Are these woman lying? (Is this Dogma in Dating Culture?)

[Kid A]

4 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

What do you have ? 

Nothing. I just gave this «humor» thing a shot. 

[Schizophonia]

6 hours ago, LoseYourvelf said:

I need a shirt that says "Probably no hope of ever having a good life"
 

Just like that you looked attractive on your precedent pp. 

👍

[Sugarcoat]

25 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

"Croatian POV" 👀

 

Mhh ok i stop.

😂😂😂made me laugh 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, bambi said:

What to do though? The amount of bullshit posted in them is sickening.

Theres a subset of women whos voice is over represented in these threads as though they are the source of truth when it comes to  sexuality and dating. Its dangerous for younger men, or men who want to learn how to actually attract women

No!

Women have a fundamentally different perspective of reality than you.

Learn to understand and appreciate that.

We have few enough women on this forum as it is. We don't need you scaring them all way with your juvenile ravings.

Stop being a skunk.

Edited October 16 by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

29 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

😂😂😂made me laugh 

It seems that you have to visualize to manifest. 👀

 

[Schizophonia]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No!

Women have a fundamentally different perspective of reality than you.

Learn to understand and appreciate that.

We have few enough women on this forum as it is. We don't need you scaring them all way with your juvenile attacks.

Stop being a skunk.

Yes buy they are "Actualized women", it's another weirder race. 

Edited October 16 by Schizophonia

[Sugarcoat]

2 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

It seems that you have to visualize to manifest. 👀

 

This is what Leo means by “doing the work”

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes buy they are "Actualized women", it's another weirder race. 

You get it

[bambi]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No!

Women have a fundamentally different perspective of reality than you.

Learn to understand and appreciate that.

We have few enough women on this forum as it is. We don't need you scaring them all way with your juvenile ravings.

Stop being a skunk.

You are missing the point, its not women, I have many female friends and have slept wiht over 700+ women, Im well aware of female persepctives on sexuality, Im probably the expert on the fourm in this regard. I am 37 years old, and was speaking to Mystey (Erik von markivich) in the beginning of 2006 on email. I was one of the first people to study and apply game in the world when I was 18 years old - 18 years ago.

The point is Emerald and Princesss warped views being given as a representative of all female sexuality, which is misleading and flase. Even Buck Edwards disgrees with them, and im sure plenty over females do, but they are too scared to speak up due to the unfair social standing you give to Emerald and Princess with their psuedo-spiritual insanity. Emerald has done pyschedelics 5 times in her life, and Princess 0, and these are our experts?

Again it is only 2 female members, the female mafia, not all females, you are exaggarating. 

I know my posts to them are confrontational and harsh, and I apologies to them both if Ive been overly rude, or they've been hurt by my comments.

But to paint my issues with Princess and Emerald as de-incentivising female participation is just not correct. Princess and Emerald are too of the most prominent and prolific female posters, and none of my posts have impacted that at all, they still post incessently, and neither have engaged me in any discussion.

Edited October 16 by bambi

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, bambi said:

or they've been hurt by my comments.

They are not hurt. You're just obnoxious to deal with.

If you can't learn to be respectful, I will ban you from this sub-forum.

Edited October 16 by Leo Gura

[bambi]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They are not hurt. You're just obnoxious to deal with.

If you can't learn to be kind, I will ban you from this sub-forum.

LOL I am doing it on purpose my friend, I am mirroring them but I do it explicitly.

I am more then capable of engaging in a reasonable discussion.

You dont see how they are constantly condescending and think they are superior? Cant see how they do this subtly all the time? They rarely engage in any discourse that can undermine this posiiton, no matter how polite

But I hear you, its your forum, Ill stop explicitly mirrioring them.

I will be kinder in my approach, no worries

Edited October 16 by bambi

[gettoefl]

26 minutes ago, bambi said:

LOL I am doing it on purpose my friend, I am mirroring them but I do it explicitly.

I am more then capable of engaging in a reasonable discussion.

You dont see how they are constantly condescending and think they are superior? Cant see how they do this subtly all the time? They rarely engage in any discourse that can undermine this posiiton, no matter how polite

But I hear you, its your forum, Ill stop explicitly mirrioring them.

I will be kinder in my approach, no worries

You come across as an arrogant bullying curmudgeon

These women here give tirelessly and gently to help others understand higher consciousness perspectives

All you do is attack attack attack and only rarely have you given any insight into what you think or what you experience

I have no idea why people would give you a second of their precious limited time

You really seem smart and wise but you have an enormous chip on your shoulder

You can do better than this

Please don't reply to this as I am just venting to get this off my chest

[Emerald]

51 minutes ago, bambi said:

and neither have engaged me in any discussion.

You'll catch more bees with honey rather than vinegar.

I'm bending my rule a little bit right now in responding to you.

But I just don't read or engage with perspectives that are overtly disrespectful or peppered with ad hominem attacks.

If you want me to engage you in discussion on the merits of your arguments, you're going to need to speak to me with maturity and respect... and like both you and I are adults.

[bambi]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You'll catch more bees with honey rather than vinegar.

I'm bending my rule a little bit right now in responding to you.

But I just don't read or engage with perspectives that are overtly disrespectful or peppered with ad hominem attacks.

If you want me to engage you in discussion on the merits of your arguments, you're going to need to speak to me with maturity and respect... and like both you and I are adults.

This is false Emerald, I spoke to you many times like that in previous threads and you ignored any discussion where the other person has stronger arguments.

You also previously spoke to me in this thread, unto which I kindly responded, and you also ignored me then

You speak on your terms when it suits you i.e.. re-inforces your sense of superiority. Outside of this you don't engage. This is impolite discourse.

I respond to all that engage with me, its common courtesy when we see each other as equal value

Edited October 16 by bambi

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, bambi said:

This is false Emerald, I spoke to you many times like that in previous threads and you ignored any discussion where the other person has stronger arguments.

You also previously spoke to me in this thread, unto which I kindly responded, and you also ignored me then

You speak on your terms when it suits you i.e.. re-inforces your sense of superiority. Outside of this you don't engage. This is impolite discourse.

I respond to all that engage with me, its common courtesy when we see each other as equal value

I haven't been tagged in any posts from you that aren't peppered with ad hominem attacks about me. Every single post you've tagged me in has been full of personal attacks. 

And you've been posting lots of other posts to other people on the forum that are near-obsessively taking personal jabs at me.

And I come here because I like to debate. I see this forum as an intellectual boxing match. 

And I enjoy sparring with people who have different perspectives than mine. I delight in a heated disagreement. 

So, I would love to debate with you on the merits of your argument. That's why I'm bending my own rules a bit and taking the time to tell you my boundaries and why I've not been engaging with you. 

And my rule is that I'm not going to engage in anything that's below the belt. 

Bad faith debate tactics are one of my bigger pet peeves because it prioritizes winning and being right over having a good debate. 

And even beyond this format, I just don't engage with people who are disrespecting me because it wouldn't be a self-loving thing to do.

[bambi]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I haven't been tagged in any posts from you that aren't peppered with ad hominem attacks about me. Every single post you've tagged me in has been full of personal attacks. 

And you've been posting lots of other posts to other people on the forum that are near-obsessively taking personal jabs at me.

And I come here because I like to debate. I see this forum as an intellectual boxing match. 

And I enjoy sparring with people who have different perspectives than mine. I delight in a heated disagreement. 

So, I would love to debate with you on the merits of your argument. That's why I'm bending my own rules a bit and taking the time to tell you my boundaries and why I've not been engaging with you. 

And my rule is that I'm not going to engage in anything that's below the belt. 

Bad faith debate tactics are one of my bigger pet peeves because it prioritizes winning and being right over having a good debate. 

And even beyond this format, I just don't engage with people who are disrespecting me because it wouldn't be a self-loving thing to do.

Im sorry but this isnt true. What exactly about my post below is ad hominen or disrespectful? Your self-image of someone who delights in heated agreement, good faith arguments, and treats everyone equally, is only when it suits you as I previously stated. As soon as you percieve you are outmatched and might lose social standing, you are impolite and rude.

There is nothing in my below post that is disrespectful or bad faith or any other of these projections.  This is where you started being rude

"You are not understanding what I am saying. 

Let me try to be more clear:

Your whole gender dynamic perspective is totally flawed. This rhetoric of women are x and men are y is incorrect and is a false dichotomy

Humans in general have preferences and criteria that are unique to the individual. But all humans are comrpomising to some degrees some of the time with all relaitonships. I cant see how you are struggling to see this.

Whatever generalised anecdotes you can make are not helpful and are ultimately not useful to anyone. They tell you nothing about yourself or any individual that is interesitng or meaningful.

Even within your biological paradigm, all studies are showing that women still have selection criteria: hypergamy, so the rhetoric that women are natural and organically selecting partners is no more true then saying so for men. Both sexes have unconcious selection criteria derived mainly from survival instincts but this criteria is mutable as most modern studies are showing.

This means the only thing you can say is: women or men have tended to in the past chose partners based on x according to yz studies. But the reasons for any choice are complex, unknown, hypothetical, and seemingly mutable to varying to degrees in modern emergent trends.

However when factoring in levels of psychological development, surival security, individual differences/preferences,  whilst controlling for societal conditioning and influence, the spectrum is hugely diverse"

The above post is precisely a good heated discussion and good faith. Its also well written, has a clear logic structure, and is concise and clear. But you didnt have a rebuttal so you resorted to ignoring under the guise of some psuedo-moral superiority. Which is rude and disrespectful