… their bedroom entanglements… all of it?

The reality is you have no idea whatsoever. Any thought of “I’m the best” or “I’m not the best” is totally in your head. You are living in your head instead of in reality.

Personally, I choose to just assume I’m the best ever whatever it is a girl will have. Best ever one-night stand, best ever lover, best ever boyfriend, etc. Am I? Maybe; maybe not. I do what I can to be it. But there could be a guy she was with before who was better than me. There could be a guy she’s with later who’s better than me. There could be a guy she misses out on directly because she got together with me. Could be… or could not be.

I cannot control these things. Nor can I know them.

All I can control is myself: presenting her with the opportunity to be with me, and allowing her to decide.

You need to pray the serenity prayer, man:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,​

the courage to change the things I can,​

and the wisdom to know the difference.​

That paternalism you’re feeling is well-intentioned, but ultimately it robs a woman of the right to choose for herself, based on assumptions in your head and ignorance about her reality.

I mean, who’s a better judge of how “best” a guy is for her: you or her?

Why would you think you’re better at knowing who she should date, with your very limited information on her options, preferences, and relationship history, than she is?

====

The other thing I will point out is this American idea of a “best anything” for something.

The “soul mate” idea comes from that.

You know where the concept of “soul mates” comes from? It comes from the idea that across numerous lives and rebirths, there are certain souls we interact with again and again, and develop relationships with that criss-cross incarnations. The way it works is you run into your various soul mates in different forms throughout a life, where you help each other through various lessons each needs to learn. Maybe you remain companions for a long time (as friends, as mentor/mentee, as lovers, as parent and child, etc.) or maybe it’s just a brief joining together then coming apart in that life.

Somehow that got twisted in modern American parlance (I suppose due to the lack of belief in rebirth + the need to simplify everything into some sort of Hallmark greeting card soundbite) to be some kind of “one perfectly matched person” you’re supposed to find in this life then cling to for dear life because “that’s my soul mate.”

This whole idea of some “best possible person” comes from that — this weird deformation of the concept of soul mates.

I have had soul mate relationships, where you really feel like the two of you are impossibly well matched, with this crazy connection — I even had prophetic dreams with one such girl. I can tell you even these relationships are not perfect, and even while in them you will think, “Hmm, I wonder if I could find another chick who is just like this, except [THIS THING DIFFERENT] and [THAT THING DIFFERENT]?”

====

As far as action items, I would just say the main thing:

Your empathy is misfiring.

You see this a lot in people who are very caring but assume they know more than they do about the situations other people are in.

The fact that you think you can tell how good you are or not for a girl tells me you do not understand women well.

If you really want to be an accurate judge of what is and is not good for a woman, do this:

1. Sleep with many girls
   
   
2. AFTER SEX (the only time you will get them to be honest about this), interview them about their prior lovers and boyfriends, how the sex was, how the relationship was, and how it affected them
   
   
3. This will blow your mind, I guarantee it. You will discover many things about women you never would’ve imagined. You will find women have had all kinds of experiences with men — both positive and negative — you couldn’t even think of, because it’s not something you’d do with a girl, and they don’t make movies about most of this stuff
   
   
4. Then just keep doing that while also having relationships with women and seeing how women change over time with you — do they get better, do they get worse, do they get sidetracked from important things, do they grow in new directions they never thought they would?

In time, you will start to have a better sense for what’s truly good for some new woman or not.

You still are not going to have a great idea about it though.

You will still be off the mark the vast majority of the time you try to make large, sweeping guesses.

That’s just how it is — the only wants, life history, and predilections you have true, unfettered access to are the ones inside your own head.

Chase

 

[antidox]

@metalbird if you have the confidence and skills to approach and seduce her then you're the best option (in that moment). if a much better guy for her is less aggressive, less confident, didn't approach her then she never had the opportunity with this guy anyway and you're doing her a disservice by not approaching.

she isn't guaranteed mr perfect, she can only choose from her available choices all the time the perfect guy could be in the same room but they never meet. this is life.

she might not be the best chick you're ever going to meet, if you're waiting for the perfectly matched partner you're going to be disappointed.

assume attraction and approach

AntiDox

 

[West_Indian_Archie]

Do you ever stop and ask yourself, "Why should this woman sleep with me, in particular?"

No. This literally sounds crazy to me.

I never feel like I'm the "best choice" for any girl, and so ethically....

And because this is really about how you feel about yourself, this is not about ethics, it's about your own insecurities.

Which is fine, but much like the other question - this isn't really about some sort of universal ethics. It's not even really about personal morality tbh.
It's about your own issues that really should get resolved with counseling and therapy with licensed professionals. You'll get better answers from them, as opposed to a bunch of guys that talk to girls at parties.

Because that's what this is. It's not some higher calling. It's a skill set, really a language.

And your views of women and their agency - this random guy on the internet prescribes either a strong dose of feminism or The Red Pill.

This is not a personal knock to you, I don't know you.

I do see this navel gazing/whataboutism/ethics/morality discussion on forums from time to time. Very generic scenarios that add so many unrealistic constraints that it's never about some pursuit of a higher truth.

WIA

 

[POB]

Alright, I'll admit, the ethical question I'm about to describe is probably not something anyone should even think about when it comes to dating or seduction, but the truth is, I think about it a lot:
Suppose you know a woman you find attractive. Suppose she does not know you, or at least she does not find you attractive, yet; but you know that you have the power to enter into her life, seduce her, and form some kind of sexual relationship with her -- maybe it's a ONS, maybe it's an LTR, doesn't matter.
Do you ever stop and ask yourself, "Why should this woman sleep with me, in particular?"

Never!
I want fo fuck HER because SHE is HOT.
That's all I need.

If I ask myself, "Why might a woman want to sleep with me or date me?", I can immediately come up with a list of good reasons. I can provide good sex, companionship, emotional support, guidance, introduce her to friends and social connections, share expenses for meals and such... but at the same time, I can't really argue that I'm the best option in any one category, or any combination of categories.

This is a very feminine thought process, if you think about it.
Guys, on the other hand, usually go with the flow of their inate masculine biology:
Hot chick=fertile=good kids=want to fuck her

Out of all the men in this world, I am almost certainly not the best choice for any woman. I'm unlikely to even be the best choice for her amongst the options in her immediate surroundings. So why then should any woman date me? Simply because I have the guts or skills to approach her and seduce her?

No no no, this is all backwards!
As a man YOU have decided to take the masculine role and seduce a hot chick.
This has nothing to do with how attractive you think you are, or how good of a fit you really are for her.
It's the opposite: usually attraction is stronger when there's some kind of contrast between you two.

What if there's a guy who's more attractive, and a much better fit for her, that simply isn't quite as aggressive or fast-moving as me? Haven't I denied her of a better opportunity?

Definitely not how mating works...
The fact that you had the balls to come to her risking rejection automatically raises your attractive traits as a man.
And the hotter she is, the better oportunities she will have.
Don't sweat thinking about "denying her a better fit"...if she is hot, they are there, just waiting.
What separates you from them is balls.
You have the balls to approach in a sexual manner....they don't.

Now, what you can do is keep improving and working on yourself and on your stuff.
This is a fucking cliché, but it works.
Let her know you have a twitch in your eye...and it's not there for her, but for your goals.

I never feel like I'm the "best choice" for any girl, and so ethically, it makes me think I'm doing them a disservice if I try seduce them.

Totally irrelevant.
Britney Spears was the most desirable woman back in the day.
And she decided to hook up with one of her dancers; in fact the worst of them, who's nothing more than a bum.

If this is just utterly ridiculous, how do I stop thinking about it?

Remember: a high-quality man is never a finished product.
If you think you are not there yet, it's because you are in the middle of your journey, nothing more.
Just keep busy and working on your goals.
Really busy people don't have the time to produce brain farts through the day.

And if it's not, how do you rationalize seducing women if you're not a truly exceptionally high-quality man?

Seduction has nothing to do with this (relationships do, but that's a different topic).
Seduction is a moment, a fleeting opportunity for a beautiful encounter.
And that encounter may or may not generate some kind of masculine-feminine bond beyond sex.

 

[StrayDog]

When she chooses to be with you in whatever capacity she chooses to be with you, then you are absolutely the best fit for her, for that form of relating in that moment. On what grounds? The fact that she made that decision herself. She gets to decide these things, not you. If she later decides that you are not the best fit for xyz thing, well then she will. It is not your responsibility to make these choices for her.

Are you applying unreasonable/excessive pressure as an attempt to "seduce" her? Don't do that shit.

Are you being deceitful and misleading? No?

Well then, congrats! If she is fucking you, dating you, marrying you, she has decided that you are the best person to do that with (for the time being). Savor it.

I agree with the guys here saying that maybe there is something deeper to examine here about your own sense of self worthy. Do you feel worthy of the love and affection she has chosen to share with you? She clearly feels you are worthy of it if she is giving it to you. So why don't you?

 

[Will_V]

Alright, I'll admit, the ethical question I'm about to describe is probably not something anyone should even think about when it comes to dating or seduction, but the truth is, I think about it a lot:

Suppose you know a woman you find attractive. Suppose she does not know you, or at least she does not find you attractive, yet; but you know that you have the power to enter into her life, seduce her, and form some kind of sexual relationship with her -- maybe it's a ONS, maybe it's an LTR, doesn't matter.

Do you ever stop and ask yourself, "Why should this woman sleep with me, in particular?"

If I ask myself, "Why might a woman want to sleep with me or date me?", I can immediately come up with a list of good reasons. I can provide good sex, companionship, emotional support, guidance, introduce her to friends and social connections, share expenses for meals and such... but at the same time, I can't really argue that I'm the best option in any one category, or any combination of categories. Out of all the men in this world, I am almost certainly not the best choice for any woman. I'm unlikely to even be the best choice for her amongst the options in her immediate surroundings. So why then should any woman date me? Simply because I have the guts or skills to approach her and seduce her? What if there's a guy who's more attractive, and a much better fit for her, that simply isn't quite as aggressive or fast-moving as me? Haven't I denied her of a better opportunity?

I never feel like I'm the "best choice" for any girl, and so ethically, it makes me think I'm doing them a disservice if I try seduce them. If this is just utterly ridiculous, how do I stop thinking about it? And if it's not, how do you rationalize seducing women if you're not a truly exceptionally high-quality man?

- metalbird

Something I remember often when I encounter people who struggle with dominating their own life is 'there are two things that cannot be explained to a man: why he should seduce a woman, and why he should fight his enemies'.

The drive to conquer, and the belief that you can and should have everything that you want, is an extraordinarily valuable currency that is far from universal among men. You can see how powerful an effect on people and society individuals who are imbued with this characteristic have. Many people want it, and cannot seem to get it, and they are mesmerized by those who do, and circle around them trying to get a few drops of it so that they can stop their minds from straitjacketing their ambitions and consigning them to lives of comfortable dissatisfaction.

I don't know if such characteristics can be taught. They can certainly be animated if they are dormant, but nature in all its glory decided to make some men one way, and other men a different way, so that they would all serve different roles, and maybe that's just how things should be.

If I were you, I would think long and hard about how chaotic and unordered the world is, and how nature distributes attributes seemingly randomly among men. How often have you men people who seemed to have some advantage or 'betterness' who completely failed to use it for anything useful, or which masked some ugly weakness? And the people who seem to have been at such a disadvantage, who have been able to lift themselves up to incredible heights? Man himself was never very good at being an animal, with no claws, no armor, no real strength ... what if he had decided to leave the earth to the other animals who seemed a better fit?

There is no logic in the will to life, to conquest, to expansion, to power. It seems so superfluous to existence, so easy to counter with some artifact of morality. And yet without it, nothing would even exist. There is not a single organism which exists and thrives in any way without some amount of it, and the extent to which it thrives seems to be a function of how much it has.

Nature decided long ago that it was enough that everything worked for its own interests, and that the results vindicated themselves. Who are you to presume to know what is better and what is worse, or even judge your own value? The humility to step back and accept the truth of the results, such as they are, is what enables us to bear the pain of failure, or experience the glorious pleasure of success.

We are only asked to try.

 

[Chase]

Something I remember often when I encounter people who struggle with dominating their own life is 'there are two things that cannot be explained to a man: why he should seduce a woman, and why he should fight his enemies'.

Yeah, it's a kind of basic life drive where if it's seriously impeded by some mental condition it's hard for anyone else to work around.

A guy coming to you saying, "I want girls but I'm just not motivated to approach," has the same basic issue, just for different reasons.

You can tell him WHAT to do; you cannot tell him why to want it. The reasons must come from within the man.

"I want girls but I feel like I'd be bad for them," is one of these.

"I want girls but I feel like they don't really like me for me," is another.

"I want girls but I feel like I could never really give my heart to a girl so I shouldn't bother," is another.

Guys have all kinds of reasons why they can't take the first step to get the women they want in their lives.

The reasons are all different from guy to guy, but the effects are the same:

They bench themselves out of the game, and end up on the sidelines watching the rest of us play the game of life.

That said, most of these guys find a woman eventually... though she may not necessarily be their ideal.

Chase

 

[Will_V]

Yeah, it's a kind of basic life drive where if it's seriously impeded by some mental condition it's hard for anyone else to work around.

A guy coming to you saying, "I want girls but I'm just not motivated to approach," has the same basic issue, just for different reasons.

You can tell him WHAT to do; you cannot tell him why to want it. The reasons must come from within the man.

"I want girls but I feel like I'd be bad for them," is one of these.

"I want girls but I feel like they don't really like me for me," is another.

"I want girls but I feel like I could never really give my heart to a girl so I shouldn't bother," is another.

Guys have all kinds of reasons why they can't take the first step to get the women they want in their lives.

The reasons are all different from guy to guy, but the effects are the same:

They bench themselves out of the game, and end up on the sidelines watching the rest of us play the game of life.

That said, most of these guys find a woman eventually... thought she may necessarily be their ideal.

Chase

Absolutely. When it came to going out and seducing women when I had never had any, and navigating the many confusing obstacles along the way that crushed my ego, the only thing that I have been able to really fall back on is my drive.

It has been the same in getting through difficult periods of my life, where everything seemed so unordered and unfair, and there wasn't any 'reason' that was enough to explain it or sustain my ability to respond to it.

I've spent loads of time and energy trying to pass this drive to people I care about who seem to lack it. And while there are some things I can do for them, this particular one never seems to have worked. Sometimes it seems to work but it's just them entertaining an idea, rather than it having any root in them.

A man's drive, in my view, is his primary asset. It's the foundation of his frame control, his ability to influence and lead, to withstand the pain of adaptation, to counter opposition of any kind and win. Women submit longterm to men because of his drive, because his drive carries her through things she wouldn't be able to bear alone, puts her within reach of things she would otherwise never be able to reach.

It's very easy to entertain unhelpful ideas like this when things are fine, but when things really get rough in life, they will have weakened the only thing that is able to meet head-on a darkness that is equally as unfathomable.

 

[metalbird]

As far as what women say about their previous experiences after sex, I never believe any of that stuff. Of course she will always tell me I'm great, and much better than her previous experiences; in that moment she wants me to stick around. Women are very used to propping up men's egos.

When it comes to leadership, drive, masculine energy, all that, I think the unidimensional perspective that it's all about conquering and dominating is itself a modern artifact of American individualism/consumerism. If you look at primate dominance hierarches, alpha males who act to domineering get ganged-up on killed very quickly. In history, the best leaders were the ones that took everyone's interests (including their own) into consideration. Even Chase has written about this.

The fundamental drive is there, of course. The libido, the ego, the life force, the masculine energy. But I think it's important to ask these questions and temper your selfishness with a broader perspective on how your actions affect others. That's part of maturing.

 

[ulrich]

When it comes to leadership, drive, masculine energy, all that, I think the unidimensional perspective that it's all about conquering and dominating is itself a modern artifact of American individualism/consumerism.

In history, the best leaders were the ones that took everyone's interests (including their own) into consideration. Even Chase has written about this.

How do you explain them the drive of Alexander the Great to conquer all the world?
And Gengis Khan’s?

How about Napoleon’s drive to turn France into the main world power?

I can’t see how any of that would be possible if they were thinking about “everyone’s interest” including the people they conquered.

At some point they had to believe that their way of living in as superior and more desirable than those of the conquered.

The fundamental drive is there, of course. The libido, the ego, the life force, the masculine energy. But I think it's important to ask these questions and temper your selfishness with a broader perspective on how your actions affect others. That's part of maturing.

Is it?

Not trying to beat you down but the way you ask these philosophical questions seem to point out to non-action and contemplation.

“I will not act for I don’t know if the results of my action will be good”

Instead of “I will act for I know my actions are good”

I don’t see how that is maturing… sounds more like avoidance.

Would you rather be right and never be challenged? Find yourself unchallenged in your ivory tower?
Or face the reality of the world and risk being wrong… but experiencing the marvels of life?

 

[Will_V]

When it comes to leadership, drive, masculine energy, all that, I think the unidimensional perspective that it's all about conquering and dominating is itself a modern artifact of American individualism/consumerism.

Couldn't be more wrong, take a closer look at history. Soon you'll be telling us that we used to live in a communal utopia where everyone had sex with everyone else and everyone was happy.

If you look at primate dominance hierarches, alpha males who act to domineering get ganged-up on killed very quickly. In history, the best leaders were the ones that took everyone's interests (including their own) into consideration. Even Chase has written about this.

Nobody said that this was not true. You've somehow misconstrued my points about a man's fundamental drive and libido into some idea of complete and utter selfishness.

Society tames men, as do women, and even a man's own consciousness to some extent. This is absolutely necessary for any cohesive society. But to survive the process of taming to the extent of becoming anything useful to either society or women, he must be fundamentally driven to dominate and conquer his environment, and believe that he deserves everything he is capable of getting.

Women do not submit to him in spite of this but precisely because of it, precisely because she has the same mentality and she needs him to complement her weaknesses. A woman is no less of a beast than a man, her mentality is not very different, she merely has an indirect way of expressing herself and getting to the things she wants. This is why women generally judge weakness and lack of competitiveness in men very harshly, despite appearing to laud the virtues of softness, niceness and sympathy. She absolutely requires him to be everything she is not, and admires him for all the things she is not, and becomes wet for him for all the things she is not, because she knows very well her own limitations. His drive and ability to go after and get what he wants (including her), and to make her submit to him, and to dominate her and influence her, is proof of his ability to do the same thing in the course of going after all the things in life which he will share with her while they are together.

It is the same with society - healthy societies always exalted heroes who were driven, ambitious, and conquering. Because society needed them, needed their capabilities to acquire valuable things and to fight off powerful enemies for the benefit of everyone. And they needed them much more than they needed the capabilities of any ordinary person.

The fundamental drive is there, of course. The libido, the ego, the life force, the masculine energy. But I think it's important to ask these questions and temper your selfishness with a broader perspective on how your actions affect others. That's part of maturing.

You seem to have a sort of passive aggressive bent to your comments. In the other thread you implied that guys here lack empathy, then you implied that I (I assume your comments are a response to mine) think men should be utterly selfish and life is merely about conquest, and then you imply that I don't think about how my actions affect others, and that I am immature. That's not a very good way to create a healthy discourse.

I get the impression you have suddenly discovered the redpill and watched a bunch of videos and it has triggered your conscience, and rather than reflecting on these ideas yourself to any real extent you've decided to unload a bunch of talking points onto the forum for others to figure out.

There's nothing wrong with having meaningful discussions on topics such as this (I certainly enjoy thinking about it) but nobody wants to sit there and play the contrarian to some vague notions wrapped in emotional reactions. I suggest you reflect deeply on these topics, draw up some realistic and well thought out conclusions and perspectives, and lay them out for debate so that the discussion can be fruitful for everyone.

 

[Chase]

As far as what women say about their previous experiences after sex, I never believe any of that stuff. Of course she will always tell me I'm great, and much better than her previous experiences; in that moment she wants me to stick around. Women are very used to propping up men's egos.

If you're asking girls "How was that for you?" and other nonsense like that, sure, you are going to get BS answers.

That's not the point of post-coital conversation. Even the words she says is not the point. You are looking for the EMOTION and reading the subtext of how she talks about prior experiences. You cannot hide affection for a guy, nor displeasure at him. That's the most informative part.

When it comes to leadership, drive, masculine energy, all that, I think the unidimensional perspective that it's all about conquering and dominating is itself a modern artifact of American individualism/consumerism. If you look at primate dominance hierarches, alpha males who act to domineering get ganged-up on killed very quickly. In history, the best leaders were the ones that took everyone's interests (including their own) into consideration. Even Chase has written about this.

As @Will_V notes, seems to be a misunderstanding of his point.

Do you live in a small town where you know every chick? If so, it might make sense why you feel like it is your responsibility to shepherd them toward the "best possible" men for them. Do you serve as matchmaker? Try to steer guys away from them you know are wrong for them? Take them aside and suggest guys for them you think are better for them who they might not necessarily date on their own?

If you're doing all that, then I suppose it makes sense, and you are behaving in a genuine paternal way toward the women in your town/village.

If on the other hand you are not, and it is just some thing where, "I can't approach girls because what if I'm not the best," then it is not true paternalism, because she is just going to go hook up with some other guy probably even worse than you. Maybe that guy will be an asshole. Maybe he'll be abusive. Maybe instead of giving her a nice time in bed he'll be a one-minute wonder, get his rocks off in her, and kick her to the curb. Rather than you shepherding her toward some guy you know is a match for her, you are just trying to preserve a sense of self-righteousness by washing your hands of dating.

I've gone deep into morality, much deeper perhaps than you have (certainly deeper than what you've alluded to in these posts, anyway). What I discovered was that everything in life is a struggle. Everything you do causes hurt in some way:

• The food you eat comes from the loss of life of something -- animal, plant, or fungus. Something had to DIE so that you could live. Even not just live... eat for pleasure; eating food you did not even need to survive. That plant/animal/fungus died for your sheer enjoyment.
  
  
• You competing for a job means someone else doesn't get it. You paying rent pushes the rent prices up more, ever so slightly, pricing some people out of a home. Every woman you sleep with or date means some other guy goes home alone, or doesn't get to have a girlfriend.
  
  
• The deeper you go down this path, the deeper you get into complete and total nihilism. Your very existence hurts others; every movement you make hurts others. To minimize the suffering you cause others, you should just sit under a tree, breathing as slowly as possible, devoting your life to meditation, living in asceticism, getting your consumption of food and other necessities down as low as you possibly can get it.

Eventually you come out on the other side and realize that the stricter you limit yourself, the less ability you have as well to do good in the world.

So:

Are you someone doing good in the world? If not, then sure, limit yourself as much as possible. Become a nihilistic ascetic. At least then the harm you cause to the world will have a cap on it.

If yes, however, then you can enjoy things in moderation without going total ascetic, while having a net positive impact on the world. You can sleep with a few girls a month while being focused on having a strong positive impact on every woman you intersect with and be a net positive on womankind.

The fundamental drive is there, of course. The libido, the ego, the life force, the masculine energy. But I think it's important to ask these questions and temper your selfishness with a broader perspective on how your actions affect others. That's part of maturing.

There's a difference between moderation and complete asceticism.

Immoderation is "I'm just going to fuck every woman I can, using any means I can -- the outcomes be damned!"

Moderation is being able to sleep with women in a mutually enjoyable process where you aren't leading them on or deceiving them, and are giving them a genuinely rewarding experience.

You seem to be conflating the two.

Or you might be dipping down into asceticism and trending toward complete self-denial as a means of reducing your 'harm' upon the world.

Monks are cool and occasionally useful. However they don't usually do much. Rarely do they play roles of any real significance in society. It's why their monasteries are in secluded locations. They have decided to remove themselves from the world. They aren't doing bad -- but they aren't doing good, either.

It is possible to be a part of the world; to accept that by being alive, you will always cause injury to people someway, somehow, even if unintentioned. "The sandals of the good tread upon as many insects as the sandals of the wicked," as the Exquivan Sage put it in Star Control 3.

But you can offset the incidental harm you do simply by being alive and active in the world by doing even more good in turn, and being conscious that where your actions affect others, you must seek to make those effects positive (rather than non-existent through total self-denial).

Chase

 

[ElChe]

I never feel like I'm the "best choice" for any girl, and so ethically, it makes me think I'm doing them a disservice if I try seduce them. If this is just utterly ridiculous, how do I stop thinking about it? And if it's not, how do you rationalize seducing women if you're not a truly exceptionally high-quality man?

This thinking is just so weird to me.

I just spent like an hour trying to articulate why... but then I remembered something...

This is the end of the discussion. Everybody thank me, give me all the likes. Chase/mods-- go ahead and lock this thread. You're welcome everybody.

Nah but in all seriousness... Why do you have to be "the best" (or even just really good) to have an experience with a girl that she appreciates?

Do you only watch and appreciate movies that are perfect? Can you only appreciate time you spent with a girl if she's "perfect"?

There are probably a lot of girls in your life... who you've had moments with that weren't perfect... but she thinks back on them and it puts a smile on her face.

Just the fact that you are talking with her and flirting with her and there with her is a beautiful thing, and something to be celebrated and appreciated, don't you think?

I also think maybe you are confusing the seduction standards of Girlschase and the members of this forum... with what women will actually enjoy and appreciate.
The difference is that people here are viewing seduction as a skill, something to perfect.
And here, the guys want to keep the discussion towards achieving "high level" seduction-- cause that's the point.

But the actual women? They're out there, maybe a little bored, maybe a little frustrated... and would appreciate any time they could spend with a guy they're attracted to. They'd probably love to be seduced, or flirted with, or whatever.

And if they are attracted to you and don't appreciate it... I think that says more about them than it does about you, honestly.

(and of course, if you get very good at seduction, then women will love you that much more).

So... yeah, have high standards for yourself...
But also know that women who are attracted to you (and probably many women who aren't attracted), appreciate your efforts anyway.

 

[ulrich]

@ElChe’s post left me thinking about how futile it is to try to play perfect matchmaker with someone.

It’s like you’re playing god and trying to maximize the happiness of everyone in a twisted OCD game.

The thing is… no man is god… no man has perfect knowledge.
Trying to decide who is the best possible match for someone is an illusion at best.

I’ll add that I am yet to know a woman who doesn’t have acne, doesn’t tweak her IG pictures and doesn’t gossip about other people.
All girls I know use drama to get what they want… which if you confront them, they will admit it’s not right and the keep doing it.

Women are imperfect too… all of them.

What point is there on trying to maximize their happiness… and denying yours?

 

[StrayDog]

This thinking is just so weird to me.

I just spent like an hour trying to articulate why... but then I remembered something...

This is the end of the discussion. Everybody thank me, give me all the likes. Chase/mods-- go ahead and lock this thread. You're welcome everybody.

Nah but in all seriousness... Why do you have to be "the best" (or even just really good) to have an experience with a girl that she appreciates?

Do you only watch and appreciate movies that are perfect? Can you only appreciate time you spent with a girl if she's "perfect"?

There are probably a lot of girls in your life... who you've had moments with that weren't perfect... but she thinks back on them and it puts a smile on her face.

Just the fact that you are talking with her and flirting with her and there with her is a beautiful thing, and something to be celebrated and appreciated, don't you think?

I also think maybe you are confusing the seduction standards of Girlschase and the members of this forum... with what women will actually enjoy and appreciate.
The difference is that people here are viewing seduction as a skill, something to perfect.
And here, the guys want to keep the discussion towards achieving "high level" seduction-- cause that's the point.

But the actual women? They're out there, maybe a little bored, maybe a little frustrated... and would appreciate any time they could spend with a guy they're attracted to. They'd probably love to be seduced, or flirted with, or whatever.

And if they are attracted to you and don't appreciate it... I think that says more about them than it does about you, honestly.

(and of course, if you get very good at seduction, then women will love you that much more).

So... yeah, have high standards for yourself...
But also know that women who are attracted to you (and probably many women who aren't attracted), appreciate your efforts anyway.

It really is all so simple when you think about it this way