Emerald

I'm definitely not blonde. I don't know what that has to do with my work though. But if it's an attraction thing, no worries. I'm sure the disinterest is mutual.

Thank you!

First off, the point still stands that Dems aren't reaching across the aisle because they're more developed. That's simply not true... even if they are more developed. They're reaching across the aisle because it's good for their donors... and their donors give them money. Period. This is very simple to understand. So, that point still stands, regardless of how developed they are. But to address what else you'd said... As I'd said, the window-dressing and moral leadership of Trump DID matter as he was a demagogue and he brought out the worst in people here domestically. This is true. And this REALLY matters. That's why I was relieved when Biden won as it does put out a fire. But I can also recognize how the natural outcome of the way the establishment protects corporate interests at the expense of the people and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few, leaves the populace vulnerable to demagogues who can come in and speak to the pain of the peasantry and say, "I see you're struggling, it's (fill in marginalized group's) fault. Elect me and I'll do something about them." So in this way, the magicianship of politicians' moral leadership really matters. But on other levels, who cares as to who's more developed or not, when they're both killing the same amount of people? So, window dressing matters... but it isn't ALL that matters. You're neglecting the impacts of American Imperialism and how things are set up to benefit the very few at the expense of the vast majority. And many civilians in other countries have died in the American war machine just so the owners of the military industrial complex can continue to create more weapons for these forever wars and get access to the big pot of American tax dollars. Also, you can't get cheap foreign labor if the country you're trying to extract that labor from has a thriving middle class. So, the war machine is maintained for this reason too. And this is going to be the same whether it's Republicans or Democrats. While moral leadership is very important, you have to look beyond just the moral leadership role of politicians if you want to see the roots of corruption and actually fix things.

None of them have sinister motives. They have self-interested motives. They get money from the owners of corporations and industries to do the bidding of the owners of corporations and industries. I recommend reading some Noam Chomsky to get an idea of how American Imperialism works.

Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally playing for the same team. The differences are there, certainly. And I'd rather have Dems in office for that reason. But in the most fundamental ways, the "niceness" in their roles as moral leaders is window dressing. Of course, with Trump, we can see that that window dressing and (at least the illusion of) moral leadership matters. But it's still just window dressing. And the tolerance that Dems show is an illusion... because their constituents are nicer than the Republican's constituents. So, of course they have to seem nicer and more tolerant. But they're not nicer or more tolerant when they continue to support the Military Industrial Complex and American imperialism in so many foreign countries and support 2/3 of the world's dictators. And they're not nicer when they continue to support Big Pharma and the private insurance industry when all other developed nations have socialized medicine, and 30k+ people die every year due to lack of insurance or under-insurance. The real reason why they're always trying to "reach across the aisle" is because Republican legislation benefits their wealthy donors. So, it is Democrats' role to pretend to be for the average person, while being as adaptable and pliable as possible and to mostly concede to Republicans. Where it is Republicans job to get their agendas through by any means necessary... including obstruction. And it's all because this is what benefits their donors. Nothing more.

The reason is because the owner class benefits most from right-wing legislation as Republicans are for bigger tax cuts (for the wealthy) and small government (aka BIG corporate sector) with fewer regulations on the powers of big business. So, Republican legislation benefits the wealthiest Americans, while mostly screwing over 99.5% of the population. So, it's to the owner class's benefit for Republicans to get their way as much as possible. And it's also in the owner class's benefit for Democrats to always want to "reach across the aisle" and concede and give Republicans what they want... because what Republicans want IS what the owner class wants. Trust me, Democrats are not playing patty-cake because they're unaware of how to play politics well. Trust me, they know what they're doing. They're playing patty cake because politicians (both Republican and Democrat) get a bunch of kickbacks by serving the interests of billionaires, corporations, and industries. And that means shifting the political landscape as far to the economic right as possible.

Agreed

Actually the word slut, as a derogatory term, refers to a woman who enjoys sex and has a lot of sex with many partners. The derogatory term whore is the word that refers to prostitutes. Basically, the idea is that sluts do it for the enjoyment, whores do it for the money.

It isn't about the behavior. You can believe that hooking up is unhealthy in the same way that you can believe that eating a certain type of food is unhealthy. But the issue I'm pointing out, is about the people attached to the behavior whom you're judging the worth of. There is a difference between the two. You can believe that promiscuity is unhealthy without diminishing the value of those who are promiscuous and creating these binary categories of female worth. You can also understand that your belief in the unhealthiness of hooking up doesn't actually reflect a universal truth... and that women who hook-up might be simply subscribing to a different value system.

I'm just pointing out that you're passing judgment towards women by making these hard and fast categories. And I'm telling you that this is unhealthy because these judgments can create internalized misogyny. This is because those judgments will come back on you... as a judgment outward always becomes a judgment inward. It's not about having a preference for abstaining from sex for a certain length of time. That's perfectly fine and healthy if it is an expression of what feels right to you. The problem comes from you categorizing women into this worthy vs unworthy binary based on their sexual behavior... which is a symptom of internalized misogyny. And I say that with no judgment towards you. I'm just pointing something out. And I feel like you're bringing up the fact that everyone has different perspectives and preferences to avoid owning up to the problems inherent in your perspective and what it reflects in regards to your feelings about women. So, while you are entitled to your perspective, that doesn't mean that your perspective is healthy. Mind you, I never said you weren't allowed to have your own perspective. I just pointed out that there are some things that are fundamentally not good for your self-esteem about your perspective.

With all due respect, this is just not a healthy way to look at women with the 'real women don't have sex right away" or the 'real women are looking for a solid relationship' narrative. This can pit you against your natural sexual drives, which may become stained with shame as a result. It can also lead to some internalized misogyny and come back to impact your sense of self-worth. Now, some women ARE looking for a solid relationship (probably most) and others are just looking for sexual experiences. And that's okay. And some women will want to wait for a while once they're in a relationship. And other women will want to have sex right away when they're in a relationship. I know I'm usually in the latter camp when I really like a guy. I just do what feels right intuitively. I don't have hard and fast rules. But the thing that makes this possible for me to do is that I can always tell when a guy is really interested in me... versus just being interested in sex. So, having sex right away in a relationship just feels natural. And I don't even get into the thought about sex being transactional and something I have to withhold and all that stuff. That just complicates things and gets people out of touch with their natural sexual feelings. Sex can be an expression of love and appreciation at its best. And this requires following your heart and not getting caught up in the weeds of these kinds of mindsets around sexuality and relationship. It's difficult to do because there's a lot of slut shaming and a lot of guys who are users out there. But once you get the spidey sense for who's trustworthy and a deeper connection to the intuition, it becomes a lot clearer who is a solid person and who is flakey.

This is exactly what I'm trying to get across. It isn't the fact that pick-up exists that's a negative thing. It's totally understandable that such a need exists. And I probably would do some pick-up if I were a guy. It's probably the best thing to do if a guy is in a space where he doesn't really know how to interact with women or has a fear of approaching. Or if a guy just wants to have a variety of sexual experiences, that's understandable too. In this way, it's really helpful. The issue is that it sets up a simplified and distorted view of female sexuality that's both straightforward and easy to systematically respond to... to where certain formulas can be applied. It kind of compresses female sexuality into the format of male sexuality to make it more understandable and user friendly. And because it's an easy and effective system for attracting sex, a lot of men stay in that simplified conceptualization of the female sexual experience. This is because it gives the illusion of truth and thus control over the situation, it can really get in the way of their ability to genuinely connect with and understand women beyond the attraction phase. But not just that. It really chokes out and invalidates what's real and true about the female perspective relative to dating and relationships. And I can personally attest to the fact that the PUA perspective is a distortion, even if it is a useful distortion. And that's because I have done a lot of introspection into my own sexuality and internal attraction dynamics with the same lens that I explore other things with. And the insights that I've had, have been hard-won, even as I am a woman... largely due to society misrepresenting the female experience (particularly in regard to sex/relationships). I've really had to reinvent the wheel to get to know myself on that level. So, it does irk me a bit that so many PUAs will be like "Don't listen to her. Women don't know better. Don't ask a fish how to catch them" when I'm giving some really honest direct insights into the female experience over here. And the ability to look deeper at female sexuality will be necessary if the man in question really wants to cultivate a deep connection to a particular woman.

To understand this, it must be understood that the percentage ratios of Yin/Yang are described from a relative perspective of being a human being that is perceiving the world. Just like up/down, big/small, beginning/end... we can experience them in from the relative human perspective as having a substantial existence that we can understand and relate to. But there is no such thing as up/down, big/small, beginning/end in any absolute sense. But if we take on other perspectives Yin/Yang, it could also be said that there NO duality there... aka non-duality. And that would be true, as all is one thing. But there is another perspective which paradigm that sits in the middle of the absolute non-dual perspective and the relative human perspective. And this is to recognize that everything is infinitely Yin and Yang. As a visual metaphor, if you could imagine zooming into the Yin half of a Yin and Yang Symbol... you would find it was made up of its own Yin and Yang symbols. Then you could zoom into the Yang side of one of those symbols, and still find more Yin/Yang symbols. So, in the relative human sense, it is a fixed quality. But you can become more conscious and more developed relative to your inborn Yin/Yang signature. But the way to become more magnetic is to own both of your polarities and not grasp towards one and repress the other. But in the other perspectives I mentioned, everyone is infinitely Yin/Yang and everyone in another sense is neither Yin nor Yang as even that dichotomy is a false dichotomy. But in-so-far as it concerns attractiveness to a partner, your best bet is to own your energetic signature completely and develop your core potentials that stem from that signature.

My attraction comes from the months before that happens. I have to be attracted to a man BEFORE I have sex with him. And the quickness of pick-up doesn't give me the time I need to determine that. As I've said, it's usually a few months before organic attraction arises... if it will arise at all. You have to watch a man when he's not watching you to know what a man is really made of. And this comes only from interacting with him often. You won't get very much information the real man if he's trying to do the mating dance at you. You certainly wouldn't get enough information to know if you're compatible or have chemistry with him.

I do understand that it is a lot of guys who just want to get some success with women. This is why I have no issue with pick-up being used for those purposes. I probably would try out pick-up if I were a man. What I am saying is that pick-up creates a distorted image of female sexuality... just one that is more workable for the agenda of getting laid. So, it is only the misrepresentation of the female experience that is unnerving to me. But I also think it's important to get men to realize that their notions of pick-up can write over the actuality of female sexual experience. And this will stand in the way of deeper bonding experiences.

I am fine with men using pick-up to get laid. And I do understand the efficacy of having such a mechanism. But understand that it does come at a significant cost to intimacy and organic relationship growth... which is what women usually care about and feel satisfied by. Pick-up from the female perspective is like the fast food of sex and relationships. It can taste okay and fill you up a bit. But the real sustenance comes from the ability for things to happen organically over the course of time. And I have personally found that starting things out on a sexual note seriously impedes that organic process. The relationship quality difference is the difference between the waxy chocolates they sell at the dollar store during the holidays and hand-crafted gourmet truffles made from cacao beans found in the depths of the Amazon. It takes time and pick-up is immediate and fast.

I didn't say that men shouldn't do pick up. That's a strawman. I would probably do some pick up if I were a man. I merely said that pick-up only works on a percentage of the the female population and that it's not universal. But my deeper point is that the way that pick up presents female sexuality is a distortion... a workable distortion that can help men get laid. But it is still a distortion and should not be confused for accuracy. And this distortion gets in the way of deeper bonding experiences between men and women.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm also talking about the drive towards becoming confident, charismatic, etc. If a man feels like, "I have to have x,y,z qualities to attract women", then he will often write over his natural qualities in favor of whatever 'x,y,z' qualities are. This is what i meant. You can pick up on this energy of men wearing an armor where they try to embody qualities that aren't necessarily a natural expression of their core personality. But because they feel like they need these techniques to be attractive to women, they hide themselves away underneath an armor of masculine virtue. You can really pick up on the intuitive 'scent' of this quality. You have it too.

I do understand the idea. But this frames female sexuality in the same framework as male sexuality, when female sexuality is very different. Therein lies the problem with pick-up as a perspective, it projects the rules of male sexuality onto female sexuality. And this creates a distorted view of female sexuality that is workable... but not rooted in truth.

I guess I would be a bit surprised if there was a genuine deep bonding there. I know I couldn't really open up to a man in that head-space, as it would feel emotionally unsafe and frustrating because he wouldn't be able to see me as a person beyond his own agenda. So, don't be surprised when you get overlooked by someone you could potentially have had deep intimacy with. I say this because I have seen you express a desire for that. And your viewpoint might lead to you shooting yourself in the foot on this motivation because of the perspectives you hold on female sexuality. Men who get into pick-up and adopt that worldview give off a particular energy that is easy to pick up on intuitively. There is usually a vulnerability underneath that and a hardness/harshness that is developed after going through pick-up. And it is a difficult energy to be around, as it's very armored. And it is particularly difficult to really open up to someone with that energy.

@Leo Gura Of course there are learning curves in all things. But I feel like you're purposefully misunderstanding my point. And that's that pick-up doesn't work on everyone. And for those it does work on for the purposes of getting laid, it doesn't usually make for a deep bonding experience... because these pick-up ideas tend to overwrite the actuality of the female experience of deep sexual bonding in favor of a system that is easier to learn and understand. It does the dis-service of making men feel like they have demystified the female sexual experience by making it more workable for their sexual agenda... while getting them into a perspective that feels like demystification, when in reality it's just a more workable distortion.

@Leo Gura "No, because you in fact have no experience attracting and seducing women. So you don't know what that takes, nor do you care to know." I'm bisexual. So there. "No. I'm not a dating coach and I don't earn any money coaching people on pickup stuff. But I can tell you from lots of personal experience that a woman will never give a guy good advice for how to attract and sleep with women. Because attract is deeply counter-intuitive and women themselves are deeply in denial and unconscious of what attracts them and what makes them open their legs. Women love to tell themselves all sorts of fantasies about what they are attracted to, when in fact they are attracted to the opposite. They will say stuff like, "Just be yourself. Just be a nice guy." and then they end up sleeping with the biggest asshole in the room." I know that you actually believe what you're saying. I don't think you're trying to get one over on people. I know you're not a dating coach. I'm just saying that you're taking information that you've learned from pick-up as true... when it was really a marketing technique for the purpose of getting your money. And I would never give the advice to "just be a nice guy" towards anyone because nice is so generic. In order to attract a woman in the 25% of women who respond to pick-up, being a cocky asshole is a pretty good strategy if what you're interested in is getting laid. But understand that there are reasons that aren't too pretty as to why this portion of women are attracted to assholes. But if you're looking for a woman who really matches you, you must be yourself unapologetically. I can tell you how every single one of my attractions has risen up for me. It always takes the same path. About every year and a half, I'll know a man who I see on a consistent basis that I have a platonic relationship to. And after about 3 months of being around him, I will start to think about him a bit.. usually unexpectedly. And then, it will feel good to think about him. And the attraction goes from there. I understand that there can be no systematic thing that a man can do here. There is no strategy for warm approach. If he wants quick results and wants to get laid fast, he should do pick-up. But pick-up is not analogous to the way I get attracted to men. And I'd wager that that's true for a lot of women. That's why I'm stressing to you that these pick-up insights are not universal... even though they will work for their purposes. You will get laid if you do them. And if that's all you're looking for, great. But if you are looking for more, these pick-up strategies and all the "insights" they give about women can actually get in the way of forming deeper bonds with a woman. Just because a thing works on all women does not mean you will sleep with every woman. Not even close. Your 25% number is just a something you invented to make yourself feel good. Women love to believe, "That pickup stuff will never work on me. I'm too smart for that." Except you're not too smart for it because you are attracted to certain things and if a guy meets that criteria you will be attracted to him regardless of how he got there. You don't care about how he got there. You don't know how he got there. All you see is the end result. It's not about being too smart for that. I just know how I become genuinely attracted to guys, and it isn't that way. I've had a promiscuous phase in my life. At that time, I was receptive to pick-up because I was looking for sex. But starting on a sexual note is basically a guaranteer that I won't form a deeper connection to someone. I personally need months of platonic interaction first and the tension that builds up beforehand. But I say 25% because I think it is an accurate number. And in the guys I've been attracted to, it isn't because he possessed some laundry list of qualities that are universally appealing. It's always intuitive and has to do with his personality and energy and if I sense a match with mine. Yes, of course. But I'm not marketing to anyone here. Never accused you of marketing... just for being tricked by marketing. Yeah, and every guy you ever slept with met the standard criteria and principles of pickup, regardless of whatever he learned pickup or not. It depends on what kind of criteria you mean. When I have been with a guy in a serious way, it was only once because he initiated something sexual with me. And that one didn't really get that deep. I think the main reason why is because it didn't have that organic growth process to it where things begin platonic first. In my other serious relationships, I had one begin organically just by spending a lot of time together over the course of months. And I had two where I could tell the guy liked me and told him how I felt about him. (Like I said, I like reserved men who don't wear their sexuality on their sleeves). And both of these were after spending months of quality time with these guys. With my casual sexual liaisons, most of those were because I was dealing with a lot of issues and had weak boundaries. Though I did initiate a couple of those. But was not very hard to get me into bed back then. My life was really falling apart and I was all alone in the world and on the brink of eviction. But it didn't have much to do with the guys who were approaching or the techniques they were using. It could have been any guy that at least of average looks and not totally creepy/scary. I would basically talk myself into "hanging out" with them because I was lonely and I would rationalize that I'd just say no. It does not matter matter what you've seen before -- a high-value guy is a high-value guy. You're assuming the guy is faking his value, but I'm talking about a guy who is not faking his value. This is like a guy saying, "Well, I've seen big tits before, so big tits won't work on me again." They work every time. And they even work when they are fake or some push-up bra. You see, I can recognize a high value guy and not be attracted to him. I will admire him, for sure. But it is no guaranteer of attraction. But a person's virtues will be an extra turn-on if I do happen to develop an attraction to them. And I'm certainly more likely to be attracted to a man who has cultivated virtues that are analogous to the virtues that I've cultivated in myself. But it isn't analogous to the way a man gets attracted to tits. It's not an interchangeable attraction. A man will be attracted to nice tits on any woman. But for me (and I'd wager for most women), the virtues that are attractive to me in one man will not translate to attraction to other men that possess those qualities. And that's because male sexuality is different from female sexuality. Male sexuality is more interchangeable while female sexuality is very person-centered and particular. This is another reason why pick-up is taught the way that it is. It takes female sexuality and puts it in the interchangeable framework of male sexuality so that men can understand it and relate to it better. But therein lies the distortion. No. The conversion rate is low because all dating is a numbers game. You play this numbers game your entire life. When you go on Tinder, there is your numbers game. Yes, of course I personally won't appeal to every woman. In fact, this is a common mistake newbie PUAs make -- trying to appeal to every woman. A guy will be much more successful with women if he aims for 33% of women hating him, 33% of women being indifferent to him, and 33% of women loving him. This polarization is key. Just like in business you must appeal to a specific audience, not everyone under the sun. Notice that you are the one who is setting up this 100% conversion rate standard. But that's a strawman. Nowhere near this standard needs to be met. Speaking of strawmen, that's not what I'm saying. I know that there will never be a 100% conversion rate. I know conversion rates will be 1-2%, most likely. But you have spoken about approaching like 400 women before you get 1 taker. That's a very low conversion rate. It's the same idea as in business... cold approach isn't going to work most women in the same way cold marketing won't work on most people. Most women require warming up in the same way that most people require some warming up before you sell to them. But what I am saying is that you're assuming that these techniques will appeal to EVERY woman. But in reality, there is a small but sizable niche within the populace of women that will go for cold approach/pick-up. And then, within that niche... then you get your 1-2% conversion rate. All I'm saying is that you're unaware of that intermediary niche of 25%-ish of women who will be open to cold approach.

Everything in existence has an inborn masculine/feminine signature (Yang/Yin). This includes human beings. Here is a video that I made on the topic.

Yes. That's exactly my point. Men who subscribe to these notions tend to think that they are getting a pure understanding of women. And they come to believe in a reductive caricature of the female experience and of female sexuality. They don't understand that they are simply getting an understanding of how to get laid with SOME women. They think they are getting some universal truth about women, and this is the problem. And when you go to correct them, they just go "Women don't know better. Don't ask a fish how to catch them." and listen to other men with a similarly caricatured view. And with that caricatured view, you can certainly get laid. But if you want to cultivate a deep level of intimacy with a woman (which is what most women are looking for)... these caricatures will get in the way.

It's actually much easier to understand from a woman's POV because we are the audience of the pick-up attempts. And we're in the body/vehicle and know how it feels and what works and what doesn't. When male dating coaches and PUAs tell their audiences that you can't ask women about what they attracts them (i.e. Don't ask a fish how to catch them), it is just for business purposes. Otherwise, female dating coaches would put them out of business. And when PUAs say that these techniques work on all women, this is likewise a marketing strategy. It's not as appealing to say that 25% of women will be open to these techniques. It's much more effective to say "These techniques are universal and CAN work on every woman." It's important to be able to distinguish between marketing techniques and truth. I've been on the receiving end of pick-up since I was 12... over a decade before you even cracked the book open on the topic. Sure. There are certain qualities a man can have that have a more universal appeal. Yet, even these don't work on every woman. For example, I'm generally not very attracted to men who exude confidence. When I see a man with this quality, I don't see a match with me. I am generally attracted to men who are more reserved and who don't show their sexuality on their sleeves. There is more chemistry there. From the inside of the female vehicle, I can tell you that your ideas of female sexuality may work for the purposes of pick-up on some women... and a sizable minority of women at that. But most women will auto-filter you out if you're using pick-up techniques... because women have seen it all before. That's why your conversion rate is low. You have to play the numbers game because it doesn't work on every woman. And it isn't just the fact that you personally won't appeal to every woman... the techniques you use won't work on the majority of the female population. They only work on a percentage of the female population.