something_else

Fitbit Air for fitness tracking, and a Boldr Venture Titanium watch on the other wrist.

Same, pretty much. I think this is the only reasonable approach to take as a guy if you've slept around a lot as well. Although I have actually discussed body count with girls before, usually in situations where it's clearly short term. It's surprisingly common for girls to keep a Notes app list of all the guys they've slept with. Highest I've ever heard was 45. Unless you count "I don't know, I lost count" as higher.

The irony is that steroid use at his level is the exact opposite of looking after the body. He's probably cut 15 years off his lifespan, and he openly admits that.

Yea, this applies to me. I have pursued a lot of short term relationships and now I am quite avoidant and afraid to commit. I rationalise this by telling myself I'm just waiting for the perfect relationship, or the right time of my life. But deep down I know that's just an excuse to keep the high of the short term stuff going. It's kind of chicken and egg, do short term relationships make you avoidant, or does being avoidant make you pursue short term relationships?

I never actually opened any of my long term relationships explicitly, but I hooked up with many girls who were in existing open relationships. Some of those girls were into the idea of polyamory obviously. I met most through the dating app Feeld, which is specifically for polyamory. I guess in a sense I’ve had one because in my last relationship (really a situationship at the start) the girl really loved me, but I was in peak sexual exploration stage and I wanted to keep sleeping with other girls. She knew about it and said it was totally fine, which I ultimately knew was a lie. But it was very convenient for me to believe at the time so I didn’t question it. We did end up dating properly on and off for a few years. When I look back on how much I hurt her, it makes me feel awful. Intense is a bad thing for relationships. Intense is good for hookups and the honeymoon phase, but it will ruin a long term relationship, or your life if you’re in too deep. And yes, read my response to @Inliytened1 after you, I describe seeing exactly the dynamic you mentioned here. It’s extremely common in open relationships. One partner is always going to get more attention outside the relationship than the other and that is going to create divides. —— Theoretically, I think, if you found the perfect group of people you could construct a fairly ethical polyamorous setup that might be stable for a few years. Probably hippie-esque people who are very go with the flow and open, not super competitive or jealous. And yes, it’d probably be a lot of fun. But even that in the long run is going to become quite culty and unstable. Too intense. So much drama. So much time and energy managing such a complex situation. Just not sustainable. The ones that seem stable are always going to have some underlying unethical power dynamic keeping everybody together. Like a cult leader, pimp, or a rich dude essentially paying for prostitution with extra steps.

A common trope of women in open relationships is that they’re open because their guy pressured them into it. What usually then happens is the guy finds like zero or maybe a few other partners, while the woman is inundated with offers and quite rightly feels free to explore them. It does not end well. One girl I hooked up with who was in an open relationship was talking about the Netflix shows she was going to go home and watch with her BF after she left my place. She also told me about the 3 other guys she’d slept with that week when I was asking her how the open relationship was going. She said the BF had gotten essentially zero attention despite pressuring her into the open relationship in the first place. It was very clear that opening the relationship up ruined it. He was jealous and she lost a lot of respect for him. Yea, if you want to experience this kind of dynamic the best way is a long term relationship where you both agree to explore group dynamics together. I think that has the potential to be much more stable. The moment you have partners sleeping with lots of other people outside of the relationship it’s going to create a mess eventually.

I’ve been with girls in open relationships, and I’ve played the game where I’m seeing lots of girls at once who vaguely know about each other but claim not to care. In the end, somebody always gets hurt. I’ve had threesomes in that setup too, and almost every time it created divides, even if all of us enjoyed it at the time. Looking back, it caused a lot of suffering and chaos that was convenient for me to ignore because I was getting lots of fun sex. If a woman really likes you, she’ll often tolerate a lot and say she’s fine with things she isn’t actually fine with deep down. So there’s no real blocker to me living that lifestyle. My experience is just that doing it ethically long term is incredibly hard, bordering on impossible. It’s a fundamentally unstable setup. It’s hard enough to maintain one romantic relationship long term without someone getting hurt, let alone a whole web of them. For short-term stuff where everyone knows what it is, it can be great fun. But sooner or later, and with enough short term pursuits, someone catches feelings, gets attached, jealousy builds, and people get hurt.

It’s almost impressive

I find it hard to believe you can achieve this kind of setup ethically, or maintain it with any sort of stability. Somebody is always going to get hurt in the end. Especially with the one-sided monogamy part. It’s convenient for you as a horny dude to believe a setup like this is ethical because it heavily benefits your pleasure and survival, but it is clear from your language that you’re still viewing women as objects which exist solely to cater to you and your pleasure. It’s an inherently unethical mindset that will always result in pain and suffering in the end. To be clear, I don’t think that’s inherently a bad thing. Men are always going to see women like this to a degree and people get hurt in all relationship types. It’s part of life. What I don’t like is that you’re claiming this setup is possible to orchestrate and maintain entirely ethically, I think you are believing what is convenient for you to believe. It’s analogous to a billionaire claiming they amassed their wealth entirely ethically. It’s theoretically possible, but there probably isn’t a single case of that happening in the entire world, except lottery winners by sheer dumb luck.

It isn’t fair. That doesn’t change the fact that you are a hypocrite.

The irony is that you want to settle down with a woman and also fuck around, but you don’t want the woman you settle down with to have done the same. That is really not fair. Either you fuck around and don’t care if the woman has too, or you don’t fuck around and find a woman who hasn’t either. This mindset of “I will fuck around and bring my baggage to the relationship, but strictly demand a virgin bride who has no baggage” is, quite honestly, a sign of deep-rooted insecurity. This is also apparent in caring that “other men may be laughing at you.” Like dude, grow up. That’s high school level thinking. You claim you’re this strong willed alpha dude, but it’s really just the most basic stereotype of a hyper-masculine front to compensate for a deep-rooted feeling of inadequacy. It fools nobody.

I've only ever tried it when mixed with alcohol and it just cancels out the alcohol. Useful after a long night out but not anything spectacular. I mean I can imagine meth feels great, I've tried amphetamines in the form of ADHD medication and they feel amazing even in small therapeutic doses the first few times you take them. Meth is that, but x100 so I can imagine it feels insanely good. That's why it's so risky though, plus it works on your dopamine circuits directly which makes it incredibly addictive.

I think you need to take a break from YouTube. You're being very heavily influenced by people who's only goal is to exploit you.

It doesn't intrinsically bother me anymore but when I first read it several years ago it did, and it made me reflect on the language and terminology I used to talk about women. I realised I was often doing the same thing in reverse thinking it was OK and harmless, which it is not. I suspect many men do still get that feeling when reading it, yet still talk about women in an equally objectifying way. This thread is an example of that. There is a degree of value exchange in relationships and there likely always will be, but the mindsets of pickup or FDS are unhealthy because they focus far too much on that value exchange and end up objectifying the other gender to an almost psychopathic degree. If you want to practice pickup and have lots of casual sex as a guy then have at it, or if you want to find a rich husband as a woman then have at it. But there's no need to approach these things in such a rigorously manipulative and degrading way. There are ways to do it more ethically.

Most of the content on FemaleDatingStrategy or adjacent advice is not that mainstream, most women would disagree with the majority of it. Just read through their Wiki and ask if you really think that the average woman would agree with what you're reading. Most would not, therefore it isn't mainstream. Talking about women in an objectifying manner is actually far more mainstream than the inverse. --- Interestingly, on a separate note as a general response to this thread: The way you see women on FemaleDatingStrategy talk about men is quite similar to how men in the pickup/redpill community talk about women. They use similar terms like high/low value, manipulative strategies like push/pull or 'hot cold' as they'd call it, focusing on getting what you want while giving as little as possible in return. If you're casually dating women then you're likely part of this manipulative game too, which is fine. But it's hardly fair to then get butthurt when you see women reflecting the same energy back at you. The energy of: take as much as you can while offering as little as you can get away with in return. How men feel reading FDS content is exactly how women feel when reading men talk about pickup and casual dating. It isn't a nice feeling, and for men it should make us more aware of the emotional state we create in women when we talk about them in such ways.

These are tiny numbers. Is your argument really that 35 non-citizen ballots in all of Iowa and 42 non-citizen ballots in all of Tennessee are part of a nationwide voter-fraud conspiracy by the democrats? Many of those are also only potential non-citizen cases, not even the number of confirmed cases. Even the worst case here of 2,724 out of 18 million in Texas is pretty inconsequential. Texas often has voter margins in the order of 1.5 million votes. 2.7k isn’t putting a dent in that. They lawyered up because the DOJ was asking for vast quantities of completely unredacted voter rolls containing sensitive and personal information about citizens of those states. Many states understandably argued this would be a huge privacy violation. You’re conflating stale registrations with fraudulent votes here. Identifying the people who moved away or failed to vote through several elections does not correlate with fraudulent or illegal voting in any way. If I move to Thailand tomorrow I’ll still be registered to vote here in the UK for a while, probably years. Does that mean that while I’m gone my vote is going to be stolen by an illegal immigrant to boost up our left wing party’s vote count? No, of course not. Yea, Oregon should probably have managed its voter role better, but them fucking that up isn’t evidence of a nationwide democrat conspiracy, it’s evidence of mild incompetence in the face of a very challenging administrative task

You’re claiming a nationwide conspiracy but the only evidence you’ve offered is an unsupported assertion that “blue states refuse to validate voter information” and a video about legal ballot collection (“harvesting”) in California. Neither demonstrates widespread fraudulent votes. If you’re alleging millions of illegal votes, you need evidence of millions of illegal votes, not speculation about what could have happened.

The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming there is a massive nation-wide conspiracy. This is something you need to prove. “Everybody knows it” is not remotely enough evidence to support that claim.

Do I think making a deal is an easy task? No, of course not. So don’t start a totally unnecessary war in the first place. He’s been flip flopping between announcing final peace deals and total annihilation of Iran for 6 months, yet neither of these things ever seem to materialise. It’s all empty promises and hollow threats, that are also conveniently posted at just the right time for stock market manipulation. My actual point, which I think you failed to address, is that Trump is erratic, and eroding the world’s trust in America as a stable country. Most of America’s allies are trying to figure out how to distance ourselves from the US because we are seeing the US as an increasingly unstable and unreliable trading (and military) partner. This will bring the US to ruin in the long run. Trump does not care about this, he does not care about the US, he cares only about enriching himself, his family and his friends. To address one of your other claims, Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to bring about end times. They want nuclear weapons for the same reason the other countries that have them wanted them; deterrent. Iran has a long history of Western interference, this war is the next iteration of that. In their mind if they have nukes the US (and Israel for that matter) will finally leave them alone.

Depends what you mean by hard drugs. Don't go anywhere near things like heroin, fentanyl, or meth. MDMA isn't really a hard drug, it's a combination of a stimulant and a psychedelic. It's not especially addictive, though it is definitely harmful if taken regularly. When taken at most once every 2-3 months the risk is very low, and it can offer quite good insight into things, bring you closer to people, help you work through trauma. It's a very fun substance. Even cocaine, which is classified as a hard drug, isn't that bad. You're not going to get addicted to it or die from taking it a few times. I wouldn't recommend it though, not necessarily because it is particularly high risk, but because the risk to reward ratio is terrible. It doesn't do a whole lot despite its reputation. You feel slightly more talkative and less tired for like 20 minutes and the risk just isn't worth it for that shitty experience.

Most people aren't opposed to it because yea, it's probably a good idea to be relatively secure with voting in the long run. SAVE act is probably too extreme, though. In person voter fraud is basically non-existent as a form of election fraud, it's almost entirely inconsequential. It just doesn't scale well because it's incredibly hard for somebody to coordinate millions of people to commit in-person fraud on a large scale. So if it isn't really an issue, ask yourself why is it that republicans want it so badly right now? The reason is because it will disproportionately impact the democrats by reducing the number of minorities and young people who can vote, not because it will prevent the democrats from orchestrating a nation-wide voter conspiracy. What do you think is going on? There are two types of voting fraud the SAVE act will reduce: In-person voter fraud e.g. lying about who you are (estimated to happen 1 time out of every 20-40 million votes) Non-citizens voting (estimated to affect 1 vote out of every 1 to 2 million votes) Both are incredibly rare. To the point where it's basically a non-issue. So I have no idea what you think is going on here to be honest. The stats suggest absolutely nothing.

I thought the deal with Iran was made already? Or was that last week after the previous deal turned out to be fake? Ohhhh wait, you're talking about the deal he made the week before that. Oh no? That wasn't real either? Ahh, the one he just announced this morning right before the stock market opened, that's the one you're talking about. Do you think it will be real this time, or will that be fake like the last 12 times as well?

There are definitely exceptions to this, but I actually find that shared goals can ruin friendships for me. I don’t want to be thinking about long term future stuff all the time with friends, I want to chill, relax, live in the moment, and do fun stuff. Shared hobbies are good, but getting competitive or serious over goals surrounding them can ruin friendships, deep friendships come from spending enough time just vibing in each other’s presence for no purpose other than enjoying each other’s company There’s a concept of a doorbell friend which is somebody that you would be genuinely excited to see if they just randomly rang your doorbell without them telling you they were coming. That’s a good metric for deep friendships

From what I have heard about your pickup journey and the way you're talking here (which I relate to a lot) I think you're probably quite high on the avoidant scale. That can cause you to avoid friendships or other close/deep connections. I still struggle with this to a degree as well, though in the past year or two I've built some much deeper friendships (which I certainly hope will be lifelong) and it's one of the best things I've ever done. There is no single number, but I feel like a solid group of 3-5 close friends that you enjoy spending time with for no specific purpose other than vibes and fun is one of the best things you can have. It isn't transactional, you don't need to constantly worry about providing or exchanging value, you can just vibe. It's great for your mental health to have people who like you for you, and not what you can provide them.

"I was only joking!" excuse when called out for poor behaviour Classic