Define "Successful with Women"

[Serenity]

So what's your definition?

The definition depends on what the individual man want to achieve with women. A man who wants to fvck a lot of women and does it is successful, because he reaches his goal. A man who wants a good relationship with one woman and gets it is successful, because he reaches his goal. However a man who wants a relationship with one woman but instead end up fvcking around with many women, he's unsuccessful because he can't reach his goal.

If your goal is to take advantage of people and you do it, you are in a way successful in achieving your own goal. But people will fvcking hate you for it. You would probably never accept the opposite would you? Women gaining more from you than they give you, that's what you'll be doing to them. It's the definition of taking advantage of someone, to gain more than what is given often gained through the abuse of weaknesses.

I don't see how that's succeeding in anything other than to be a piece of sh!t.

 

[ZTIME]

In fairness to the OP's original question, success is defined by your own personal set of rules, but must be quantified by outcome.

For instance: I cold approach 10 women, how many were successful interactions, how many were not. Adjust accordingly.

This is only to be used to target your own outcome, not how any outside influence (male or female) judges your results.

Life can also be tackled the same way. (Career, finances, social life, etc). All successes should start with what you consider to be successful. If not, you may quickly find yourself being referred to as a POS on a forum based on your own personal quest for success.

 

[MrWiggles]

younger, hotter, tighter

 

[Serenity]

Agree with you on this. We each have to define this for ourselves and reach our own conclusions.

Now you're just taking the piss with this feminine, wishy-washy crap.

Understand that first we have self-esteem - one's sense of self worth.

Then we have our worth to others. This is a completely different thing. This is the basis for all relationships with other people - women, our jobs, our social circle, etc. When we strip away all of the bullsh*t, and see the framework for what it is, there is always an exchange of value happening.

It's a completely valid point to make, and I don't think anyone needs a lecture on 'morals' for pointing it out.

Anyone thinking that you're a 'piece of sh*t' for putting yourself first can get f*cked as far as I'm concerned.

'Taking advantage', pfft. Nothing more than people getting their needs met. Quit with the victim mentality.

I doubt you really understood me. I don't deny there's an exchange of value, my arguments are based on exactly that. What I will not tolerate is someone tipping the balance in his own favor at the expense of someone else. Nobody is a piece of sh!t for just putting themselves first, except if they advance themselves by pushing others down.

Our worth to others are determined by what and how much we have to offer. If you just take then you're not worth sh!t to anyone. Hypothetically if I offered something of value to you and got nothing in return, then you wouldn't be worth sh!t to me. If you offered something of value to me and I had nothing for you, how valuable would I be to you? Not much I guess, which is fine btw.

Morals, economics, same sh!t if you ask me. Give sh!t and get something of equal (sh!tty) value, or give something good and get something of good value. Sell a stone and you won't get much money for it, sell a lump of gold and get lots of money in return.

The issue is that taking advantage of someone means they're paying too much for what you're offering. Imagine a business doing this, people paying loads to get a good product but it turns out to be sh!t. Not only is it just plain morally wrong to abuse people's trust this way, it's also dangerous. Some people (women included) have nothing to stop them from seeking revenge, if they're sufficiently intelligent and passionate you're fvcked. Sometimes the weak and vulnerable learn to become your worst nightmare, just ask the ones who took advantage of me.

 

[Serenity]

@deesade Strictly speaking you are a victim if women exploit your weakness. The person who holds the power to prevent harm but chose not to is always to blame, ALWAYS.

If a woman exploit a beta for attention and dates, she's doing something wrong because she had the power to do right. A victim does not because he doesn't know better, but at some point most victims learn which gives them power. That does NOT justify being a b!tch, it just doesn't. It's not ok.

If a man leads a woman on for years, it's his fault. He knows what he's doing, he knows it's lies and weak fagg0try. She IS a victim.

If you loan money and they fail to repay, it's their fault. They are in debt to you and you're a victim to a scammer. Don't you know the law? Most people agree it's not ok to take advantage of other people. Do you not give a fvck about anyone else?

 

[fastlife]

I think we need to make the distinction between value and investment. Equal value (to each other) =/= equal investment. That's the recipe for a blue pill beta relationship template of 'earning her love.'

A girl wants to invest in you and you should give her that opportunity. The need to reciprocate that investment is a direct insult to her valuation of your world; it's like saying I'm not enough; here let me do this or buy you that. But at the same time you have to allow a girl to access your value (and I don't mean your resources or even commitment) to keep her around; she needs to be able to experience who you are. Sleeping with a girl isn't 'taking value.' Sex is zero sum.

Invest in yourself and you raise the value of her investments. Personally, I don't mislead girls because it's unnecessary. They know exactly what they get with me. Part of being a leader (and avoiding a ****load of drama & hurt feelings) is managing expectations. Guys think a girl won't stick around unless you give her at least the illusion of exclusitivity or permanence; that just isn't the case.

 

[Serenity]

My problem is that you aren't accounting for personal responsibility. And that is a feminine mindset. It's completely contrary to what we do here.

A beta comes here with a sob story about a woman 'taking advantage'. The imperative is to let him know where he went wrong, and to point out his part in things - to not sympathize with his powerlessness, but to remind him of his power.

Partly agree. He would be taken advantage of which is still wrong for anyone (including) women to do, especially to a guy who don't know to protect himself. What we do here is teaching how to deal with it to move on from being a victim, still though they're victims of women. They just aren't that forever.

Sympathizing or not makes absolutely no difference at all, it doesn't change anything, it's insignificant. There's a habit here of denying the feeling of powerlessness, even though that feeling in many cases is damn appropriate. I would rather just acknowledge it and question "what now?", just to get past it and onto something more constructive.

 

[RangerMIke]

None of the above. Success is only defined by your happiness. If you can count on one hand the number of women you've been with... and you are happy with that, then that is all that matters.

 

[bigneil]

No offence Neil, but f*ck all that.

A man who is 'successful with women' is a man that supplicates the least. That transcends spinning plates, and extends to business and other relationships.

A guy can be getting laid left and right, but if he's doing that by being a simp, I don't consider that a success.

Likewise, a man can get laid by being pretty, but if he isn't taking home $100K per year, I don't consider that a success. Wait until SHTF and see who she chooses - the pretty boy or the provider who is strong enough to kick the pretty boy's arse.

Women want a man who can provide 20 years resources. That's so they can reproduce. Deal with it.

 

[bigneil]

Unless driven by his ego, a man who is truly successful with women would never feel the need/desire to "prove" his success to anyone.

When one knows that they know something, or that they have a certain skill or capacity, they are not threatened by another's opinions. Someone else's opinion will not diminish what they know or their skill. It's just someone else's opinion.

I agree with this, but naysayers will play dumb. How do we defeat the naysayers? Is there any way to quantify success, or is it always subjective?