mr_engineer

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.

Leo has said in the past that 'don't use the boyfriend frame, use the player-frame, cuz the boyfriend-frame will get you friendzoned'. Here's what I've observed - the boyfriend-frame gets you friendzoned with women who are very transactional in the way they deal with men. These women have a bright red line between 'men who are friends' and 'men who they sleep with' with no overlap between the two. If you adopt the player-frame with them, yes, they will see you as attractive and probably sleep with you. But, in the future, they will use sex as a manipulation to get you to commit to them. Whereas, the guys who are willing to commit are going to use the boyfriend-frame, because that's what commitment looks like! But, because they don't know what commitment looks like, the one with the boyfriend-frame goes into the friendzone. So, how do you vet them? Go with the boyfriend-frame. If she friendzones you, she's not worth your time. And, one final point about this - it does work with women who know what 'love' is and who know what they're looking for in a man. If you get close enough with such a person, things must go in a sexual direction. But, this time, in the context of relationship, not in the context of a one-off transaction.

And I'm not talking about getting laid here. Or getting into a relationship. I'm talking about finding a compatible person to begin with. Then we talk about this other stuff. In case there is a lack of clarity relative to the problem-statement of this thread, I want to clear that up. And, there is also a big difference between intimacy and having a relationship. Arranged-marriages are not intimate, for example. There can be a big discrepancy between their personalities. The point of dating is to find love. Otherwise, there are plenty of relationships where the transactions could work, but the people can't stand each other for a second.

In that case, he misinterpreted what I was saying. Which is that from an intimacy-standpoint, if you're friendzoned, with transactional women, you're on the good side of the red line. But, from a sex-standpoint, you're on the bad side. Because the red line separates those she has intimacy with from those she has sex with. The point of doing it like this, is to be transactional with those who she has sex with. This thread is about a red-flag that incompatible women, women who don't know what love and intimacy are, women who are purely transactional, will exhibit. And how to vet them out. Everyone is not in the rat-race to get laid. I would much rather evaluate compatibility before running in this race. This is simply not the case. There can, in fact, be intimacy with female friends. Because intimacy is not sex. The reality is that intimacy is not the same as sex. It is a bias of the male ego to assume that they are the same. They're not. Ask any woman.

@Leo Gura Then how do you explain the phenomenon in which she has a toxic relationship and she opens up to her guy-friends about it? Guys who she has friendzoned?

@Leo Gura On the one hand, you say that 'most women have a bright red line between guys they're friends with and guys they're sleeping with', in response to me saying that 'the women who have this line are transactional'. On the other hand, you're saying that 'they will naturally open up more to guys they're sleeping with'. This negates the first statement that you made, right?! Where did the bright red line go, if she opens up to guys who she's sleeping with?! And, why would she need other guys who she friendzones and complains to about her toxic relationship if she didn't have this bright red line, if she could open up to her boyfriend?!