(05-26-2014 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Then why is Toronto such a hellhole for men? Game is prolific there, yet the women suck.

Roosh has also written about this as well:
http://www.rooshv.com/15-reasons-why-tor...ca-for-men

Quote:9. The entrenched PUA culture is raising the egos of all women

I thought that Washington DC had a strong pickup culture, but I hadn’t been to Toronto. PUAs are like rats in Toronto, infecting many venues with their fake high energy, puffed-out chests, loud fashion accessories, and total sobriety. On Thursday night I went to Madison Avenue Pub where I got to see at least 50 of them approach every woman in the bar. As much as I want to hate on them for increasing the girls’ bitch shields, I now understand why they do it: they have to. The best game in Toronto is not being an interesting man but just approaching a million girls with your freezeouts and spin moves and negs until you find the horny girl who wants to fuck.

The more game men learn, the more options women have. Mere game is not the answer.

Disagree with you to some degree.

Sex/SMP is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

Many hot girls go weeks without sex just because a man with sufficient Game has not approached them. If 100% of guys knew Game and especially their Inner Game improved there would be more sex happening.

Currently the market is squeezed more by the obesity epidemic and the shrinking of the pool of bangable girls. At ages beyond 25 many women are even getting a lot less sex while they pursue their paper-pushing careers. More men with Game would help those ladies out.

Would there be more sex, if there were more slim, sexy and feminine women who cared about their appearance? What if after a few years there would be close to 0% obese or overweight women? Would there be more sex in general? Of course there would be more sex!

The more men become Alphas, Sigmas or even men with better Game, the more men are bangable even to the lovely hypergamous Snowflakes out there.

But yes - those who are unwilling to learn would be squeezed out evermore, so in a way I agree with you partly.

And of course prostitution would not have saved this guy - he could have gotten that and chose not to. In our current SMP you are the biggest loser if no one finds you sponge-worthy.

(05-27-2014 12:23 AM)bacan Wrote:  Women like to feel loved, cared for, and special.. Like in your eyes they are the only girl in the world..

That's what women say they want.

I've been formulating this theory lately, early days yet. I'll ponder it some more:

What women want is men who offer them absolute destruction of their personality.

The first aspect:

- allowing themselves to become a subservient extension of the man's will, which the man in question being dominant, masculine, and enviable by other women, whilst the girl never being entirely sure how he feels for her because sometimes he's nice to her and other times he seems self-interested.

If she's attracted enough, you will never meet a happier woman than one being guided by and attending to a strong, socially-dominant man.

Women who get offended at this concept are stuck in relationships with men they don't respect and are slightly-repulsed by, and always have a suspicion they're settling and could do better. (Hell, any Players know what girls will do for us sexually that they'd be repulsed at doing to their boyfriends).

The second aspect:

- surrendering to wild, animalistic emotion. They want to exist outside themselves, not having to temper or control what they're feeling. They want to not feel, but become fury, passion, jealousy, excitement, hysteria, sex.

For example: girls aren't screaming and crying over boy bands out of actual love for the band, but because it gives them excuse to become pure screaming, crying emotion in a socially-acceptable context, normalised by their friends. They get to exist outside themselves. Hate Reading is a similar concept - I was shocked to realise that the Jezebel crowd are self-aware about it, and know that it's unproductive and destructive, but do it anyway.

The third aspect:

Debasement. If you offer a woman a choice between a good, stable man who could honour her and lead her to grace, or a self-interested man who can offer her ruination, she'll always choose the latter. No girl wants stability - it's 'boring'. And no girl wants to be good. Some may try, but they all lack the willpower to do so. Giving in to their emotions over common sense is a foregone conclusion. Deep down, I suspect they loathe the very concept of virtue because the effort it requires is beyond them, and women crave what is easy. Therefore, they ache to debase and destroy every trace of virtue within themselves with a man they're attracted to.

You can see this reflected by women's current choices in society: strip mall tatts, eating disorders, piercings, fat acceptance, cock carousel riding, acting like men, cutting off their long hair when a guy hurts them. Self-destruction rules the day.

Understanding all that, what makes an attractive man to women then?

A man they can recognise as possessing the power to destroy.

Either meaning:

- their self-destruction, (Junkie, Biker, Bad Boy, Musician, Drug Dealer, Frat Jock, Physically Violent, Criminal).

- being powerful enough to destroy others.

A physically-fit, muscular man is strong enough to harm her enemies, or protect her from reprisal when she seeks to harm others.

A mentally-tough, stoic man won't break or back down under pressure, so can be relied upon to serve his function.

A socially-powerful man, who can use connections, personality and influence to enact her will.

A financially-wealthy man, who can provide her the means to enact her will.

Why do you think some girls suddenly decided, like they always do, that this Rodgers shooter is surprisingly-cute? Destructive capacity. She gets to imagine what a guy who is prepared to kill for his beliefs (read: raw emotion) could do for her...

Only rough conjecture at this point. I'm still turning this theory over in my head, so it's probably a bit raggy, but, I've always been aware women seem more attracted to me when I'm scowly than smiling. (I have a black eye and stiches at the moment from a fight scene where a baton hit my retina and split my eyebrow, and it's been a day game pussy magnet. Yeah, yeah, before you run out and hit yourself - I have a blood blister behind my cornea that might require surgery after three months, if it doesn't go down by itself).

Still, my theory could explain why women always fail at building anything of substance in society, because they're really attracted to tearing things down in a fury of raw emotion the moment things get hard: abandoning struggling businesses; disbanding movements due to infighting; viciously attacking their besties; divorcing husbands they're no longer attracted to; murdering children in their wombs.

(05-27-2014 03:40 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Either meaning:

- their self-destruction, (Junkie, Biker, Bad Boy, Musician, Drug Dealer, Frat Jock, Physically Violent, Criminal).

- being powerful enough to destroy others.

A physically-fit, muscular man is strong enough to harm her enemies, or protect her from reprisal when she seeks to harm others.

A mentally-tough, stoic man won't break or back down under pressure, so can be relied upon to serve his function.

A socially-powerful man, who can use connections, personality and influence to enact her will.

A financially-wealthy man, who can provide her the means to enact her will.

Why do you think some girls suddenly decided, like they always do, that this Rodgers shooter is surprisingly-cute? Destructive capacity. She gets to imagine what a guy who is prepared to kill for his beliefs (read: raw emotion) could do for her...

.....

Still, my theory could explain why women always fail at building anything of substance in society, because they're really attracted to tearing things down in a fury of raw emotion the moment things get hard: abandoning struggling businesses; disbanding movements due to infighting; viciously attacking their besties; divorcing husbands they're no longer attracted to; murdering children in their wombs.

I would not make women out to be those kind of monsters

We all have basic evolutionary instincts and drives. Ours are the desire to fuck any sexually mature woman (age 15 upwards) and sometimes bash in some other guy's head because we are angry at him.

That does not mean that we men act on every whim and impulse. And women don't either.

However I agree that their desires make them attracted to Dark Triad characteristics likely because their progeny had higher survival chances, if some primitive man was willing to kill without remorse. But the degree to which a woman finds such a man attractive varies strongly.

Just as men have a minimal standard of attraction, so have women. The reason I am mentioning this is that I think that Game knowledge would in fact help men and society:

What is the minimum level of attractiveness of a women for most men?
IN my opinion it is basically being fit, slim, having a hot body and being young. That is all! Now I know that some guys will say that if she is ugly, then they would not bang her, but to that I would say that those guys would still rate her at 4-5, if she had a toned slim body and was 18. And most guys would bang her!

Now what is the minimum level of attractiveness for men? Since our values are more convoluted let us assume that those factors are all attraction points that ALL MEN can attain. Since it is just as useless as with women to work on a better face or greater height, let us assume that ALL MEN were these things:
- all having perfectly trained bodies - slim muscular sinewy being the least
- all men are taught Game from age 14 on and are at least good at it (some better, but all are good at it)
- all men are encouraged to be as masculine and as Alpha as possible
Let us then assume that most guys reach that state and almost all guys are well toned, Game savvy Alphas, Sigmas or at least Greater Betas with Game.

What would happen in such a world? Sure - some would have better looks, would be much better at Game and would be famous or rich. But the minimum attraction point for most women would be met by almost any guy - meaning that almost any guy would make her wet! Just as the minimum attraction point of most women would be met for men.

I guess that in such a world most guys would end up in LTRs very early since even Master PUAs would have a hard time playing the field. It would be back to quite traditional relationship patterns in no time!

But alas we won't have Dr. Rollo Tomassi and Professor Roosh teach guys Game and evolutionary psychology at schools anytime soon, since a country filled with Alphas is extremely hard to fool and control.

(05-27-2014 04:43 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I would not make women out to be those kind of monsters

Don't assume I'm placing a negative value judgement on their behaviour at all. It'd be like hating the moon for rising at night. I love women for what they are, not for the fantasy of what I wish they were, you know?

Quote:That does not mean that we men act on every whim and impulse. And women don't either.

No, but any subliminated impulse still functions as an accurate predictor of behaviour.

Quote:But the degree to which a woman finds such a man attractive varies strongly.

Based upon her ability to realistically-attract a powerful man. When she isn't high value enough - particularly if she's post wall - she settles, but her awareness of this will guarantee emotional-dissatisfaction, 'I'm not happy', and divorce, particularly as it is no longer socially-shamed by society.

Quote:What would happen in such a world? Sure - some would have better looks, would be much better at Game and would be famous or rich. But the minimum attraction point for most women would be met by almost any guy - meaning that almost any guy would make her wet! Just as the minimum attraction point of most women would be met for men.

No, because social stratification would still take place in some form. A woman wants to possess a man desired by other women, because it raises her social value. It's more than just making her 'wet'.

(05-27-2014 05:10 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  No, because social stratification would still take place in some form. A woman wants to possess a man desired by other women, because it raises her social value. It's more than just making her 'wet'.

I see your point, since hypergamy is a fixed slate. On the other hand in such a society women would get their own Red Pill teaching and be aware of their weaknesses. Nowadays women are encouraged to act upon their impulses and their weaknesses are completely ignored or sold as strenghts. It would take one hell of a woman to ignore all that after a full Red-Pill course from ages 14-18.

I think that it would work out, but of course we won't know for sure until it happens in the real world.

That is why I vowed to teach all my young cousins in the family Game as soon as they are 14. Actually I have already started with one. Even another 12-year-old cousin is asking me whether he will become Alpha - hehe. Young men react quite well to more or less good male role models. The Girls in my family are getting the same "wisdom" Should be mandatory in school.

I think you're forgetting one thing. This guy was damaged mentally for some time so learning game would make him just a charming psychopath.

I'm the first to admit that game is not sustainable on a societal level, and my argument was not that game will save us.

But in this particular case, game would have prevented him killing. Yes, if Elliot scored some sex, another guy wouldn't get sex with that specific girl, but it would not have lead to a cascade that would eventually lead to a different mass shooting. Elliot, a virgin, received zero affections or attention, and not even a date. Basic game would have gotten him a drop of validation that I believe would have stopped the massacre. The standard to stop the massacre is quite low---he stated himself that a date would have stopped it.

While I agree with your argument about game being zero-sum across society, and will not stop the problems we see today, I strongly disagree that application of game in Elliot's specific case wouldn't have stopped the killings. Of course I have no way to prove this, but neither does anyone else. We can only speculate from both sides of the coin.

Exactly.

While the supply of sex might be zero-sum when viewed on the societal level, and thus unsolvable by either game or prostitution which can only dampen negative effects somewhat, the supply of affection and kindness is infinite.

(05-27-2014 03:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sex/SMP is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

Many hot girls go weeks without sex just because a man with sufficient Game has not approached them. If 100% of guys knew Game and especially their Inner Game improved there would be more sex happening.

The reason they go weeks without sex is because they've been corrupted by "the alpha experience" in the past and can no longer date regular men.

Every time a woman fucks an alpha, she then compares all future men to that alpha. So if men as a whole become more alpha, all that happens is she looks for the next biggest alpha rush and the bar for being an alpha gets set higher. It's like a junkie going for the next biggest high. Regular drugs just won't cut it anymore.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to most men. It's why all a man needed in America 50 years ago was to have a job, and it was easy for him to get a wife. Now today having a job means shit. Women's standards have increased as their choice and selection of men have increased.

Quote:Basic game would have gotten him a drop of validation that I believe would have stopped the massacre. The standard to stop the massacre is quite low---he stated himself that a date would have stopped it.

While I agree with your argument about game being zero-sum across society, and will not stop the problems we see today, I strongly disagree that application of game in Elliot's specific case wouldn't have stopped the killings. Of course I have no way to prove this, but neither does anyone else. We can only speculate from both sides of the coin.

Now this is a good argument and perhaps it would be true. But it could also be true that Elliot was a sick fuck who would been happy with some validation from women, and then after that rush wears off he would want more from the next woman and so on until he hit a sticking point and went berserk. But there's no way to know for sure and it does seem like he just needed a little bit of love, of which he received none from his father.

The irony was that Elliot's father was an alpha male, and the lack of parental investment from alpha males to their sons also has grave ramifications for the rest of society.

I just want to follow up to Samseau's great wisdom he has shared in this thread and it appears some of the younger guys who don't fully understand yet what he is talking about...

#1) Do women want committed relationships... IMO, women want children. Listening to Dr. Drew on Loveline for years, a man who is known to be one of the world's leaders in human sexual relations, he says a man's sex drive is equal to the desire of a woman to want children. Now stop and think about that fellas. You know how strong your sex drive is, especially in your early 20's. Now you have an idea of how badly women want children, and it is a good thing as that is what keeps the human species alive. A woman does not need to ever orgasm in her entire life, yet she could have 10 healthy children. IMO, woman only see men as an object to get what they need out of life.

So women want a committed relationship, if it gives them what they want in life. But once women get the right to vote, eventually they realize they can vote in a govt. to just take from the men what they need... security (more police), resources (more taxes and welfare handouts), and other whims. They can now have children without having a committed relationship. So we are seeing out of wedlock birth rates explode in the western world. We are seeing the marriage rate plummet. For the first time in USA history there are more single adults than married adults. Women want children, if they can have that without a committed relationship and can still swing from hot alpha to hot alpha, then they win doubly.

#2) Liberalism is the enemy of men and civilization. Liberalism will never work in the real world. It has failed over and over again. It is the enemy of civilization itself. And it destroys men, like all of us, and gives to a few wealthy elites and connected political allies of the leaders.

(05-27-2014 07:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 03:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sex/SMP is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

Many hot girls go weeks without sex just because a man with sufficient Game has not approached them. If 100% of guys knew Game and especially their Inner Game improved there would be more sex happening.

The reason they go weeks without sex is because they've been corrupted by "the alpha experience" in the past and can no longer date regular men.

Every time a woman fucks an alpha, she then compares all future men to that alpha. So if men as a whole become more alpha, all that happens is she looks for the next biggest alpha rush and the bar for being an alpha gets set higher. It's like a junkie going for the next biggest high. Regular drugs just won't cut it anymore.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to most men. It's why all a man needed in America 50 years ago was to have a job, and it was easy for him to get a wife. Now today having a job means shit. Women's standards have increased as their choice and selection of men have increased.

May be true unless the society as a whole becomes consciously Red Pill, but we won't see that happening, so your arguments are of course valid.

(05-27-2014 07:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 07:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 03:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sex/SMP is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

Many hot girls go weeks without sex just because a man with sufficient Game has not approached them. If 100% of guys knew Game and especially their Inner Game improved there would be more sex happening.

The reason they go weeks without sex is because they've been corrupted by "the alpha experience" in the past and can no longer date regular men.

Every time a woman fucks an alpha, she then compares all future men to that alpha. So if men as a whole become more alpha, all that happens is she looks for the next biggest alpha rush and the bar for being an alpha gets set higher. It's like a junkie going for the next biggest high. Regular drugs just won't cut it anymore.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to most men. It's why all a man needed in America 50 years ago was to have a job, and it was easy for him to get a wife. Now today having a job means shit. Women's standards have increased as their choice and selection of men have increased.

May be true unless the society as a whole becomes consciously Red Pill, but we won't see that happening, so your arguments are of course valid.

It's basically the whole "5 minutes of alpha > 5 years of beta" thing.

(05-27-2014 06:05 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Basic game would have gotten him a drop of validation that I believe would have stopped the massacre. The standard to stop the massacre is quite low---he stated himself that a date would have stopped it.

The guy had never even kissed a girl or went on a date. That's extreme, that means not even playing bottles or getting free kisses from fatties in high school. That means girls completely rejected him for all his life. He said many times they don't even give me a chance. So he's feeling like he's a great guy who would score alot if he was given a chance. He had 0 experience with girls and couldn't gauge his abilities.

Had he approached some girls and went on dates, he would have realized some things are off with him. The guy was smart. He could have improved himself. RVF would have pulled him away from the radioactive influence of his mother and psychologist, who probably kept telling him to be nice and polite.

I don't think he was a lost cause, because I remember seeing a lot of guys who were worse than him getting into pick up stuff. I mean come on. Some dating gurus have the same psychological profile as this guy.

(05-27-2014 07:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It's basically the whole "5 minutes of alpha > 5 years of beta" thing.

That's true, but here I am talking about a theoretical society in which the majority of men are Alphas. Would women still be so desperate to hunt for the highest breed? I am not so sure.

We won't know for sure, but Red Pill & Game should be taught at school in addition to useful financial knowledge, how to take care of your body (nutrition and exercise), how to think independently and scrutinize over any information given and make up your own mind, useful mnemonic techniques, speed-reading etc. Those subjects would produce a better stronger human society. Alas - musing of a better world.... might as well ask for unicorns...

(05-27-2014 07:54 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 07:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It's basically the whole "5 minutes of alpha > 5 years of beta" thing.

That's true, but here I am talking about a theoretical society in which the majority of men are Alphas. Would women still be so desperate to hunt for the highest breed? I am not so sure.

We won't know for sure, but Red Pill & Game should be taught at school in addition to useful financial knowledge, how to take care of your body (nutrition and exercise), how to think independently and scrutinize over any information given and make up your own mind, useful mnemonic techniques, speed-reading etc. Those subjects would produce a better stronger human society. Alas - musing of a better world.... might as well ask for unicorns...

Again, the idea that everyone can be alpha makes as much sense as saying everyone can be rich.

Alpha/beta are relative terms just like rich/poor are relative terms. You cannot make a world of alpha males anymore than you can make a Marxist paradise where everyone is rich.

Who wants to save western civilization? The US has become a joke, just look at the president, he may be killing it behind closed doors but he looks like a guy who is smart yet always appears to be placating somebody usually a woman or women. The big problem with this is that that has become the acceptable public view of any man no matter how low or high up he may be in the social strata, he must be placating some women any women. General Petraeus was given the boot because he had a side piece. What does it matter who he sleeps with while he is managing a war? This country is filled to the brim with pussies, always doing their very best to please women. Sterling can't even say things behind closed doors to his girlfriend without losing fuck all, no matter what his views are. I would rather have a country sink to the bottom of the ocean then be a part of it if a CEO can lose his job here just because his line of yoga pants intentionally caters to fit women and he admits it publicly.

That kid failed himself, completely. He gave up on everything, everyone. He had an excellent car, money, he lived in an excellent location plus he was not bad looking IMO. But more important than all of that he had the internet, all of human intelligence ready at the touch of his finger tips easily viewable from a scintillating computer screen 24 hours 7 days a week no matter what the question, no matter what one wants to learn within reason. I don't care what social problems he had, if he could post an elaborate youtube video like the ones he had produced then he had the ability to handle his own problems. No, what he really wanted was someone to take care of his problems, to save him from himself. There has never been a time in history where someone can turn their life around so utterly that you could be born poor and disfigured and with persistence, courage and a bit of luck you can become someone rich or desireable, or both. The real tragedy is that he couldn't see that, just when his life was starting.

(05-26-2014 11:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If girls were interested in having stable and committed relationships today, there wouldn't be a need for game in the first place.

This is the best sound bite to come out of all the recent discussion on here. It bears repeating.

(05-27-2014 08:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Again, the idea that everyone can be alpha makes as much sense as saying everyone can be rich.

Alpha/beta are relative terms just like rich/poor are relative terms. You cannot make a world of alpha males anymore than you can make a Marxist paradise where everyone is rich.

But some nations are richer than others. The poorest people in America are richer than many people in Africa. There will always be rich and poor, but a healthy society is one in which everybody gets richer over time.

There are "poor" people who have televisions in their home today. Back in the 1950's and 1960's, almost every middle class home had one television.

(05-27-2014 07:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 03:22 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sex/SMP is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

Many hot girls go weeks without sex just because a man with sufficient Game has not approached them. If 100% of guys knew Game and especially their Inner Game improved there would be more sex happening.

The reason they go weeks without sex is because they've been corrupted by "the alpha experience" in the past and can no longer date regular men.

Every time a woman fucks an alpha, she then compares all future men to that alpha. So if men as a whole become more alpha, all that happens is she looks for the next biggest alpha rush and the bar for being an alpha gets set higher. It's like a junkie going for the next biggest high. Regular drugs just won't cut it anymore.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to most men. It's why all a man needed in America 50 years ago was to have a job, and it was easy for him to get a wife. Now today having a job means shit. Women's standards have increased as their choice and selection of men have increased.

I think that their standards haven't increased, but have changed.

That fact that game works so well is proof of this.

You don't have to be super handsome, rich, tall, etc. to get laid. You can fake importance if you know how to walk in a particular way or say the right words, wear the right clothes etc.

They are looking for a particular tribal affinity more than anything.

It's like when you are dealing with very high quality girls. Once you are perceived as being part of the "in crowd", you have a much higher chance with them.

It's kind of like getting past that first like on defense is becoming more and more important with girls these days. That's why attraction is dominating the game nowadays.. Girls are accessing guys based on how they appear.

If you look like you are in because you are "hot" you've got automatic comfort as well.

You signified that you are part of the cool kids crowd.

After that, it gets a lot easier because they're minds go out of defense mode, and frankly, they aren't that smart.

Essentially game is becoming:

"Look cool, don't fuck it up" game.

in the past it might not have needed that initial blast upfront.

If you look at the videos of the kids hanging out on forth of July in at the university in Santa Barbara, you can see that the girls aren't that smart. I don't think they're standards are super high so long as you are part of the in crowd at the university.

Clearly, Elliot Rodger wasn't part of that scene. He was holding on to a childish fantasy.


I'm pretty sure that there are scenes that I wouldn't do as well in. I'm kind of optimized for NYC urban/bohemian/artist/musician type game, but I'd have to switch some stuff up if I wanted to pull at Jersey Shore type club.

Even within my niche, I need to improve a lot.

(05-26-2014 10:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Property is an artificial human invention? In fact, all mammals have a sense of property, and that's why they fight to protect their territory against others of their species.

Monkeys fight other monkeys for land. Lions fight other lions. Wolves fight other wolves. Birds also mark territory. Property is hardly a human invention and seems entirely biological in origins.

You are confusing property and territoriality. All species will fight over survival resources in the face of scarcity or perceived scarcity. Does not matter whether that resource is food or mating opportunities.

Don't confuse animals competing for survival resource with the concept of property.

Take two bulls, put them in a field with one cow and they will compete over her and not because they think that they "own" her.

Put the exact same bulls in a field with 200 cows and they are not going to be very interested in fighting. They will simply follow their sexual imperative and mate with each female in turn.

(05-26-2014 10:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Moreover, males fight each other for females in every single mammal species. 98% of mammalian species on the planet has hypergamous females and alpha/beta male dichotomy. Thus women are inherently property of the male sex, of which males must compete for, and have competed for over millions of years.

Hypergamy is define as "marrying up" is most definitions you will find and human beings are the only species with a concept of marriage.

(05-26-2014 10:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Human sexuality comes from evolution and has always worked the same way.

Human sexuality stopped following human nature about 10,000 years ago with the introduction of the "normal" plane of human sexuality and the Sex 2.0 schism.

If human sexuality simply followed human nature there would be no set of social imperatives to dictate behaviour in this regard, there would be no relationship duress in any form and there would be no concept of marriage.

(05-26-2014 10:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This isn't the forum to deny human nature, which is easily observable in almost all mammals.

Human nature is only observable in humans.

(05-26-2014 10:38 PM)Daddy Wrote:  Would you care to expand on that point? Because to me it's the opposite. We were monogamous for most of our history as humans, then just recently moved towards more polygamous societies.

Even the word monogamy is a recent invention. It only dates from the 1610s.

Human beings have never been monogamous and certainly are not today.

The only hold that monogamy has ever had over humanity has been in concept and dictat, certainly never in behaviour.

There is a breakdown of the evolution of it here - http://sexthreepointzero.org/

(05-27-2014 07:32 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  #1) Do women want committed relationships ?

Women crave security.

A commitment is simply a choice that someone makes to reduce their options for the benefit of another person.

These two things are not the same.

(05-27-2014 06:05 AM)Roosh Wrote:  I'm the first to admit that game is not sustainable on a societal level, and my argument was not that game will save us.

Roosh, I agree with the original poster on one thing.

Game is not a "cure" for this guy or guys like him.

1. Game is not a cure for narcissism

2. Game is not a cure for self-entitlement

3. Game is not a cure for a cure for being a sociopathic (one could argue the opposite as many game strategies are based on being manipulative and dishonest)

4. Game is not a cure for lacking in empathy (again one could argue the opposite)

Is short, "game" is not a solution framework for anything because it was not designed as a solution framework.

It was designed as a way for guys to get laid and nothing more.

(05-27-2014 06:05 AM)Roosh Wrote:  But in this particular case, game would have prevented him killing. Yes, if Elliot scored some sex, another guy wouldn't get sex with that specific girl

This is based on the false assumption that sex is a zero sum game.

(05-27-2014 08:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Again, the idea that everyone can be alpha makes as much sense as saying everyone can be rich.

Alpha/beta are relative terms just like rich/poor are relative terms. You cannot make a world of alpha males anymore than you can make a Marxist paradise where everyone is rich.

Not everyone can be Alpha of course, but the majority - yes, if they are encouraged to be as masculine as possible - from society, media and schooling. The others can be Red Pill & Game aware - that can be taught. Currently there are countries in the world with significantly higher levels of Alphas than others.

And no - everyone can be rich in a technologically advanced society without money. Simple resource allocation and automated lifestyles can easily give every family on earth a house and a garden or luxurious appartment. But that is a topic for a different thread and needs more elaboration.

And I don't see these terms as relative - Alpha is absolute and so is Beta in regards to a relationship and his general character. The term itself is of course more versatile, since no one is 100% Alpha all the time.

The same goes for rich or poor. If every "poor" person has a house/luxurious appartment, needed utilities and travelling freedom a couple of times a year, then he is rich and content enough - most humans would see it that way except for a few who always like to rule over others. A society without money and super-high technology should be the goal of humanity, but again - off topic.