A Female Persective On The Friendzone

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, username said:

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. I think the issue with guys saying they're in the friends zone isn't that there's a denial of the fact that the guy wanted something more. It's that since a lot of guys complain about it, it's been seen by a lot of women as a symbol of male entitlement. 

Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this. I remember being sad about being in the friends zone and being pretty upset at women telling me that I was an entitled loser that wasn't owed anything, despite the fact that I never thought I was owed anything-- I was merely upset at my romantic failure, which is something many women just wouldn't acknowledge. Guys can feel hurt and depressed about rejection without necessarily thinking women owe them sex. It's a messy issue because a lot of guys think they are owed sex and the nature of these complaints often involve rhetoric which reinforces notions of a poor guy deserving sex but being denied by the mean, insensitive woman, which is most definitely sexist and oppressive.

The problem is the effort to squash those sexist, oppressive notions of male entitlement also result in depressed, unsuccessful men not receiving emotional support in their tough times, except from sexist guys with similar problems but with different attitudes. When those vulnerable men are at their lowest points and have nobody else to turn to for support, they are more susceptible to radicalization and actually becoming sexist, which just reinforces the notion that anyone who expresses frustration over being "friend-zoned" is just a sexist, misogynist who fails to recognize his male privilege. 

This is one of those threads I start off thinking I know the deal, yet the belief crumbles under scrutiny. By the end I realize I didn’t know what I was talking about and the issue goes much deeper than I had thought

[Forestluv]

@Emerald Emerald, thanks for your patience during my long-winded posts. You exposed a long-held belief that isn’t holding up to scrutiny in this thread. I don’t even know where that belief came from or why I was defending it. I’m going to re-read your posts now with a more open mind, then head to bed. Have a good night!

[Guest username]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is one of those threads I start off thinking I know the deal, yet the belief crumbles under scrutiny. By the end I realize I didn’t know what I was talking about and the issue goes much deeper than I had thought

I think everything is like that, lol.

[Toby]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

The woman's motivation would be to make a human connection with a friend or acquaintance. Generally speaking, women who have male friends are just wanting friends. There's no motivation to seek a relationship. Now, a dysfunctional person might enjoy getting attention to fill some voids. But generally, the friend-zone is just the default mode for all people... including the vast majority of men.

I guess you are deluding yourself. What is called "friend zone" - which I think does not really exists - is when the man is used to such a degree that he complains about it and even invents such a term "friend zone". There is no problem being friends with someone. But looking back where I experienced such dysfunctional relatings I can say that the women didn't respect boundaries and core "values" which should be a given in friendships. I mean, why is it that a woman tells a man "I'm single" when later it turns out she lives together with her boyfriend for the last five years? Or why does a woman have to show a man nude pictures on her smartphone and tell constantly about sex and her dildo-collection? Or to give an even more insane example from someone else: why does a woman cuddle in a bed with someone and then is surprised he wants more than a friendship? I think this is pretty insane and has nothing to do with friendships.

[LaucherJunge]

Seems to me like one point was not mentioned at all here.
There are many men who are not at all interested in a friendship with a women. I am one of them. My fields of interest usually don't go together with women so why would i have a female friend as opposed to a male friend. So this a strong point why it actually is called friend-zone by most men, it is actually the worst case because the women just wants to use you without giving anything of value to you from your perspective.Now if you would call it default zone as a guy it doesn't include the part of being friends, well what else is there than being attracted or being friends?
The problem here is that sex is a currency for most women they pay the guys they are attracted to with and friendship is a currency they are being paid with. So now they are taking currency of men who won't get the payment and don't actually take currency of friendship from people who they actually pay with sex. Now the guys who don't get laid always pay and never get a payback while they see other guys who don't actually pay the women get paid by that women. So the frustration on this part is acually very much justified. That's why i think women actually have a higher social privilage and that's why i really don't understand feminists.

Another point i would like to make is that there is actually also a attracted or not filter for women im noticing it daily. A lot of women filter for tall men if you are not a tall guy you don't stand a chance for the majority of women and now if they actually filtered you out as "not a tall guy" in the first place and they do try to have a relationship they again want to get paid  with friendship without ever considering to give you something back for it, so obviously you will be carefull for that kinds of women. If i hear a women ever saying something good about tall guys i automatically lose attraction towards her nowadays.
Now this was just an example there are other factors that behave the same way like wealth and even inner factors like aggressivity and humor or such.
So most women have their own big factors which determine your scale of 1-10, this happens already in a few moments and if your score is not high enough you actually are in a friend zone.
That is my observations atleast.

Edited September 27, 2017 by LaucherJunge

[Spiral]

From what I've heard from my female friends is that guys they friend zone are:

• Guys they cant get but enjoy hanging out with.
• Guys that they are interested in but the timing is off.
• The most common reason is that they are not attracted to the guy sexually and/or romantically but they are fun to hang out with.

Girls love cuddling, so cuddle with them if the girls finds you likable enough to hang out with you. Don't even try think about going further then cuddling.

[Forestluv]

Below is the most common definition of "Friendzone" I've found:

"In popular culture, friend zone refers to a platonic relationship wherein one person, most commonly a man, wishes to enter into a romantic or sexual relationship, while the other does not. It is generally considered to be an undesirable or dreaded situation by the lovelorn person."

This is how I've used the term and how my male friends have used the term. A guy is courting a gal and she doesn't see him as a lover and puts him in the "friendzone". To avoid getting "friendzoned", guy tries to impress her by promoting his positive characteristics. I acknowledge that there are underlying power dynamics in play and one person could take advantage of another, yet adding highly manipulative/abusive stuff so that the friendzone is some manipulative/abusive trap seems like an extreme usage of the term "friendzone". On the other hand, it's not like women are naïve/innocent and after several dates suddenly realize: "Oh my gosh! You are interested in sex?! I thought we were just friends!".

I've dated women who liked the attention of being courted and the idea of a successful guy providing for her and her child. She didn't have a real desire for romance or sex, yet led me on that romance was more of a possibility than it was. . . .  Just right around the corner. . . I saw this a lot when I lived in South America.

On the other side, guys lead women on about long-term prospects and providing: "I don't have any kids, yet I like kids and could see myself being a father figure if I found the right woman and her child to settle down with". Yet, the real motivation is more immediate romance or sex. So there could be a "fuckzone" for guys - you want some romance/sex from a gal, but not a committed relationship with her.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Mad Max said:

 

@Emerald I don't need "advice". I'm not confused, nor am I "interpreting" anything; I'm telling you what the friendzone is. I've been shaking my head in disbelief at your various comments throughout this thread; you're completely misconstruing/misunderstanding what the friendzone is. You're supposed to hit the dot in the middle of the board, not the wall behind it.

Misconception's on you, and stems from an inability, on your part (and society in general), to perceive men as victims, and women as abusers (crazy concept, I know). Yet, that's what the friendzone entails; the guy is dependent/addicted to the woman, and the woman takes advantage of that fact to extract a certain type of currency from him. That's what originally was, and still is, meant by friendzone. Think of it as a codependent/narcissist relationship.

Don't know how many women you've dated, but dating women generally helps in understanding what kind of emotional abuses women are capable of resorting to. Read some of the above comments, and you'll understand what I mean. It's not half as uncommon as you make it out to be.

If you type in "definition friend zone" in Google, this the the definition that comes up.

friend zone

noun

informal

noun: friend zone; plural noun: friend zones

a situation in which a friendship exists between two people, one of whom has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in the other.

"I always wind up in the friend zone, watching them pursue other guys"

So, you did actually use the term wrong according to the dictionary definition. And you are instead using the term "friend zone" to describe gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism. But I'm not saying that "friend zone" isn't real. I'm saying that it's simply the default mode for women and doesn't work the way people think it does. And because of this misconception, it makes things more difficult for men who are trying to meet women as it plays too well into narratives that already cause low self-esteem in men. So, I figured that more clarity could alleviate some of this problem for men on the forum, as I know that approaching women is not easy. Take it from me, I'm a bi-sexual woman and I've never had the gumption to approach a woman because of fear of rejection or seeming creepy. So, I've never had a girlfriend or been with a woman... but I tried in my head many times.

I'm also not saying that women can't be abusive. Gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism IS abuse. It should never happen.

And people are so utterly convinced of women's weakness and inferiority and men's strength and superiority that abuses from women to men get interpreted as harmless or are completely overlooked. You can find videos of women in public berating their male partners and people will just walk by and laugh at the guy. Then, the same scenario gets reversed and everyone sweeps in to save the damsel in distress and shame the man. It's an incredibly harmful and ubiquitous mindset that some Feminists have called the "predator/prey mindset," whereby men are always seen as predators and women are always seen as prey. And this plays constantly and unconsciously across the stage of the collective consciousness. It's one of the most pernicious and unconscious mindsets that plagues us as a human species and limits our potential for peace and expansion.

It's harmful to men because their feelings get overlooked and shat upon all the time. And people always tell them, "Suck it up! Be a man!" And if you can't "suck it up" then you're a (insert inferior/feminine insult here). Men are also seen by the public as inherently aggressive and are often stereotyped as creepy or bad by default. On the other hand, it's harmful to women in the sense that people are conditioned to see them as weak and ineffective. So, you'll find a lot of self esteem issues in women relative to self-trust and self-efficacy. There's always a feeling like people won't take you seriously, and it's hard to get people to listen to you. You'll also find a prone-ness to victim's mentality in women who are not aware that this rhetoric is working on them. That's why there's a lot a reactionary "Yass! Queen!" kind of talk to compensate for the damage done by the "prey" narrative. But if you look close enough, you'll see that the mindsets for this reaction are built from that narrative as well.

And even though the "red-pill" community seems like a solution to this issue because you get to vent about it with other men dealing with the situation that society sets up. It's not a real solution at all. It's just the male version of the "Yass! Queen!" talk. This is because it's still built on the very same foundation and assumptions from which men seek to liberate themselves. It just teaches a man different ways to think about the shitty mindsets that society holds about men, women, and power in a way that makes them feel empowered and vindicated. It's not different than what most mainstream Feminists are doing when they engage in man-shaming or try to fit the victim narrative. The rhetoric is also designed to make you feel like "the good guy" of the situation, to cope with always being stereotyped as the aggressor. But a word of warning... If you live by the sword, you'll also die by the sword. And you can't fight fire with fire. And mainstream Feminists can't "crush" patriarchy because the idea of "crushing the patriarchy" is also a patriarchal thing. It's all a big Catch 22 without the ability to dive into what's uncomfortable and explore the roots of this issue, and to become aware of the real demons that actually plague us. 

So, a man can never truly liberate himself in this way because he believes that his chains are the thing that gives him freedom. So a man in "red-pill" just agitates himself over and over to be able to project his frustrations with the social structure onto something. But it doesn't address them in any kind of productive way. It's just a coping mechanism. Coping mechanisms are fine for a time, but they don't heal you.

But I wasn't doubting that the scenario that you mentioned doesn't happen to some men. I just said that I can't relate to it personally. And the rhetorical nature and bitterness of your post sounded like you were just kind of regurgitating some "red-pill" speech instead of sharing your own experiences. That's why I asked you to clarify if it has been your first-hand experience or if it's just you buying into an idea and then getting pissed off at that idea.

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, LaucherJunge said:

The problem here is that sex is a currency for most women they pay the guys they are attracted to with and friendship is a currency they are being paid with. So now they are taking currency of men who won't get the payment and don't actually take currency of friendship from people who they actually pay with sex. Now the guys who don't get laid always pay and never get a payback while they see other guys who don't actually pay the women get paid by that women. So the frustration on this part is acually very much justified. That's why i think women actually have a higher social privilage and that's why i really don't understand feminists.

I don't believe that most women work that way. I'm sure that there is a sizable minority of women who are like this. But most women I've talked to are really interested in the guy as a partner if they like him.

But something that would be a good idea to address is that you're seeing sex (and friendship) as a exchangeable currency, and not as an experience and an expression between two (or dare-I-say more ) people. A woman wanting ONLY friendship with a man is not equivalent to a man wanting ONLY sex from a woman. Using sex as currency is unhealthy to begin with. But friendship definitely isn't a commodity or service that someone provides to someone, that they should expect sex (or anything else) in return to make it worth their time. People are friends because they genuinely care about one another. It actually makes me really sad for you that you can't experience genuine feelings of friendship toward a woman to the degree that you see friendship as merely transactional.

So, if you're really into developing yourself as a person and becoming more highly conscious (which I assume you are because you're on this forum) then you have to understand that this is "Orange" level thinking regarding the topic of sex. To quote Leo... "It's chimp stuff."

Edited September 28, 2017 by Emerald

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

@Emerald Listen, I'll leave you to your Google/dictionary definitions. You obviously need them. Not gonna read this huge piece of text, either. No bad blood. Just nothing in that debate for me.

If that's what you need to do at this point, then that's okay. It totally get it. If I could ignore it, I would be tempted to as well as it's a really convoluted topic that's difficult to wrap the mind around. It's just too painful for me to ignore. So, diving into this topic feels like a relief compared to ignoring it. For you, it seems, ignoring it feels better now than facing it. So, go with that until it becomes unbearable. It's uncomfortable stuff to examine, and it'll definitely rustle your jimmies, stir up your demons, and challenge your current worldview. So, you have to be ready for it. But if you're really serious about personal development, you'll have to look into this topic eventually. You can't grow with chains on.

[Guest username]

8 hours ago, Mad Max said:

@username Fuck off.

 

 

If you've had a problem with something I've said, you can go ahead be more specific. I don't understand why there's any need for hostility.  We can have a discussion.

Not saying this out of false humility/civility or to virtue signal, btw-- just don't quite get the problem.

Edited September 27, 2017 by username

[Forestluv]

18 hours ago, Emerald said:

It's not the term itself that's the issue. It's more the interpretation of the term that the term itself lends to. This is because it gives a sense that it's an allotted place that a man is moved to when he doesn't meet this or that standard of attraction. So, the zone part is misleading, because "zone" means "a special delineated place that has a boundary." So, it subtly suggests that someone can be placed there as a secondary action instead of that place being primary. So, it would be more accurate to say "She wasn't attracted to me." or "She has platonic feelings for me." as this is the actual reality of the "friend-zone" situation. It demystifies the scenario surrounding the idea of the friend-zone because that's just what the friend zone is. That is, unless the situation started out romantic and became platonic. Then it could be said, "She put me back in the friend zone." and this would give an accurate explanation of what went on.

In your original post you state: "Everyone is in default mode to begin with, and only a guy who really sparks her interest or has chemistry with her gets magically and inexplicably bumped up to romantic-mode.". I think this is an overly simplistic binary model and there is at least one zone missing. Everyone is in the "default zone" is a very soft interpretation of a "friend zone". That would put the mailman in the same zone as going out with a guy for drinks on a Tinder date. I'm not buying it. When a gal heads out for drinks with a guy she met on Tinder - he is in a different zone. This could be a temporary "prospect zone" - but he is not still in the default zone with the mailman. The prospect for potential romance / sex / relationship is front and center on the Tinder date. Both people know it. She selected him as a potential lover/partner when she swiped right, messaged him and agreed to go to the bar for drinks on a date. He is no longer in the "Default Zone", he has been elevated to the "Prospect Zone". The interaction on the Tinder date is very different than noticing the mailman drop off the mail.

She hardly knows the Tinder guy. He isn't in some "friend zone" or "acquaintance zone ". She doesn't have enough information. During or after the date, she could choose to elevate him from "Prospect Zone" to "Romance Zone". Or she could put him in a wide variety of zones. If she thinks he could be a friend, but not a lover, he could go into the "friend zone" with her other friends. Or, he could go into the "Creepy Zone" never to be seen again. Or, she could sneak out early, put him in the "Psycho Zone" and be grateful that she didn't give him her phone number.

Furthermore, there is a continuum with many shades of grey. You stated a guy is magically and inexplicably bumped up to the Romance Zone. . . What if during the date, she kind of likes him, but unsure. She wants to get to know him better. She lets him kiss her goodnight. Is he still in the "Default Zone" or was he magically bumped up to the "Romance Zone"? or maybe it's a semi-magical "Pre-Romance Zone"? And whatever answer is given, one could dial up or dial down the intensity of interaction so the zones are ambiguous. What if they were just flirting with each other as they checked each other out? Still "Default Zone"?

There is an area between "Default Zone" and the "Magical Romance Zone" which includes anticipation, curiosity, butterflies in the stomach and getting all dressed up in nice clothes and make-up. That doesn't happen for some guy in the "Default Zone".

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[smd]

@Emerald True enough.  I've seen some very hideous looking parents with a really hot daughter before & it leaves you scratching your head on how that happened.  hahah.  Although it's not my thing to do. 8-}

[smd]

2 hours ago, username said:

If you've had a problem with something I've said, you can go ahead be more specific. I don't understand why there's any need for hostility.  We can have a discussion.

Not saying this out of false humility/civility or to virtue signal, btw-- just don't quite get the problem.

 

I haven't understood that attitude either.  I guess he'll come around after the pressure releases.  Need to go back & read what the provocation was all about.

[Toby]

@Emerald It still doesn't really examine the motivations. We have to assume that patterns on both sides are responsible and these patterns are unconscious. Otherwise the man and also the woman would not act them out. So, my question would be if it could be that the woman says "No, I'm not abusing people. Maybe others do, but I'm not. I'm really a good person. I really love to connect with people, maybe even help people. It has nothing to do with emotional gratification or wanting to be special. I'm just a really good person." while in reality all this is fueled by neediness/boredom/fear to be alone... on her part which leads unconsciously to extreme emotional abusive behaviour?
I'm just asking, because I certainly have exploited and abused people emotionally without knowing it myself, until I recognized it.

[smd]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

If you type in "definition friend zone" in Google, this the the definition that comes up.

friend zone

noun

informal

noun: friend zone; plural noun: friend zones

a situation in which a friendship exists between two people, one of whom has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in the other.

"I always wind up in the friend zone, watching them pursue other guys"

So, you did actually use the term wrong according to the dictionary definition. And you are instead using the term "friend zone" to describe gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism. But I'm not saying that "friend zone" isn't real. I'm saying that it's simply the default mode for women and doesn't work the way people think it does. And because of this misconception, it makes things more difficult for men who are trying to meet women as it plays too well into narratives that already cause low self-esteem in men. So, I figured that more clarity could alleviate some of this problem for men on the forum, as I know that approaching women is not easy. Take it from me, I'm a bi-sexual woman and I've never had the gumption to approach a woman because of fear of rejection or seeming creepy. So, I've never had a girlfriend or been with a woman... but I tried in my head many times.

I'm also not saying that women can't be abusive. Gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism IS abuse. It should never happen.

And people are so utterly convinced of women's weakness and inferiority and men's strength and superiority that abuses from women to men get interpreted as harmless or are completely overlooked. You can find videos of women in public berating their male partners and people will just walk by and laugh at the guy. Then, the same scenario gets reversed and everyone sweeps in to save the damsel in distress and shame the man. It's an incredibly harmful and ubiquitous mindset that some Feminists have called the "predator/prey mindset," whereby men are always seen as predators and women are always seen as prey. And this plays constantly and unconsciously across the stage of the collective consciousness. It's one of the most pernicious and unconscious mindsets that plagues us as a human species and limits our potential for peace and expansion.

It's harmful to men because their feelings get overlooked and shat upon all the time. And people always tell them, "Suck it up! Be a man!" And if you can't "suck it up" then you're a (insert inferior/feminine insult here). Men are also seen by the public as inherently aggressive and are often stereotyped as creepy or bad by default. On the other hand, it's harmful to women in the sense that people are conditioned to see them as weak and ineffective. So, you'll find a lot of self esteem issues in women relative to self-trust and self-efficacy. There's always a feeling like people won't take you seriously, and it's hard to get people to listen to you. You'll also find a prone-ness to victim's mentality in women who are not aware that this rhetoric is working on them. That's why there's a lot a reactionary "Yass! Queen!" kind of talk to compensate for the damage done by the "prey" narrative. But if you look close enough, you'll see that the mindsets for this reaction are built from that narrative as well.

And even though the "red-pill" community seems like a solution to this issue because you get to vent about it with other men dealing with the situation that society sets up. It's not a real solution at all. It's just the male version of the "Yass! Queen!" talk. This is because it's still built on the very same foundation and assumptions from which men seek to liberate themselves. It just teaches a man different ways to think about the shitty mindsets that society holds about men, women, and power in a way that makes them feel empowered and vindicated. It's not different than what most mainstream Feminists are doing when they engage in man-shaming or try to fit the victim narrative. The rhetoric is also designed to make you feel like "the good guy" of the situation, to cope with always being stereotyped as the aggressor. But a word of warning... If you live by the sword, you'll also die by the sword. And you can't fight fire with fire. And mainstream Feminists can't "crush" patriarchy because the idea of "crushing the patriarchy" is also a patriarchal thing. It's all a big Catch 22 without the ability to dive into what's uncomfortable and explore the roots of this issue, and to become aware of the real demons that actually plague us. 

So, a man can never truly liberate himself in this way because he believes that his chains are the thing that gives him freedom. So a man in "red-pill" just agitates himself over and over to be able to project his frustrations with the social structure onto something. But it doesn't address them in any kind of productive way. It's just a coping mechanism. Coping mechanisms are fine for a time, but they don't heal you.

But I wasn't doubting that the scenario that you mentioned doesn't happen to some men. I just said that I can't relate to it personally. And the rhetorical nature and bitterness of your post sounded like you were just kind of regurgitating some "red-pill" speech instead of sharing your own experiences. That's why I asked you to clarify if it has been your first-hand experience or if it's just you buying into an idea and then getting pissed off at that idea.

 

 

Ok.  I  read this on behalf of Mad Max.   From a societal perspective...sure. These are chains & all that jazz.  People use those words such as mysogynistic, red pill, & some other negative connotations (which is why username was told to fuck off, I can see now).  However, you know what I see? TOOLS!!!   All of these things brought up by the PUAs, the Red Pills, & so on.  There are tools here that can be harnessed to some extent, to manipulate people.  Some people might not condone these methods (I can see username spent some time trashing it), but I see no shame at all in using any of it to take advantage of my fellow man or give me an edge in competition.  For instance, I've learned so much from game & it even pointed me to other things such as NLP and studying body language, along with several good books.

Further, I have felt no shame or guilt in learning these things or using them to read others with non-verbal communication.  Pretty much anyone can use it.  To label it a bad thing is to deny yourself its use.

I believe I heard Leo say once that success is defined as trying to manipulate reality to achieve your goals/desires, whereas the truth is just studying how things are (without really changing anything & looking internally).  As far as I'm concerned, I can do both of these things simultaneously in accordance with the paradoxical nature of self-development.   Maybe there are some frustrated & angry people in the red pill groups, but I'm not one of them & I still listen to it & use it where I can.  

I try to think of these concepts from an individual & situational perspective...seeing them from macrocosmic scale hasn't give me much juice to make lemonade with.  8-}

[Emerald]

15 minutes ago, smd said:

Ok.  I  read this on behalf of Mad Max.   From a societal perspective...sure. These are chains & all that jazz.  People use those words such as mysogynistic, red pill, & some other negative connotations (which is why username was told to fuck off, I can see now).  However, you know what I see? TOOLS!!!   All of these things brought up by the PUAs, the Red Pills, & so on.  There are tools here that can be harnessed to some extent, to manipulate people.  Some people might not condone these methods (I can see username spent some time trashing it), but I see no shame at all in using any of it to take advantage of my fellow man or give me an edge in competition.  For instance, I've learned so much from game & it even pointed me to other things such as NLP and studying body language, along with several good books.

Further, I have felt no shame or guilt in learning these things or using them to read others with non-verbal communication.  Pretty much anyone can use it.  To label it a bad thing is to deny yourself its use.

I believe I heard Leo say once that success is defined as trying to manipulate reality to achieve your goals/desires, whereas the truth is just studying how things are (without really changing anything & looking internally).  As far as I'm concerned, I can do both of these things simultaneously in accordance with the paradoxical nature of self-development.   Maybe there are some frustrated & angry people in the red pill groups, but I'm not one of them & I still listen to it & use it where I can.  

I try to think of these concepts from an individual & situational perspective...seeing them from macrocosmic scale hasn't give me much juice to make lemonade with.  8-}

There's nothing wrong with learning some game. I would learn the hell out of it, if I were a man seeking a relationship or seeking to have some adventures with women. There is nothing inherently bad about that. It sounds like fun adventure to embark upon if taken with a mindset grounded in reality and done with an inner awareness of one's emotions and motivation. And with honesty too, of course. And from a woman's perspective, I like it when a guy knows what he's doing.

But it's the outlook on women and men that is very stifling for a man that adopts the ideology because it takes the world and boils it down to a sexual value game. It keeps us focused toward the lower nature realities as being of prime importance and ignores the higher nature within us and sees it as less natural and forced. So, it's very reductive and "black and white values"-based. So, it is akin to Social Darwinism in many ways. And as such, it makes meeting certain standards of masculinity akin to a survival need for the men that subscribe deeply to those notions. So, at this point, it is an authenticity killer even if there were some benefits from the confidence boost that it gives. The stakes are just too high to show anything less that the utmost masculine parts of oneself. I see so many men who've adopted this ideology in an extreme way and living a half-life because they decided that most of themselves is unacceptable. And you can tell because there's a stiffness to them. And there's generally a stingy kind of way about them, which is ironically part of the Shadow Feminine. And men who have it really bad, pretend to themselves not to care what women think of them when in reality, it's their number one concern in life.

And like I said before, if you live by the sword then you die by the sword. And I think the relief that guys feel who get into the red-pill thing, becomes an emotional holding-point that keeps them stuck in a place that's difficult to transcend... simply because it feels empowering to embrace those ideologies. It's easier in that sense for women to slough off this mindset because the narrative is very dis-empowering because it's about submission and there isn't really much women can do in that narrative to make their lives better from it. It's just not very appetizing. The flip-side here is that there's a resistance to any of the actual threads of truth that run through it, because they fear going back to the dis-empowerments of yesteryear. And there may especially be a resistance to certain romantic/sexual preferences that may be interpreted as dis-empowering. For example, a woman may resist being a submissive lover even if it is actually authentic for her because she fears seeing herself as inferior or fears her lover thinking that of her.

So, my advice would be to learn the techniques, but don't swallow the ideology. Just stay rooted in reality, and do what ever helps bring you closer to what you want. Don't put yourself in a box, and know your motivations well. Many that I see are not doing it for the joy of new experiences. Most I've seen do it to compensate for a perceived lack in themselves and to try to fill the void of self-love with female attention.

[Guest username]

@smd I'm not trashing game in general. I'm critiquing some aspects of it. If getting sex at all costs is your priority, then that's that, but I've seen a lot of genuine misogyny and advocating emotional abuse in those circles. I've met plenty of men who argued that since false rape accusations exist, real rape is almost non-existent. I've met guys who thought it was okay to take advantage of drunk girls who couldn't consent, who thought it was okay to lie to get sex, and much more.

I'll be straight: I'm not an expert and am not even saying that I'm necessarily right, but after having spent years making friends and talking to PUAs and TRP people on the regular, I know some of the attitudes held toward women, and to say that misogyny isn't spread in those communities is not accurate. It's fine to want to improve your dating life, but far too few men, from what I've seen, are actually interested in leaving the girls they get with better off. More often, it's just trying to get some pussy without regards to the means or the consequences.

[aurum]

@Emerald

I've worked with a lot of these guys. The whole "she put me in the friend-zone thing" is part misinformation about male / female dynamics due to conditioning, and part just a way to avoid responsibility. Because as long as it's the girl's fault, they don't have to change and face all those fears that are "keeping them in the friend-zone".

The female equivalent to this is when a girl thinks a guy should want to commit to her "just because". But the reality is every girl I meet is basically thrown into this ambiguous, default category for relationships UNLESS she shows me something that makes her stand out.  

[Toby]

The "funny" thing is: I read a book about psychopathy by Robert Hare some weeks back and it reminded me again again of the PU gurus and PU community. I'm pretty convinced that some of the "gurus" are psychopaths and spread - even without obvious bad intention - their view of life and people in the community.