mr_engineer

Grifter. Mostly rhetoric, one chart with a couple of numbers with no explanation for them. Overall, intellectually dishonest.

It's not women pushing men into who they want them to be. It's other men! The more powerful men. They're in charge of the status-hierarchy, so they set the rules. And women are just trying to operate in this situation. Most women are hopelessly conditioned into this way of quantifying people's value, so the peer-pressure factor is also there.

It defines 'hypergamy' in a very one-dimensional, linear way. In terms of financial income or social-status. The reality is that this is because most people are indoctrinated into the patriarchal style of family. This is the role that women have been essentially forced to give men. Now, when women are able to go on their own, women's need for men changes. The roles that individual women give to individual men change! For example, some women may really value a man who's good with technology. Someone else may value a man who is adventurous and can lead the two of them on an adventure. Someone else may value a man who is able to lift stuff. Someone else may value a leader who is able to take the pressure of crises. If women are given more of a say in what the fundamental building-block of society should be, I am 100% sure they won't say 'a single family home'. It will be more community-oriented. And, the need for men in that kind of system radically changes. 'Hypergamy' the way redpill defines it, is not fundamental to human female nature. It's just the norm right now, in an unconscious society. It's the Ockham's razor explanation for female behavior, basically. Works for now, but isn't reliable long-term. It'll change as conditions change.

I'm not suggesting that we 'change mating-strategies'. I'm suggesting that we're fundamentally wrong about how it actually works. Because of the reductionism of redpill. How many women agree with redpill as a philosophy? Probably very few. This should give you a clue that something is wrong with it. And that what we think is 'natural' for humans specifically, isn't actually natural. Especially human females. For example, in a lot of species, the males will be stronger than the females. So, the males will fight over the females. But, humanity has managed to civilize ourselves and construct a system in which women are even getting a certain degree of equality! This would never be possible without a superior human brain. As women get more and more of a say in how they mate, the validity of patriarchal hierarchies to determine who's 'high-value' vs 'low-value' starts breaking down. Women will probably agree with me on this. And this is where redpill breaks down. It's not just that redpill benefits men and hurts women as a mating-strategy. It's that it's so wrong that it hurts men much moreso, actually!

@Consept You're right about lions. The problem is that a lot of human bullshit comes with having a well-developed human brain. Living a harmonious existence with nature isn't an automatic for us, we have to work towards it. Now, we rely on systems to have a relatively stable, orderly existence. And my suggestion is that we would need to set aside our biases to truly prioritize and take care of and troubleshoot our systems. The family-system being a huge candidate for this process.

@something_else I'm talking about redpill as a philosophy and the problems with it. I'm not telling anyone what they should/shouldn't do. That's your call.

People are not just commodities. They are creators. Of the very relationship/system they inhabit.

My entire point here is that commodification is reductionistic. From a systemic perspective, it doesn't hold up. And this is the problem with redpill.

You were warned that it is a biased example.

Both sides are doing it together. Both sides are independent agents with equal rights before the relationship is defined. In the big-picture, both sides must agree. However, when you get into the relationship and shit goes wrong, then the masculine side must take over and improvise on this stuff. The masculine side reserves the right to do that when push comes to shove.

Highly specific to the individuals. But, I can give you an example. The first thing to understand, is that a 'relationship', is a system. And, a system must have a purpose! So, the goal of the relationship must be defined. By the person in charge of the relationship, by the masculine figure. (I don't believe in the equality-stuff, I believe that a hierarchy results in better teamwork to get shit done) And agreed upon by both sides. Then, the roles must be defined. Clearly. For that, there must be a compatibility in values and priorities. The roles must be authentic to the individuals, the individuals must have the prep to take the roles on, and the roles must work well together in relation to one another. For example, if the 'goal' is a certain sexual experience, then the 'roles' will be the specific roles of the roleplay that you want to go for. That's how they work well together in relation to one another, because that masculine/feminine dynamic will work that way. Your egos will have needs. That you will want the relationship to meet. But, in the process of committing to and following through with your commitments to the relationship, you will want your relationship to take a shape and design such that it meets the ego-needs for all parties involved. And, ironically, in order to actually have that work, you will have to set your ego aside when it's time to do your due diligence in your roles, when it's time to do the duties your role asks for!

If you're making it all about the woman, you're enabling her being in her ego. That's not what I'm talking about. I said that both sides must set their egos aside. And you make it about the relationship, or the collective of the two of you, which is a third entity.

When you thanked her for sharing her life with you and explained why it was time for you to go your separate ways, that was a nice way to end it. But then, when you back-track and say you'd like to fix things, she'll see that as a b*tch-move. Especially if this was how she rationalized ending it with you to begin with. So, you doing something like this further reinforces her rationale and she'll have no moral repercussions blocking you.

Your business-model sounds more like a high-end club-membership for people who are sick of the rat-race and who want to advance to Green. In that case, I'd advise you to do some market-research on that front. What is that industry competing on?! And what are the priorities of that marketplace?! My uninformed opinion is that in that marketplace, the competition will be on price. Because who wouldn't want these services if they're affordable?! Everyone would! The issue is that most people can't afford them. And this sets you apart. And the challenges with this work are going to be logistic. So, do it if you are the type of person who is very resourceful logistically and can be one of the best in the marketplace at handling the back-end of this thing. If that's you, go for it!

Very high-end. You'd have to charge thousands of dollars per year for membership, especially for the live bands. Apart from that, I like the idea in which people come to socialize and grow together. However, I also think that you're going to have to give that 'growth' some structure. Cuz if you look at a university-environment, yes, kids want to socialize and grow together. But, without the institution and the professors, all they really do is party in frat-houses. And I don't think the 'wisdom mentors' belong in a gym. Cuz the gym is mostly populated by testosterone-filled guys who are pushing each other to do '5 MORE REPS!!' Unless the gym-owner is Tier-2. Then, you can really design some good systems to execute on these plans! And you should probably not include the 'group training sessions' in a gym. Most silicon valley types will actually frown upon your idea for a very simple reason - it focuses on too many things. A system generally has one purpose and all the parts are aiming towards a common goal. It seems to me that you haven't clearly defined your 'goal' yet. So, I'd suggest that you identify the common thread in all of these things that's really motivating you and choose a simpler idea to make it happen. Let's not ignore the marketing-challenge of marketing something that does too many things. What is the one thing that you're good at that you want to position yourself as?! Which marketplace do you want to position yourself in?! What's the unique value that you have to offer?! In business, profitability is everything. Especially long-term profitability. HTH!!

Quit porn. Avoid it as much as you can. Masturbation without external stimuli is not too detrimental.

The first thing I'd look into is whether their solution is surface-level or root-level. Cuz my biggest personal concern would be their potential relapse. There are really amazing people with dark pasts who solved their problems at the root-level and bettered their lives. So, I definitely wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker as it is.

I won't spell out the implications of this statement from him. I will let you folks read between the lines on this one.

I'll give you an example. Movies condition us to want to go for women who are light-hearted and bubbly in nature. That is our image of 'feminine radiance' that we're conditioned with, so to speak. Now, this is where I was coming from. And, I see this girl who is really serious. My first instinct was to blow her off, because 'she wasn't making me feel good'. But then, I realized that I knew nothing about her personality. She looked pretty decent, I was just making assumptions about her personality without knowing what I'm talking about. So, what I did is that I listened more closely to what she said. And, it turned out that she had some real wisdom! I developed an irresistible crush on her. She turns out to be the exact personality-type that I'm into! So, very strong warning to you to not assume that you know what you want. All that glitters is not gold and in the case of people, often-times, gold does not announce itself to you. You have to discover it.

Do you have an issue with silence? Cuz that's your opportunity to really connect and get to know them. If you don't really know someone, what would your 'chemistry' or 'spark' be based on? My fundamental question to you is - are you clear about what you want? Cuz if you're not, then rejecting someone who would've been a good option will feel like a self-betrayal to you. When it comes to connection, you hold a lot of the power. To connect with someone, is to see them for who they are. You may not like what you see, which is fine. But, when you say you can't connect with someone, you're saying that you can't see them. So, this is something that you can fix on your end. I don't think this is a good reason. 99% sure about that. This will feel unfair to them and this may make you feel guilty.

Did you have good reason to reject them? There's nothing wrong with rejection itself. There is something wrong with not giving people a fair chance though. That's what you could be feeling guilty about.

India has a 6-day work-week. The lucky ones get a half-day on Saturday. This includes school-students. And banks are closed on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of the month, so they get those Saturdays as holidays. Nobody complains about it, cuz everybody fundamentally understands that life is more of a grind here. When I was living in the US, I loved the 5-day work-week. As far as I'm concerned, you guys live in paradise relative to this issue. Now, I do understand the point about mental-health that you're making. This would make sense in a society that prioritizes happiness over survival. However, the problem is that the foundation of this society has been built by those who prioritize survival. The prioritization of survival is conditioned into us, it's unnatural and it's unconscious. But, just getting a 4-day work-week is not going to change that about you.

To my eyes, what you're saying implies that if I just don't make this a big deal, my stance and attitude on this issue will change. In other words, I don't really mean what I'm saying. When I do. I found that offensive, because every single word here has been well thought out on my part. I'm not kidding around here, it's an extremely serious topic. I would ignore this thing if we were discussing something more casual, that doesn't matter so much. On this issue, though, because world peace is such an important value to me and I consider conflict-resolution to be a strength of mine, I felt the need to defend my credibility. With all due respect, this is not a light issue. I type with a lot of passion here, shall we say. Please don't make this mean that I'm not thinking clearly or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I may be wrong, but I'm not a fool. And it is very important for me to know why someone here thinks I'm wrong, so that I know what to correct in my worldview. And how to deal with conflicts in my own life. I have enough respect for this forum's intellectual wavelength to take your opinions seriously.

Again, you're making this about me. And you're assuming that I'm not chilled, that I'm heated. That I'm 'too triggered to have a normal conversation'. How dare you assume that about my sanity?! You are shit-talking me when you say that. No more shit-talk against me on this thread, or I report you. You got a problem with me, PM me. I will not tolerate you invalidating what I'm saying by making personal remarks about me. The problem isn't the personal remarks themselves, but the fact that you're using them to discredit what I'm saying.

I was over it during college. I went once at age 22 and felt too old for the crowd there. It's generally teenagers.