You won't ask men to put sex into perspective until they conquer it. Its a lower order need, it has to be satisfied before higher order needs will be satisfied.
I don't know. Possibly tantric training might be enough. Throughout our written history we've had a whole lot of people who didn't consider it a lower order need that had to be satisfied. Across most of Hellenic greek areas, people were having sex in church. Medieval christians considered it normal and proper to tame their lust. Etc. It's our culture which has taught men that they're deeply inferior unless they have a lot of sex with a lot of women.
Sex is easier to get now, but only for certain people. Its easier for wooers, its easier for good looking men with charisma. If you are ugly or awkward, its actually harder. Your post implies you think casual sex is easy to get, but I think this betrays a vast misunderstanding of the sexual options many men face. They simply won't get sex with nearly any woman.
I don't know what's possible there. I noticed that people do a tremendous amount of hypocrisy about sex. When they do things they think the dominant society will disapprove of, they try to keep it secret. Then sometimes it leaks over gossip networks anyway. I think it's plausible that there might be a whole lot more sex going on than shows up, and that most of it is long-term arrangements. The rates of STD discovery indicate that if that's happening it's a lot of small closed groups and not a lot of random mating. On the other hand, applying that logic to the spread of syphilis in the early 16th century would imply that they were doing considerable random sex, Church or no.
100 years ago if you were ugly or awkward you put your effort into a trade, school, or a business and then a women would marry you pretty young. Today getting that career really isn't the ticket, so all that's left is to work on wooing. For nerds (people who read this forum) that usually means approaching things from a left brain perspective, studying them, categorizing them, practicing them, etc. That's all bottom feeding scum sucker is.
Sure. And people with a whole lot of disposable income can spend it on learning seduction techniques, or on fur-lined handcuffs and velvet whips, or whatever. People who have more money than they know what to do with.
And the anti-study crowd is mostly a fem-dom faction playing mind games. It's a variation of the idea that kids should not get sex education. It concerns me that i don't see who is funding them. If nobody's making money off them yet, who knows how it will get twisted around when somebody does see them as a market and looks for ways to make that market pay?
Once you get good enough with women to get some notches, to know that you will at least fulfill that bottom part of Maslow's hierarchy, then you will move on to higher order stuff and not be so focused on it. But don't put the cart before the horse.
From where I am now, this whole situation looks perverse. Do we need such a competitive society? People of both genders so worried about what other people think of them that they do regrettable things.... We'd be a lot better off with a whole lot of tolerance.
zmic wrote:I agree that all human interaction will be interpreted as some form of manipulation. But it most of bottom feeding scum sucker seems to consists of forcing some kind of chemistry when no such chemistry is present to begin with, by play-acting "affectionate moves", by play-acting "a display of interest in her logic", then really what are you doing? HULK not judging this as immoral or anything, it just seems like a pretty weird hobby to me.
Lots of hobbies seem pretty weird to me, but people enjoy them. Like professional wrestling. i felt sick watching that. I'd see the move and then notice that just a little bit different it would kill the victim. It was almost like they were demonstrating one killing move after another, and I wondered how many people were watching it, imagining doing that themselves. It made me think that maybe every time I'd gotten into a fight with a wrestling fan, he knew hundreds of ways to kill me I had no idea of, and the only reason I was alive was that he chose not to kill me.
Tai chi was the same way exactly. It just looked like exercise, and then then somebody explained the moves. "Crush the sternum, pluck the testicles, mangle the larynx, fracture the temple. Stomp the instep, crack the elbow, collapse the knee, crunch the ribs." Yuck.
We're a diverse people and we have diverse hobbies.
P.U.A.'s answer the question of "there's this pretty girl sitting down over there! What do I do?" And I will tell you from experience that applying this stuff affects the way you think, affects the way you act, etc. For example, I become more jovial and playful after using a well-placed fap. I also place lower stakes on getting her approval after a fap as well. I become more outcome independent after blowing out 5 times during the night, and usually have more success the 6th time. After doing some rapport-building exercises like asking about family, friends, music, school, childhoods, goals, dreams, etc., I end up liking a girl more.
People are spending years out of their lives refining their ability to attract the opposite gender in superficial ways. Women have been doing this for longer, and now men are starting to catch up. What's it all for? The most pressing immediate need for US society is cheap safe alternative energy. If we put a fraction of the effort into that, that we put into this negative-sum game of competitive sex appeal, we might get a solution pretty fast.
Which reminds me that I've put nearly 2 days into this forum. It's been kind of fun, and I learned a little, but I can't justify the effort. I'll try to read every 5th post and maybe comment a little, and if that still takes too long I'll have to make myself stop.
Really, this stuff is about manipulating yourself as much as it's about "manipulating" a girl.
How could it be otherwise? You want to bet that gets you any slightest reconciliation from the "you are an evil abomination" camp?
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.