something_else

I’m talking about spammy day game which you agreed in the next post is not well received. It’s not a limiting belief. You could do a survey and find that most girls find it creepy or weird. I’m alright with being creepy or weird occasionally in nightgame but doing daygame you’re being viewed as creepy or annoying by probably a solid 50%+ of the girls you approach which is where it reaches the point that I don’t really want to get involved. Talking to the occasional girl you find cute as you go about your day isn’t even really day game. It’s just being a sociable, confident man who finds women attractive. Daygame specifically is when you leave your house with the intent to search for sex during the day by approaching like 10+ women, and it universally is viewed as creepy by the majority of society and especially women. Every approach in daygame your goal is to hide what you’re actually doing from the girl because if you don’t, you know full well she’d be creeped the fuck out. To be clear I’m not denying it can work, I know it can. I just don’t like that principle component is blatant deception. If that makes me a sheep, so be it.

That's the important point. No one has an issue with that, it's the spammy kind of daygame that's questionable Most of daygame is learning how to make your spammy approach seem like you saw a girl you thought was special and you wanted to ask her out. Realistically, if you are approaching lots of girls every day with a daygame strategy, you have to hide what what you're doing from them, no matter what your intentions are. You can have the best intentions in the world, a heart of gold, and emobdy green principles fully, but a girl will still look at you like a bit of a creep if she sees you approach two other girls on your high street before you then approach her and ask her out.

It's not about logic, it's about what girls intuit about you from your behaviour.

Meh, I admit to girls what I'm doing when I do it in clubs and don't really have any problems. I guess if you say it with the right energy it's fine. You could probably pull that off in daygame too if you wanted but I imagine it would be harder The fundamental problem of daygame is that it implies you can't attract girls through traditional means, even if that's not true, which is quite a big red flag for a girl. Yea fair point. I guess my issue with daygame is that 'doing it right' relies heavily on deception. You are trying to create the illusion that you've picked out that particular girl as special when really you're running a numbers game. But I suppose I can't really preach about that, it's hardly like nightgame is a bastion of integrity either. Venue is pretty important in my experience. There's a venue I have been to like 7-8 times and never even met a single girl who was interested in me. Then there are other venues where the dancefloor is almost impossible to walk on at the end of the night from couples making out (and often they are a complete mix of good and bad looking guys/girls) and I have met girls like 50%+ of the time I go there. In general, I've found the best clubs for meeting new people are the ones that have the most diverse group of people in them. The more diverse the club, the more friendly and open everyone is. Clubs that cater to more specific niches of people are always pretty shit for meeting girls. Especially clubs filled with people stuck up their own ass. Techno clubs in my city are a bit like that

Oh, yea that's a complete nightmare, I dont do any more than one, or maybe two, quotes when I post from my phone, it's just too awkward.

You worked at quality companies doing a skilled job. I would not feel like I needed a union at my current company either, nor is it big enough to even warrant one. But if you are a fast food worker in mcdonalds, or a low skill factory worker, you're either in a union, or you're entirely at the mercy of a large company that views you as replaceable.

Heh, fair point but not healthy ones The toxic employer issue is a much deeper problem. Fixing that requires a slow but meteoric shift in the way society is structured. For the time being things like unions are our best solution, even if they can sometimes be quite flawed.

It's some of the most fun I've ever had, and it also grew me the most. I' almost a different person as a result. But you need to learn to let loose, not give a fuck, go with the flow, have fun. That's what going out at night is all about. Work hard, play hard. I've been going out for like 2 years and I've never gotten into a fight, or even an argument really. I've debated people but never seriously argued that I can remember. The rejections are part of it, I find rejection at night way easier when I can just laugh and go talk to the next girl without it being weird. It might just not be for you, perhaps. But most people's body should be able to cope with one or two late nights going out every week, especially when you are like younger than 25 to 30 anyway. You can strike a balance. Girls who go out are normal girls. The notion that girls who go clubbing are all addicts, sluts etc. is a really, really dumb myth. It can be expensive. Depends on location and the club. To me £50 a week to have a couple of great nights in clubs partying is worth it. But you can get by on way less than that. Having to pay for premium or table/table service to have a good time in an average club is some crappy American concoction that clubs everywhere else in the world don't really do. I'm sure there are clubs that don't do that kinda shit in the US too. You don't, you can do it solo. First few times are pretty hard and then you just learn how to make new friends quickly every time you go out solo and you're no longer solo. My experiences doing daygame were 100x more traumatising than my nightgame experiences. Talking to a girl you see out and about occasionally is one thing, that's totally great, but actually going out hunting for sex during the day, and approaching a whole bunch of girls for that purpose, is considered weird/predatory behaviour by 95% of the population.

Idk, that's quite a generalisation. If you go to big melting pot cities like London you see people with pretty vast differences in earnings together. If you are an interesting person or have a lot in common it compensates a lot for differences in earnings. As an example you could see a 1M$+ earner hanging out with dudes from his marital arts gym who are making £30k a year, but they have something else in common so it works. Or even people from the same company. When I go down to London I've spent lots of time with people from my company including my boss (the CEO), and his brother who is a multimillionaire that was talking about casually losing £400k on an investment. The idea that guys earning $100k won't spend time with executives earning $1M+ is kind of an old notion. Nowadays you have much more diverse groups of people who all earn different amounts. Especially with very flatly structured companies where everyone is generally much more equal.

Have you ever worked somewhere that told you everyone there was 'one big family'? and then you tried to ask for literally the smallest, most reasonable request and being denied because it's not policy and they can't make exceptions? or being fired on a moments notice? or them making record profits and buy you all a cake to celebrate and give you 15 mins extra break one day, instead of you know, a raise that matches inflation? or have your contract redesigned to fuck you over out of even more money? Those things are not what a family would do, but massive companies who tell employees they are family will do them all the time. Places that tell you they are a big family are full of shit. You want to work for companies that acknowledge and respect the serious working arrangement you have, not bullshit and gaslight you. A large part of that comes from employers doing essentially everything they can to de-humanise workers and treat them as a resource instead of human beings. You don't need a union at a good company that respects its workers, where you can sort things out without a more formal protest. But most companies are not decent to their workers. They see them as a replaceable resource.

I was taking the piss out of @StarStruck for saying "I'm an extreme empath" earlier in the thread, wasn't talking about @zurew You'd be surprised how far a healthy dose of compassion will get you towards having healthy relationships with women. Don't believe all the red pill propaganda you read online.

So empathetic

I mean nature doesn’t provide you with 100kg weights to bench press Nor does it provide you with a community of other people who are trying to improve their fitness either, which is pretty good for motivation

Have you had particularly bad or one-sided relationships that give you this viewpoint? I have not experienced this to be true, it sounds like a POV that would be born from being mistreated in a shitty relationship, or not having the quality of relationships you want or deserve. In fact I would say I have found that men tend to be the most selfish in relationships from my experience of relationship dynamics in the like 18-25 age range. I’ll even admit I’m more selfish than the partners I’ve been with. Both sexes are capable of being very selfish. Human nature is to be selfish. To say that the love men as a whole give is selfless is wrong purely on the basis that 95% of humans are very very selfish. Men have their own set of selfish relationship goals and they’ll sacrifice only what they need to to obtain those goals, and rarely more.

The thing is, these aren't really internally driven at their core. Self expression is about expressing yourself to others. The desire to feel beautiful is about how others see you. Making yourself look good for others isn't something to be ashamed of. It's perfectly natural. You don't need to come up with reasons why you're 'doing it for you' and 'not doing it for others' Guys who are jacked will admit that easily. But women seem to be hung up on it sometimes. Possibly because of the constant objectification, I suppose. If you are constantly objectified for looks, I can see where the drive to say "I'm not doing this for you, I'm doing this for me" to others would come from. But it doesn't make it ultimately true. If you lived on a planet all by yourself, a woman would never do makeup again, and a man would not be jacked. Neither would wear stylish clothes.

The funniest description I heard is that the US is a third world country wearing a Gucci belt There are better first world countries to live in where you can get all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks. Healthcare is a fucking nightmare in the US. And you might end up getting shot for no reason, or wrongfully imprisoned and stuck in their prison system. All of that is stuff that the US is awful. Plus, politically it's very very divided.

Yea I've gotta admit this frustrates me as well when I hear it Yea, it makes you feel good, it makes you feel good because you know you look better to other people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, but for some reason there seems to be this drive to say that making yourself look good isn't about other people. If it made you feel good independent of others you'd wear fancy clothes and makeup everyday at home even when you're not leaving the house.

I think it's fine to go and talk to girls in your grocery store occasionally. I'm talking about guys who go there specifically to approach a bunch of girls in the shop instead of actually buy groceries.

If you want relationships that cannot extend past basic primal urges then by all means go and dominate 18 year old girls until they hit 20 and then dump them for the next 18 year old. Lots of guys have a phase somewhat like that. It's great fun, but it's not sustainable. If you want a conscious, developed, and happy relationship at some point in your life you might find that strategy stops working because any women with a decent amount of self-respect and maturity who you might actually still enjoy being around after 2 or 3 years is not going to go for a setup where you are bossing her around all the time like Tate, or a 1950s husband. You can have masculine/feminine polarity without anyone needing to be the boss.

Depends how you define pickup guy. If you go out to clubs and bars and meet women that way, they absolutely don't. I think that's a healthy thing for a lot of guys to do, especially if undersocialised. And most women I've met that way have been pretty receptive to advances because of the environment. Those are environments where you're literally meant to go up and talk to new people. Going out hunting for sex at 11am on a Saturday in your local grocery store though... yea you're getting sorted out by a lotta women

You just pulled those numbers out of your ass my friend Yea maybe guys can look at 80% of the women in the dating pool and say "I'd have sex with her" but that doesn't mean after the novelty of sex goes away that they'd actually be emotionally compatible and enjoy spending time together. To say that any man could spend the rest of his life happily with 80% of the women in the dating pool is really pretty absurd. Humans are so vastly diverse that such a statement is just not true.

Are you trying to speedrun divorce with this strategy? Just wait til you're in a long-term relationship with a woman you're not compatible with emotionally/spiritually and see how miserable it makes you, no matter how pretty she is. Yea, guys can detach and fuck just about any woman without needing emotional compatibility, but if you want anything remotely long-term, those are extremely important factors. For something long term, sacrificing some looks for compatibility is an obvious choice. If you can't see that, you're probably going to end up old and miserable. I think every guy should go out and fuck really hot women, it grows you as a man. But that's different from a more mature relationship. Once you actually want to start building something long term and sustainable, you need someone who is compatible.

Healthy pickup is about all of those things. Healthy pickup is mostly about teaching men how to be authentic, confident, masculine etc. in a way that is attractive to women. Fundamentally, it's about building really top-notch social skills. But pickup comes with a lot of baggage that you are correctly picking up on, and that's why it's better for guys to refer to it as something else. Pickup culture is really toxic towards women and has bad connotations. Also, guys have a tendency to use awfully crude language like value and the rating scale, but it's not like women don't do that either. It's just more subtle. Women are often brutally horrible to men who are for example socially inept and unintentionally come across as weird, creepy or otherwise unattractive. And that's a rapidly growing category of men. For that category of man, somewhat toxic pickup culture is actually an improvement over a self-pitying suicidal incel who might end up murdering a bunch of people. Generally (and I'm stealing this from, I think, Leo) you should wish for yourself to be stronger rather than for the world to be easier and more forgiving.

@Raze posted stats here Those stats are also questionable however. There are sources which contradict them to an extent, for example: https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/brown-manning-relationship-status-trends-age-gender-fp-21-25.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=submissive+employee&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB977GB977&oq=submissive+employee&aqs=chrome..69i57.2241j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The word is not only sexual/kinky. It is used in other contexts to mean "ready to conform to the authority or will of others". You know this, because you use the word in a non-sexual context to mean exactly that yourself already, see below. You're just being obtuse and focusing on minutia to avoid the actual substance of the discussion.