something_else

I got a job at a software consultancy through an internship hub at my university and then ended up working for one of the consultancy's clients, so I haven't used my degree at all since leaving uni. I expect when I leave where I am now, it will help a fair bit though.

I have friends, and I have a decent social life. They just could be better. And more effortless. I feel the root problem is just a lack of social experience overall because I spent a good chunk of my childhood and teenage years inside playing video games, and I feel a strong desire to make up for that now. I already have been making up for it here in Scotland for the past two or so years and have made very good progress. But the progress I made in one month away was greater than two years here. That feels like something not worth ignoring. Having stories to tell is a good way to make friends The idea is also that by travelling solo you are almost forced to meet tens of new people every day. If that doesn't massively increase your social skills and ability to make friends anywhere and everywhere, it's hard to imagine what would. In denial of what?

I was in a shitty relationship for my first two years of it, and then covid was around for my last two years. These both totally destroyed the social aspect of my time at university. Academically it was alright although I don't know how valuable what I learnt in classes really was (comp sci) Ultimately when I think back on my time there I just regret how unsociable I was. University in the UK provides such amazing and easily accessible social opportunities that you will never have again in life and you should absolutely take advantage of them while you are there.

I am mostly very happy with my life at home, I don't feel like I'm running away. The main thing I dislike about my life at home is that I suck at making friends and my social skills are a little lacking. Really I'm after adventure, freedom, and stories to tell. A month felt like it only gave me a taster of it. Thanks for the support and advice! Yea I can take a year if I like, but I could also do 3 or 6 months depending on how I feel. The flexibility of it is very nice.

I don't think it's wrong for you to not want to be with someone with a high body count, I am not judging you for that. Our opinions are not really different on that issue. I was just pointing out was that your thread feels geared towards looking for people to justify your shaming her with phrases like "dick trooper", "diseases", "especially when she was trying to justify her count with some feminist arguments" rather than wanting any advice on how to change, improve or handle the situation better. You also passed all this judgement and then still admit you'd sleep with her anyway which is slightly comical

You're worried about her having diseases but you'll still happily sleep with her? lol She has every right to sleep with whoever she wants and you have every right to not be OK with that. Really you should just be accepting of it, hold your boundaries and then move on with your life instead of being a judgy dick about it though. But actually I think the reason you made this thread is that you're looking for someone to justify that you're morally right in being disgusted by her body count rather than actually looking for advice about how to handle this kind of situation.

Once you get into medical school, everyone has to meet the same criteria to pass and become a doctor. As long as they pass those tests, I don’t care how they did in high school or if they got any assistance or compensation for a shitty upbringing.

This is the crux of the issue. If you are born with poor parents into a poor neighbourhood with bad educational resources (statistically far more likely if you are black for example) then how is a merit based system fair for you? The kid who was born with rich parents into a rich neighbourhood with a top notch elementary + high school education is going to out-merit you, not because of his own skill or because he is better than you, but simply because he had a better education than you from a young age. @Bobby_2021 So how do we account for this? What is your proposed solution that is better than affirmative action?

Personally I don't want to marry. But in terms of settling down, I don't want to do it before 30. I think for the majority of people having kids and settling down before 25 in the modern world is a mistake. Especially if you're a guy.

This is specifically for porn use, not NoFap. I can get behind the argument that excessive porn use is not great for you, but the evidence for masturabting at all being unhealthy for you (the main point behind NoFap) is very very lacking. It’s almost entirely anecdotal.

Let's hear your 5 bad things about Trump then

700k is plenty of people for nightgame to work as long as you’re not really creepy on a consistent basis. If you have basic social skills 700k is more than enough.

@Raze No, I didn't say that. I said that extreme power imbalance in a relationship is usually a bad thing, and that explicitly looking for relationships where you know there is a power imbalance (for example going to poor countries to find poor women as a rich westerner) is exploitative and creepy in nature. That's not the same as a rich westerner and a poor westerner who happen to meet and end up dating. In this scenario he didn't specifically hunt her down and choose her because she was poorer than him. My point is not that relationships between westerner men and women from poor countries are inherently bad, which is what I think you think I am saying. I think they can be totally ethical and healthy if they arise more naturally. My point is that the Western men who intentionally go looking for poorer women to date in 3rd world countries are exploiting the fact that women in poorer countries will do almost anything to improve their situation in life. What I am saying is creepy and exploitative is the intent from the rich western man to find a poorer women to date. You have little ground to stand on in an argument against this not being exploitative when you make comments like this in your original post:

It doesn't matter if you explicitly lead with money or not. Your implicit difference in wealth is a foundational brick upon which the relationship would be built. If this were not the case it would not be so much easier for Western men to date women in poor countries. It's not crazy to call that exploitation. You know this dynamic exists and you go to a poor country to exploit it for easier sex. It is the definition of exploitation. Agreed. It's just significantly worse when you're doing this kind of stuff in a poor country because the power/wealth difference is potentially so much more extreme. Relationships based on monetary exchange or power dynamics are unhealthy no matter where they happen. You should not be looking for such a relationship if you want it to be long and healthy. Do you think the people who are focusing on leveraging power over someone while dating are having happy healthy relationships? And it's still standard for men to say they want a pretty woman with a feminine personality who supports them emotionally.

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.