Post: #1

One of my Twitter followers just sent me this video. You should watch the whole thing; I can't summarize all of the delusional white-knight, feminist talking points.

His core argument seems to be that nice guys don't, in fact, finish last. They should just wait until the women are old enough to want to settle down with you.



This isn't a player hater thread--because he's not teaching "game" here. He's actually hating on game. His alternative is to basically be chode on purpose.

Quote:"We'll all been there...you see the jerk who's got a beautiful girlfriend he doesn't deserve."

Quote:"Even if they manage to steal your girlfriend, doesn't mean [the jerks have] won in the long run."

Quote:"Sure there are some guys who might be able to trick women into sleeping with them based on some plan they concocted in their mother's basement. But are they really winning?"

Quote:If you've been concentrating all of your effort into practicing these sleaze-ball tactics, you're not going to have the capacity to offer someone a healthy relationship. Is that winning?

Quote:"Remember that life is not a sprint, it's a marathon. The sleaze-ball douchebags...might appear to have an upper hand but, in 15 years--if they don't change their ways--they're going to be losers. And probably alone."

   

Post: #2

Fair trade. You take the old ones I'll take the young ones

Post: #3

This guy learned "ethical game" because a girlfriend cheated on him, the video reeks of it.
The irony of promoting the same behavior that got you fucked over in the first place...

Post: #4

The guy's a pretty good speaker as far as Youtube goes but I'm always suspicious of anybody espousing views that make it sound like they're not subject to the same natural laws as everybody else.

He talks about not basing your self-worth on how many hot girls you've slept with. Sorry but WTF is wrong with that? I know homeboy has conveniently placed artsy prints of the Buddha hanging above him but the ego is part of us.

Anybody claiming to have transcended the human condition deserves all of the skepticism you can muster.

There's a lot to life and feeling good about yourself---true enough---but we're essentially hard-wired to base our self worth on money, status and women through a sophisticated feedback mechanism developed over tens of millions of years. It's designed to tell us how good we're doing in terms of winning the sperm wars and passing on our genes. Nature's smart like that.

And this dude seems to be alluding to the idea that you should fight with your nature. A more losing battle there cannot be.

Finally: "ethical" pickup...?

Post: #5

Of course you can pick up a girl ethically (for me that means "without lying, being open about my intentions"). However, that has nothing to do with this white knight's delusional examples. He's just a weirdo who hates on men more successful than him.

Post: #6

Before speaking about picking up girls ethically it must first be established what "ethical" means.

In my opinion "ethics" is an empty secular blue pill PC word for simulating the commandments of religions, because otherwise all atheistic thought worldviews would be completely devoid of morals and would cause huge mischief in society.

Every moral law must be backed up by authority or force that makes this law worth of fallowing.

In religions God is the force that covers the moral laws. He rewards and punishes in afterlife

In evolutionary psychology - natural law is what enforces patriarchy as good and matriarchy as evil for society and individual. Natural law rewards with progeny and/or high social status and punishes with extinction and/or irrelevance.

But secularism and atheism lacks force to define what is "ethical" and what is not. The only force available remains legal system. Therefore secularists usually also become liberals who worship state. But state is not omnipotent or omniscient or unchanging like God or mother nature. Therefore it makes a poor force to base morals on.

Surely one must at least pretend if not fully observe all laws of state to not get punished, but talking about "ethics" without referring to a higher force like God or natural law is completely futile. In the end it is the consequences of action that matter. With no higher force to enforce consequences there is no morality and no "ethics", what remains is only opportunity.

Post: #7

This is how losers cope being a loser.

Hamstering.

Post: #8

I try to buy my coffee and chocolate ethically because ethical fair trade crops are generally less harmful to the environment and support developing countries. I buy my fish ethically because sustainable wild caught fish always tastes better than fish farmed in the muddy Mekong. I'll sometimes even try to buy my clothes ethically because I don't like the idea of some ten-year-old kid toiling in a sweatshop.

I see no point in picking up the 98% of women that are hamster rationalising, manipulative, selfish cock carousel riders ethically - because they don't deserve it. In this case, I am BP, a shale oil mine, a super trawler and a Japanese whale boat all rolled into one.

Post: #9

This is why I cut girls loose. If she's a girl that I really like and I can't hit it or tie her down in an LTR I have to let her go. I refuse to sit around waiting for her to settle for my ass.

Post: #10

File under: heterophobia, something Roosh wrote about a while back.

Could you imagine a video telling gay guys there is an "ethical" way they should pick each other up? "No more screwing in the club bathroom, guys!" No one would ever do that, but they'll do it with straight men.

The ideas in this video evolved from secular liberalism, which is basically religion for people who think they're above religion. Secular liberals swallowed the whole "sex is SINFUL!" meme from Catholicism ("lust" morphed into "objectifying women") but only for straight people. They dismiss the whole "being gay is sinful."

The idea that men are "tricking" women into sleeping with them comes directly from church, where men are lustful beasts who somehow lure all the pure virginal females into having sex -- which is a filthy act, after all.

Maybe a better name for this stuff should be "Zombie Catholicism," since it seems like a revival of old ideas our parents grew up with. The church said you'd go to hell; this guy is saying you'll pay the price sooner, but it's the same general idea: sinners will be punished.

Finally, here is something he doesn't see. What if the man "tricking" the woman into bed is actually better for the woman in a way that's not evident immediately? There is a "Twilight Zone" episode called "Spur of the Moment" that touches on this. Sometimes a cad isn't always a cad when you look a little deeper...or when ten years go by.

Post: #11

Quote:The idea that men are "tricking" women into sleeping with them comes directly from church, where men are lustful beasts who somehow lure all the pure virginal females into having sex -- which is a filthy act, after all.

In biblical times couples married young. Probably around the time women started bleeding. 14-18? So men tricking virginal women into sex may have been a real thing. Not so much with today's modern women.

Post: #12

Quote:Most men aren't going to be sleeping with 23 year old girls, well into their 60's. It's just not healthy.

Post: #13

The thing with people who espouse "ethics", using them to make points and to hang over others' heads is that they either fail to or refuse to realize that ethics are far from being universal laws or practices. This guy has essentially created his own ethical dogma: his ethics are "right" and the "sleazeball" "pickup guys" who "live in their mothers' basements" are "wrong". He could (and I'm sure is) advocating for tactics that are just as "unethical" as classic game staples, but his own dogma dictates that he is actually "winning".

It's unfortunate that many see words like "ethical" or "Christian" before some product, speech, group, etc. and are hard-wired to immediately assume that the entity in question is "good". Same thing is going on here. Guy labels himself as "ethical" knowing that hordes of guys who have had little success with women will think "I can get chicks from this guy AND keep my soul??!! Where do I sign??!!" although at the end of the day, this is just another defeatist take.

Post: #14

Quote:"Even if they manage to steal your girlfriend, doesn't mean [the jerks have] won in the long run."

"In the long run we are all dead."

- John Maynard Keynes

Post: #15

Nature won't negotiate.

Post: #16

(03-21-2014 07:48 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Finally, here is something he doesn't see. What if the man "tricking" the woman into bed is actually better for the woman in a way that's not evident immediately? There is a "Twilight Zone" episode called "Spur of the Moment" that touches on this. Sometimes a cad isn't always a cad when you look a little deeper...or when ten years go by.

I don't understand your point here. Isn't that episode about how the woman SHOULDN'T run away with the cad? She gets married to the cad and suffers for it, and regrets not marrying the investment banker. In this show, the cad is just a cad.

Post: #17

This guy is a dictionary definition of a male hamster.

Post: #18

"But what *is* truth?.... if you get my drift."
Lionel Hutz, ambulance chasing attorney on The Simpsons

Not going to defend the video. A lot of it is incoherent and not well thought out.

On the larger topic of can pickup be ethical or unethical. I would say - of course.

Most of it boils down to the maxim - treat others as you would like to be treated.

I realize this will be lost on a certain portion of the RVF audience. Those who really are dark triad and not just claiming to be. A dark triad person doesn't possess empathy. It's like trying to explain the colors red and blue to a person who was born blind.

I would say slavery is unethical - whether or not there's a god to judge me for it or the laws of nature allow me to do it.

Then again, I guess a crocodile eating a zebra is probably unethical from the point of view of the zebra. But that is nature.

Post: #19

Now I keep on hearing Arnold Schwarzenegger saying "nature won't negotiate" in my head.

(03-21-2014 11:12 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Nature won't negotiate.

Post: #20

This mangina is attempting to get on some sort of ethical high horse regarding picking up women, meanwhile:

-He lives in a first world country and the amount of resources he consumes could sustain an entire household in Africa
-He has a computer, which is a completely superfluous and unnecessary commodity that wastes water and other resources

This isn't about ethics. It's about his lack of success with women. Instead of being honest with himself and the world around him, he creates a narrative in his head, "Well, I COULD be successful with women if I really wanted to, but I'm an ethical person and I treat women honorably."

In nature, he's the weakling hyena that gets the rotten scraps of meat still clinging to the carcass, all while declaring, "I'm honorable! I would never take the life of an antelope! The taste of sweet, fresh meat isn't worth it!"

Post: #21

Quote:Quote:
"We'll all been there...you see the jerk who's got a beautiful girlfriend he doesn't deserve."

Sounds just like the fat, unkempt broads that expect men to find them sexy without putting an ounce of effort into their appearance or personality.

You don't deserve a fucking thing. You earn it.

Post: #22

This fellow is simply redefining "winning" as settling down with a woman after she's done riding the carousel. He's defining "losing in the long run" as having lots of uncommitted sex with young, hot women.

There's a word for the philosophy that tells men to savor eating crap (or, in this instance, calling yourself a "winner" as you lose big time). It's called "the blue pill."

Post: #23

Quote:"Sure there are some guys who might be able to trick women into sleeping with them based on some plan they concocted in their mother's basement. But are they really winning?"

So how is scooping up some soulless 35 year old with a high-mileage vagina, after her other options have prettymuch completely dried up, any less a form of "tricking them"?
If she could still be fucking those 'jerks', you think she wouldn't be?

Post: #24

(03-21-2014 11:40 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 07:48 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Finally, here is something he doesn't see. What if the man "tricking" the woman into bed is actually better for the woman in a way that's not evident immediately? There is a "Twilight Zone" episode called "Spur of the Moment" that touches on this. Sometimes a cad isn't always a cad when you look a little deeper...or when ten years go by.

I don't understand your point here. Isn't that episode about how the woman SHOULDN'T run away with the cad? She gets married to the cad and suffers for it, and regrets not marrying the investment banker. In this show, the cad is just a cad.

This was a mistake. You're right. I misremembered the episode. Most "Twilight Zones" have twist endings, so I thought it ended with her getting screwed by the good guy. But it wasn't that way.

Source:
http://twitchfilm.com/2012/01/exploring-...oment.html

Post: #25

He obviously forgot the adage (incidentally usually used by girls) that "All is fair in love and war"!