something_else

I don't think it has to be an insane amount of work but yea, I get your point. I mean the path of least resistance to getting $100 right now is to exploit your friends or families trust in you, or to rob a local store. Path of least resistance is not always a good thing. In this case taking the path of least resistance involves exploiting women in poorer countries. I probably don't have enough info to argue on this point but I'll do my best. I can say that in my experience I haven't had any trouble meeting feminine women in the UK and the countries in Europe I've travelled to. I think dating coaches and pickup people often have quite a warped idea of what femininity really is. They view it as more akin to being conservative and submissive which is not really true, or at least not the full picture. There is definitely a shortage of submissive women in Western countries but it's tough to argue that's a bad thing without looking like a knob. Specifically poor foreign countries. No one has an issue with you going to Sweden to find a hot Swedish girl. The issue is when you are targeting countries like the Philippines as the reason dating is so much easier there for you is because you have the power of being perceived as a rich westerner. This is a severe power dynamic. Lets say you end up dating a girl in a poorer country, her mindset could easily become "I can't lose this man because he has given me a much wealthier life than I otherwise would be able to have" and that is very exploitative, as she then becomes powerless and dependent on you to maintain her life. Just by going to a poor country with the intent to date you are planning on exploiting this dynamic. In what ways? I mean I see plenty of dislike towards sugar baby women, or woman who are just looking for money. We have the derogatory term gold digger just for it. Most people realise it's very superficial. And no one is calling men losers for getting jacked, building a thriving social life, having cool hobbies, or earning lots of money through a business.

I mean, the fact you're resorting to insulting my character makes me feel like I may have struck a nerve. If you are travelling for adventure and you happen to meet a girl, that's one thing. If you the kind of guy who is travelling purely to get laid, that's another. I have met a fair few of those guys in the latter category and they were always insufferable and had an awful view of women. Idk where you live, but there are plenty of feminine women who aren't obese chain smokers in every Western country in the world I've been to. Why aren't you going after them? I mean guys frame it like this in their head but really I'm pretty sure it's just about taking the path of least resistance to getting laid. Especially if they struggle in their home country. There are no shortage of feminine women in Western countries, they're just pickier and won't be entirely powerless and dependent on you to exist which is what it sounds like you are looking for when you say things like 'getting away from feminism'. See @Lila9's post.

Whether you make it explicitly about money or not doesn't really matter, you're still exploiting the power dynamic of being a rich Westerner in a poor country either way. That dynamic is always there whether you are bringing money into the equation early or not. Again, my point is not that this dynamic itself bad, more that the guys who try to exploit it heavily are usually pretty degenerate. That may or may not be you, I don't know. The degeneracy comes from the fact that many (not all, there are exceptions) are looking to make the game easier through exploitation rather than through making themselves better and more attractive people. Again it doesn't matter. Just by living in a rich country you provide many opportunities not available easily to people living in poorer countries. I'm not targeting this at you, my point is more generally about the type of guys who tend to travel to poor countries to get laid and my opinions on them.

Moving to a poorer country purely to get laid is usually a degenerate mindset IMO. You are reshuffling your entire life to take advantage of the fact that women in poorer countries will see you as a ticket to a less poverty-stricken life. It works, but it's hard to make a high quality relationship out of that dynamic because of the exploitative nature of it. It's even worse if you're doing it because you can't find women who like you in your home country. There are exceptions to this for sure. It's not a hard rule. But I would argue that 90%+ of the dudes who travel to poorer countries wanting to get laid more easily are not people that you would want to spend much time around.

Plenty of people are born with things they didn’t have to work for. Many people are born into millionaire families. The women who make money on OnlyFans are actually a pretty small percentage of women who look very hot or have unique fetish traits. Most girls make little or nothing. You could easily have been born an ugly woman who has it far worse than an ugly man. At least an ugly man can increase his sexual value through status, money, charisma, and exercise. Having to work for your results instead of being handed them is not always a curse. Expecting everything to be fair is a always a huge curse that will make you miserable, as you are discovering now. Really the fact that there are arrogant women out there who can get whatever they want from guys shouldn’t bother you because you don’t need to interact with them. Just ignore them. There are plenty of attractive girls who are not like that in the world. However the women who are high quality and developed are not going to go for someone who displays such disdain and hatred for them as you do so you should be aware of that too.

His company uses children to mine lithium batteries for his cars and he supposedly influenced the coup to overthrow the Bolivian government because he wanted to mine the lithium there. Among tons of other heinous shit. During Covid he was forcing all his employees to come into the office and shouting like a spoiled child on Twitter as per usual. His leadership at Twitter was a clusterfuck too. He's not all sunshine and roses.

It acknowledged he was charismatic the first time I asked it about him : Ehm, sure? What's the problem?

If you ask it about historically charismatic figures it gives a much more sensible list. Probably because there is lots of text-based accounts of the charisma of these people. @mr_engineer Notice this woke AI also includes Hitler on this list, who I would say is just a tad worse than Tate

You likely think it's especially woke because you are on the other end of the spectrum and interpret something very neutral as 'woke' when really it's designed to be pretty close to the centre of the spectrum. It is slightly woke leaning in that it is designed to avoid controversy, and designed to avoid harming people. That is to prevent it following the path of similar AIs in the past which were quickly abused and converted into extremely aggressive Nazi propaganda spewing messes. You want your AI to be woke-leaning and collectivist because you don't want the AI to hurt anyone. It was trained on data up until 2021. Tate's popularity increased quite a while after that, so it probably doesn't know as much about him, or consider him on the same order of fame as those other figures. It's also capable of making mistakes too. Charisma is a hard thing to evaluate for a text-based AI model which is why it's results are kind of weird.

So sure? I got it to say it first try because it's not really a risky thing to say, plenty of people who have done awful things are charismatic. And ChatGPT is designed to be as unbiased as possible. It doesn't usually want to pretend the world is airy-fairy, it is trained to be accurate and factual. That's a pretty good reason to avoid someone's teachings. Again, Hitler is a prime example of this. He was very charismatic and you could probably learn things from him, but you would distance yourself from someone who was following him too closely, because his actions killed 6 million Jewish people.

It depends, it's an intuitive process, but generally yea. It's considered good practice to divert and revert your eye contact every few seconds and not stare too intensely at someone.

Yea, exactly that's why OP was asking for specific advice about eye contact and not his generic conversation skills. Like you said, eye contact is one of the most important things so it makes sense to ask for advice specifically about that. It's like OP made a post about how to tie bait to a fishing line and you responded with "why are you worrying about how to tie bait to a line when you don't even know how to fish yet." You see how that doesn't make sense?

OP said he had issues with eye contact, he never said anything about struggling to have a conversation. Plenty of people can hold a conversation but struggle specifically with eye contact, so it’s a bit odd to start calling him out for his conversation skills…

Lol, those ads are not real, they're designed to trick men

Ehh, yes but it also applies when you're talking. More than 3 seconds of direct eye contact usually builds up a lot of tension whether you are talking or not, which can be a good or a bad thing depending on what you want to achieve.

What? The rule is more than 3 seconds of direct eye contact means you either want to kiss someone, or kill them.

Well lets say that 10% of men under 30 are basement dwelling neckbeards or some equivalent conventionally unattractive personality type. There are maybe 2% of women under 30 who could feasibly be attracted to that archetype of guy if he was suitably authentic. What do the other 8% of guys do? No matter how authentic they are they will never attract a girl because there literally aren't enough women in the world who would be attracted to their authentic personality. So those men really have to take some effort to increase the likelihood of creating that early attraction or they will end up alone. The advice of being authentic works for the majority of women, and it works for guys who are already attractive, either by personality/charisma, looks or status. It works because the initial attraction is already covered and what you need the authenticity for is building a solid relationship.

Some guy's true and authentic personality is just not attractive to women. For example some guys are authentically shy, autistic, and introverted. Or some guys are basement dwelling neckbeards who love video games. Or some guys are incredibly wholesome. There's nothing wrong with these really, but they aren't attractive to the majority of women despite being very authentic personality types. When you say 'authenticity is the basis for attractiveness' what you mean is a very specific kind of authenticity which is more akin to confidence, leadership, and fearlessness.

There's a video of him proudly admitting how badly he scammed men. I can't find the full clip but here's some annoying YT news bro covering the gist of it. I timestamped it to the main part where Tate is talking. Whenever I see people defend Tate, this is my go to clip to show them.

I agree. But it's better to suffer for a little bit for being picky than to end up with someone you're not really attracted to. It's a balancing act I suppose. From a guy's perspective, women being picky can make us feel insecure and unworthy. So we often have a desire to criticise women for being too picky. But from a woman's POV, being picky is likely pretty healthy.

I don't know how it looks suspicious really, it's just true. There are many men who suffer greatly because they are starved of sex. I know plenty and I'm sure you do too.

People can be as picky as they want

I don't think you actually read what I wrote, I'm not supporting prostitution and I said I wouldn't ever use one. My point was that comparing the suffering of two highly troubled groups where no single person has ever belonged to both is very very difficult. I have no idea where you are getting self-destructive fantasies from in my post. If anything it sounds more like you have issues that you are projecting here because you wildly misinterpreted what I wrote. And no I'm not an incel

You just sound really bitter here mate Sex is absolutely a need for the majority of people. The people who go a lifetime without sex are either miserable, or very exceptional.

Depends. You don't know how strong the male drive for sex is, nor what a lack of sex can make a man feel, and neither of us (I'm guessing) know how the average prostitute suffers. Suffering is very a hard thing to quantify. Imagine an unattractive guy with zero confidence who is 30, a virgin, and has never been loved by anyone; I could easily see that person suffering just as much as an average prostitute, maybe more. To back that up; there is a statistic that virgin men in their late teens and 20s are an exceptionally high suicide risk, on the order of 4x more likely than women or non-virgin men. To be clear I think prostitution is generally bad in most cases and I would never use one, although there are likely women who get into it and enjoy it. Think sugar daddy type relationships. There are no men who enjoy being a 30 year old unloved virgin. My point is that comparing suffering of two groups like this can be hard, since no one has experienced both situations.