mr_engineer

@Princess Arabia It is 'harsh and masculine' to call the government to essentially gang up on a guy saying 'hi'. It's a violent move. You're asking for him to be brutalized by the police. They would definitely put the guy on a watch-list, though. Especially if it's a rough area and people think your behavior is suspicious. So, you want the cops to have the time to come running when a crazy woman calls them on a guy approaching her?!

Alright. So, you're in reality about what a man who will commit wants and you're not resisting it. Good. This is the transactional part, these are the rules of the game that you're playing. You see these rules and you're saying 'I still want to play'. Good sign. The story doesn't end here, though. The real challenge begins now. Now, you are in competition against a horde of women who want the same thing as you. And, they're playing by the same rules. What do you do now? The answer to this question is that you find a way to stand out. And, in today's social-media age, the way you do that is that you find your authentic feminine expression, you figure out your ideal 'masculine archetype' that you want to be in relationship with and you figure out a way to make your masculine/feminine dynamic work. You don't have to do this in the context of dating, you can experiment with this in other contexts as well. Then, you figure out your criteria for compatibility, you figure out the men you're going for. Based on this, you figure out a dating-strategy, i.e. how you're going to go about creating this relationship. Then, you apply it to reality, look at the pitfalls you fall into and based on practical reality, define the 'red-flags' that you want to avoid. This is how you vet men. The farther along this journey you go, the more the men you want will see you as a high-quality option. Because when they see your standards and your criteria, they will see 'security'. And, a woman who knows what she wants is worth her weight in gold in today's world. There is a lot of bad information about what women want. It takes a lot of research for men to figure it out. If you know what you want and if men see you not settling for less, they will feel secure with you.

I will. And you will. But the average person won't. And I don't see it as a fair expectation. Because the world is unsafe for everyone, not just you. Or the hungry person.

This is in a pre-feminist world, where women didn't have equal rights. As women gain more equality, men are becoming more and more passive. This is not a coincidence. The least you can give a man for protecting you, is sexual exclusivity. Men need to be able to secure people they can sleep with, in this otherwise unsafe dog-eat-dog world. It's not a safe world for men either. They're just stronger than women to be able to battle it out, they're built better for surviving in a 'survival of the fittest' unsafe world. And the way they do it is by being territorial.

They're capable of it, they can do it. But, will they? And why should they, what do they get out of it? In a perfect world, humanity will have figured out how to make polyamory work perfectly and there won't be any possessiveness. But, in practice, with monogamy being the normal way to create relationship-security, with sex having the biological risks that it does, with the sexualization of women being as mainstream as it is, taking care of a woman you're sleeping with is a very, very tall order. This is an unsafe world for women and protecting a woman is a lot of work. Why should they take on the challenge of doing so, if they don't get exclusivity? Getting laid is a literal dog-fight between men right now. Men are going to do anything they can to get into your pants. They will have good, bad and ugly strategies. Taking care of a woman you're sleeping with is a very tall ask. And it requires sufficient incentive.

Then you can't be single and get your needs met. Self-respecting mature men don't 'care for' women who they're not dating, who they're just sleeping with. Because they don't have an incentive to care for you, you're not an attachment-figure for them. If you're single and you're not directly working on solving that problem, you are attracting two types of guys - one is the 'nice guy' who probably worships you, who helps you out in other ways but is too scared to make a move sexually, and the other is the 'player' who will have sex with you because he has good game, but who won't care for you. They won't care about meeting your standards, because they're getting into your pants. And that's all they care about. I'd suggest you drop the shortcuts and directly work on your attachment-relationship issues. Whatever's keeping you single. I'm not saying that there is no other way to be 'cared for' than to be in a relationship. I'm saying that if you want both, to be cared for and the good sex, you only get that through a relationship. HTH!

I saw that you've mentioned that you're from Philadelphia in your bio. What I've heard from other sources is that the women there are really harsh and masculine. I don't know for sure, this is rumor as far as I've heard. If that's true, I'd suggest that you move to cities that have a better reputation. Maybe Sedona, Arizona, maybe Boulder, Colorado, maybe even Vegas.

Go to meetups where vulnerability is encouraged, in that case. If you don't have any around you, organize it. For example, I went to this 'meaningful conversation' meetup which this girl, who had created a card-game called '365 connection-cards' had organized. Going there helped me overcome my issues with being vulnerable. I'd suggest you look for those kinds of opportunities.

Are you fine with the drag queen stuff? Is it 'ignorant' and 'moronic' to oppose that?

To the progressives here - the issue isn't the teaching of the theory of LGBTQ+. It's the role-modelling and embodiment of it. If what parents considered 'normal' people taught about LGBTQ+ as this arbitrary conceptual 'group of people fighting for their rights', everyone would be fine. But, if the teachers belong to this group and appear to have their own personal agenda, this is where parents start to have a problem. This is where they get suspicious. Are their suspicions justified? No. The suspicions are an overreaction. But, if this conversation is happening before an age at which it should happen, that's concerning.

This is false. I know, you hear your friends say 'I dated this person for a year' and 'I dated this person for two years'. But, let me tell you - you're not missing much. The reality of most relationships is that they are very transactional. And, they do not, in fact, feel 'awesome' and 'wholesome'. One or both parties has to manipulate the other to get what they want. That's the way most of dating works. And, the advice that most people give of 'focus on yourself' and 'develop yourself first' is to not fall into these patterns. Because they've been there, done that and are telling you that it is literally not worth it. Now, why do unconscious people just 'happen' to date for years? Because they're repeating patterns that worked for them at home. And, they have some privileges in their upbringing. This does not make them wiser relative to relationships. Why is this the reality of most dating? Because most people are narcissistic who only care about themselves and what they can get from others. That's how most couples fight, in fact. It's pretty pedestrian and unsexy. So, what should you do? You should think back to having rejected someone in your life. It has happened before. And think back to why you did that. It was probably because they were low-quality in some ways and because you have standards and they didn't make the cut. This should give you some insight into your ideal relationship. So, the next step is to visualize that and to get ready for that. And, one final point - this is not going to happen with anyone. You will have to form a dating-strategy to vet people so that you find someone compatible. This is the point that the people saying 'focus on yourself' are trying to make. Because then, you figure out the kind of life you want and what type of partner would fit into that. HTH!!

Actually, they are yours. You can decide that they're 'your people'. Just not sexually.

I did the 'bad boy' thing once. And what happened is that the girl I was trying to get with by doing that, got into a placating-mode and started trying to placate me/coddle me. If I actually were a bad boy, I would've converted that and gotten her. But, the reality is that when she did that, I felt disrespected. It was not the relationship-dynamic I wanted, it was polarity-flipped. I did not want a mommy-figure. So, I let it go. The bad boy/good girl dynamic is not something to be envied, as a guy. It may look unfair from the outside, when she's trying to placate a bad boy. But, the reality is that nothing good comes out of it for either party. Which is precisely why most people who are a part of this dynamic are unconscious. Some try to artificially make it work. I'd suggest not doing that.

How do you sit through blackpill/incel videos without rolling your eyes?! I mean, that's already an achievement unlocked for you, I guess...

Do self-enquiry. Figure out who you are and deconstruct your mind. Ask yourself who is this 'I' who is stuck in a prison. You will see the Truth.

I think this is insecure talk and it makes you come across as controlling and possessive. This is literal slut-shaming. Her sexual past is none of men's business. Having said that, there is a point that because the norm is that 'slutty women' or 'hoes' use their sex-appeal as a manipulation to get 'high-value guys', they typically have a higher body-count. So, if she has a high body-count, that's a red-flag. Because practically, women with a high body-count tend to be 'slutty', i.e. use their sex-appeal as a manipulation, they objectify themselves. (When men have a legitimate problem with 'sluts', this is what they're actually talking about) However, correlation does not imply causality, i.e. you could have a high body-count and still not use your sex-appeal as a manipulation to get something else. So, while a high body-count could be a red-flag, it doesn't have to completely disqualify her. If you're disqualifying her purely based on that, you're being possessive. You could have a high body-count and still have self-respect as a woman. There is nothing wrong with having sex itself, or having sex purely for pleasure. The only problem is to be manipulative with it and to completely abandon your sexual-boundaries in the process, to just not care about compatibility. This is where the 'sluts' lose respect. And, while there is a correlation between a high body-count and failure to keep marriages for these other practical reasons, it does not imply causality.

If you don't go to college, try to find some way to get a technically in-depth education, in anything that you want to get an expertise in. Focus on becoming an expert in anything that you're passionate about. There is a lot of reading and real-world trial and error that you can do.

Casual dating is how you end up resenting the opposite sex. This is true for both sexes. Because you run into transactional people who also want something casual. And, there's always someone more attractive than you. If women keep dumping you for the more attractive guy, you will end up resenting them. This is why my advice is to get out of this cycle, this rat-race for more pussy. You don't come across as the type of guy who is naturally cold and ruthless and narcissistic. You have feelings in you. And those feelings get hurt when women act transactionally towards you. If this is who you are, the authentic thing to do is to set a goal to have a long-term relationship and to make that the point of your 'game'. And, to 'game' only with compatible women. Keep your mind open to the possibility that your goals aren't reflecting your true desires. Yeah, of course, nothing wrong with it. I'm not telling you to stop learning game. I'm telling you to stop dealing with the wrong women. The women who only look at the transaction and who aren't feminine, who aren't loving human beings. The women who will treat you as disposable objects. If this hurts your feelings, don't deal with such women. You will learn the wrong ways of relating if you deal with low-quality women. And this could drive away compatible women. This is something to watch out for, if you're only going to set casual sex as a goal. If you have any feelings and emotions in you, this is the wrong approach. This is emotionally neglectful towards yourself and others. You're trying to 'not depend on women', you're going in a narcissistic direction even though it's not authentic to you.

When you talked about 'turning their game on their head and fucking them over', that's how it came across. If I misunderstood what you're saying, my apologies. The way to defend yourself, to my eyes, would be to directly reject them and to look for women who are truly feminine and loving. The hypergamous women are running in a rat-race. Which is masculine. You want a woman who is genuinely receptive to your love. Who is feminine. Who will accept the good, bad and ugly aspects of you. Stop wasting your time with transactional women. Look to accept their good, bad and ugly aspects yourself too. And, don't listen to redpillers telling you that 'hypergamy is fundamental to femininity/what it means to be a woman'. It's not. This capitalistic reality has conditioned them to be like this. I repeat, it's not their fault that they are like this, this is not who they fundamentally are.

No sir, we're not here to take revenge. We're here to protect ourselves, and preferably others. The world is crappy enough as it is. My request to you is to make it better, not worse. Be in reality but don't let it change you.

The point is to see women for who they really are. This is where the real vetting happens for men, I'd say. This is where you learn to filter out the women who only want you for your money. The point of doing this is to 'manage our expectations' once we are successful! It is very important to figure out the type of woman who will love you for who you are. And, you do that when you're broke! Not when you're successful. You look at their filters, you see how patriarchal vs how feminist they are and you figure out the right system for yourself in the relationship. The thing with a lot of feminist women is that they don't want to fit in the gender-box that the patriarchy sets for them but they want to put men in their gender-box. You see the ugly parts about dealing with women and this puts a lot of things into perspective. The reality is that this relationship will set the foundation for your future. In the future, if something happens to your success, this relationship will make or break your life. If you're with a 'hypergamous' woman, she will divorce you, fuck you over even more and then go find someone else. But, if you're with someone who has the right values and who you're genuinely compatible with, she will stick with you and the two of you will survive it. The point being, you figure this out before even running in the rat-race and building your SMV. So that you know why you're doing it at all!

This is why, as much as it sucks, you date women even when you're not successful. Because when things aren't going well for you, people show you who they really are. And this shows you what red-flags you should have and what you should vet for once you are successful.

@ValiantSalvatore I relate to where you've been. I've been in that exact position when I was a student. I went on the full 'sigma male grindset' for a solid 3 years, after evaluating my options and making up my mind. Girls were a distraction, I fully focused on setting myself up for a good future. Then, my options with girls increased. The reality is that when you're that young, everything else is theory for you. It's all BS, it's all a distraction if you haven't achieved anything significant. And, until you get to that point, this will continue to haunt you. Don't even think about the 'high value' crap before you get this much done. All of this theory is a waste of your time.

Can you elaborate?

There is no difference between loving yourself and loving others, fundamentally. They're the same.