Do you agree with Pook on this?

[SeymourCake]

I recently started reading the book of pook again, and I came across this.

"“Only the Sexual Ones get the girls.”
“I don’t get it, Pook!” So Pook took the young man to the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci. The young man sat and watched the Pook stand before a large screen. Like Leonardo’s picture of Man, Pook had one of Woman.
Pook tapped on the Woman with his pointy stick. “Women,” he said, “are entirely sexual creatures. They do not respond to your intellectualism. They do not respond to your genius. They only respond to sexuality.”


Is this true in your opinion?

 

[Die Hard]

Of course. Experiment with it and you'll find out for yourself.

 

[SeymourCake]

Of course. Experiment with it and you'll find out for yourself.

I know they can be sexual, but would they completely dismiss an intellectual conversation? Sometimes I like to discuss philosophy (my own of course).

 

[Die Hard]

You have to put it in the proper context. Pook was explaining that in order to attract women, you need to be sexual with them. Having intellectual conversations with women, does not attract them to you.

That's all.

 

[SeymourCake]

because we all know this is the way into their pants

Gotta explain the art of the kama sutra/tantra to them brah.:rockon:

 

[TheCWord]

Of course. Experiment with it and you'll find out for yourself.

Careful, gents. Seeing anything in life as black and white is sure to bring you pain and confusion eventually.

Most things are a shade of gray.

 

[Die Hard]

Careful, gents. Seeing anything in life as black and white is sure to bring you pain and confusion eventually.

Yeah, and making stupid statements is sure to bring you pain and confusion as well...

 

[Jitterbug]

Sometimes I like to discuss philosophy

The Platonic Method?

 

[Mike32ct]

I think pook is generally correct on this.

The 'gina tingle trumps all. If she's attracted to you physically AND she finds you intellectually stimulating, great. But if you are just brainy and not sexually attractive, forget it.

As the Judge says, M I T students don't have groupies.

 

[( . )( . )]

Careful, gents. Seeing anything in life as black and white is sure to bring you pain and confusion eventually.

Most things are a shade of gray.

Only for chicks , faggots and children . Basically anyone who doesn't have accountability for being either right or wrong.

Stop talking like a fairy.


lol'd @ jitterbug ^^

Sometimes I like to discuss philosophy (my own of course).

With chicks? philosophy......with chicks?



As in squeezing the great books inbetween her shoe shopping and iphone?
Why not just punch yourself in the balls, it would be less painful.

 

[Atom Smasher]

I have found the golden formula is to demonstrate your intelligence to her through interactions with others, but don't try to have intellectual conversations with her. I have learned that my intelligence is a total turn-off if applied directly to a women.

You need to provide FUN more than anything, but using occasional big words that she can't possibly understand can sometimes be very beneficial. It demonstrates to her in no uncertain terms that you are more intelligent than she, and believe me she wants that to be the case.

In a nutshell, I would say demonstrate your intelligence tangentially but don't engage her in intellectual discussion. It's a formula that works well for me.

 

[Jitterbug]

Intelligence is a turn-on if it's used as a display of dominance - either you use it to smack her silly opinions down, teach her something new (in a hot professor kind of way), or dominate other people in the room in an intellectual debate (done with style, of course).

Intellectual discussion with her as your equal (as you would treat a man) is a turn-off.

 

[Deep Dish]

Ten years ago, I wrote a seminal essay here called “The Book of Woman,” and discussed this very topic. The following is a transcript I had discovered:

Excerpts from "Why are there no female philosophers?”

David Quinn: Women may be intelligent, but they have no soul. By that I mean they have no connection at all with the highest wisdom. The idea of trying to comprehend the nature of Reality with their own minds would never occur to them. They have no appreciation of the concept of Ultimate Truth. It doesn’t excite them. They are totally dead in this regard. All the female intelligence and energy in the world cannot mask this fact. For all her prettiness and energy, woman is fundamentally unconscious and aimless.

[...]

Some of the factors which have led me to my current views on women include: (a) my understanding of Reality, which I know to be wholly beyond the grasp of women, (b) the sheer lack of female philosophers of any note in history, (d) the virtual lack of any female scientists and artists of any note in human history, and (d) the sheer lack of interest in philosophy by almost all women on the planet.

Martin Dudaniec: I did meet a woman once who I regard as living an elevated and spiritual/logical life, but that is one in a large number. Incidentally, none of her features were very feminine (face, figure, style of movement) and she was not very interested in pursuing sexual relationships. Nothing about her that I saw could be characterised as female in the general sense of the term. In my opinion, her ideas on issues were highly advanced and there was a lot to be learnt from her.

So the point is, I have absolutely nothing against someone happening to be of a different gender to me, because I take everyone as they are, on their own terms. Gender is certainly not always indicative of character, and to discriminate against someone on that basis alone is pathetic bigotry. The point is that the women who don’t fit the general mold aren’t very womanly in the first place - and they are extremely rare.

I8piggo: If women around you don’t talk about philosophy, David, it’s probably because they’re worried about being looked down upon by you for being too male.

Dan Rowden: There may be some truth to that point, but it’s interesting to me that people who argue against myself and David on this issue invariably make our case for us without being remotely aware of it.

Our actions speak to what looms largest in our psyche (in our value system). If women refrain from philosophical endeavour because of how it will make them appear to others, then this speaks to what they value uppermost: i.e. relationship, community, being liked and approved of etc etc etc. It certainly doesn’t speak to truth and reason being valued to any degree.

Such a mentality is precisely that which is largely incapable of real philosophy, because that involves being an individual to the highest degree possible. Caring about how others judge them is an anathema to such a one. For various reasons, males tend more to such individualism (hell, even feminists will argue that in their own way, though not actually realising they’re doing it). This makes them naturally better disposed to a serious philosophic life.

David Quinn: It’s not just the fact that women hardly ever talk about philosophy (can anyone imagine three women sitting down and discussing the nature of existence for an hour? - I can’t), but also the complete lack of achievement by women in higher thought. More specifically, I haven’t come across any woman anywhere, either in my personal life or in my studies, who has displayed what it takes to become a genuine thinker of the Infinite. Philosophically speaking, the female landscape is a desert.

I8piggo: I've seen [women discussing the nature of existence] time and time again!

David Quinn: But you’re a male and therefore would have influenced the proceedings. Since very few women have any real passion for abstract philosophy (it is too far removed from the really important things in life - namely, relationships and sex), the chances of them sitting down and having a sustained, focused discussion about the nature of reality are very remote. More than likely, you will find them flitting around their favourite topics - men, clothing, knickers, children, gossip, etc.

I can certainly imagine a woman having a sustained philosophical conversation with a man, and I can even imagine, although with some difficulty, two women having such a conversation with a man. But two or three women by themselves..... well, I’m sorry, there my mind snaps.

Pimp Daddy Dave: Two or three women by themselves? I could set that up for ya, if that’s what floats yer boat...

David Quinn: That’s the scary thing. I can conceive of three women engaging in a lesbian orgy far more easily than I can of them sitting down and having a rational discussion. With men, it’s very much the opposite.

 

[MikeOck]

“You know, when those baggy sweat pants cling to your buttocks as you lumber to the fridge for yet another Dove Bar, I just go wild! I don't know whether to grab you by your expandable-elastic waistband, or wrestle you to the ground in a pagan fertility ritual.”

Haha, good stuff. I haven't had a chance to read through your entire "Book of Woman", but I intend to in the near future.

 

[zekko]

Pook tapped on the Woman with his pointy stick. “Women,” he said, “are entirely sexual creatures. They do not respond to your intellectualism. They do not respond to your genius. They only respond to sexuality.”

When he says "Women are entirely sexual creatures", obviously that is false. Women are sexual creatures, but entirely? That is ridiculous. Anyway, I thought PUAs thought that women were entirely emotional creatures? What happened to that.

But of course what he really means is that women only respond sexually to sexuality. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn't to a lot of people. For instance, men who think that being nice to a girl will turn her on. Well, she may like you being nice to her, but she's only going to be turned on by you is she finds you physically attractive, or exhibit dominant behaviors that she is wired to respond to.

I think women are a lot smarter than guys here give them credit for. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to graduate college at a higher rate than their male counterparts. A lot of those degree programs are not that easy.

 

[Wolfgang D]

I think women are a lot smarter than guys here give them credit for. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to graduate college at a higher rate than their male counterparts. A lot of those degree programs are not that easy.

Intelligent does not equal intellectual. As a Mensa member I have seen that over and over again. Intelligence helps you see cause and effect, but most people only use it to solve the textbook problems needed to get a good grade. And good grades, for the most part, don't even require a particularly high intelligence, only memorization.

I was always very good at history, for example. I could explain why Roman emperors and Medieval kings acted the way they did, what was behind a war, what was behind a religion, what drove the Goths, etc. I wasn't as good at remembering numbers. The girls in high school who could remember what year a king was born and what year a war ended would always get higher grades, since they got higher marks at the history tests. In discussions about the events, they were completely disinterested. Except for the occasional feminist who was eager to use history as a way to show how men and religions are evil for being behind wars.

Women have the same IQ average as men, but they are closely gathered around the mean. Men have more outliers, in this and other mental fields. Men are also braver. Which is why most geniuses and great thinkers will always be men.

Ten years ago, I wrote a seminal essay here called “The Book of Woman,” and discussed this very topic. The following is a transcript I had discovered:

Absolutely correct that women are not interested in philosophy the way men are.

When I say "men", I think of the intelligent, intellectual men. These are a minority, but they are the minority that moves the world forward. Among women the intelligent intellectuals are an even smaller minority, very small.

Women who are religious don't count. Religion is a security blanket telling you that you never have to die, and that you will be rewarded forever. That is not higher thought. Higher thought is about finding purpose in the universe, the nature of morality, etc.

For women it is personal or it is nothing. Why? Probably because they have always been more at risk than men. Men in the Stone Age could survive on their own, women could not. They had to find a man to provide for and defend them, and still they had to live in fear. Women are instinctively risk-averse as a result, and thinking freely is a risk.

No wonder then that men have more IQ outliers - in both directions. And more mental outliers in other mental fields, e.g. linguistics, spatial recognition, mathematics, etc. Those with wild outliers are more prone to take risks, either because they are too dumb to stay safe, or because they are smart enough to know what they are doing. Women are more closely gathered among the mean, which is safer, and good for someone who has children to take care of.

So, risk takers are found mostly among men. Only risk takers will go for an "all or nothing" strategy - setting out to find gold at distant shores, for example. Most risk takers die, but a few survive and gain wealth and power and conquests, and these will have access to many more women, spreading their risk-taking genes.

To take risks and embark on great endeavors, a man must be able to think about what is far away from his everyday routine. Thought about abstract matters - philosophy - is passed on this way.


This is known in politics and in marketing. If you want to affect the female audience, make them support a new taxation policy or a war or dishing out money in some direction, what do you do? Show them pictures of crying children. That will influence them far more than a list of statistics. They will react to the pictures of crying children the way they would react to real people in their own lives. Again: for women it is personal or it is nothing. Statistics are abstract and therefore not really real, unless they can be used to support what you already want to do. Pictures of crying children seem more real.

 

[Halcyonique]

You have to put it in the proper context. Pook was explaining that in order to attract women, you need to be sexual with them. Having intellectual conversations with women, does not attract them to you.

That's all.

Depends who it is.

Me? Well here are a few things that result in Niagara Falls occurring between my legs:

A guy who can make me laugh until I want to tear my clothes off and furiously screw his brains out.
A guy who is relaxed around me.
A guy with a passion for psychological discussion and theory.

 

[Wolfgang D]

Depends who it is.

Me? Well here are a few things that result in Niagara Falls occurring between my legs:

A guy who can make me laugh until I want to tear my clothes off and furiously screw his brains out.
A guy who is relaxed around me.
A guy with a passion for psychological discussion and theory.

Well, you have to agree that point three there is very rare. And those who are interested in philosophy are even more rare - philosophy is far more abstract than psychology. Most women's eyes will just glaze over when you try to talk about philosophy that is not part of the feel-good kind, like "to find love is the purpose of life" and "everyone is equal and has rights". What is rights? Where do they come from? Where do you find them in any of the atoms in the universe? And isn't love a practical function in the body rather than a mystical force? "How can you be so cold!" After hearing this kind of thought from womenfolk my whole life, I realize that very few want to think uncomfortable thoughts about the cornerstones of the universe, which is a requisite for moving forward.

Again, most men are not intellectual either. But much fewer women are.

Then again, I did date one woman who told me she agreed to go on a second date because I had told her to wait for me to finish, when I had been saying something philosophical and she had been interrupting me with jokes. She appreciated that I had serious thoughts about philosophy (and didn't allow her to interrupt something that was important to me), even though she didn't understand it.

 

[Halcyonique]

Well, you have to agree that point three there is very rare. And those who are interested in philosophy are even more rare - philosophy is far more abstract than psychology. Most women's eyes will just glaze over when you try to talk about philosophy that is not part of the feel-good kind, like "to find love is the purpose of life" and "everyone is equal and has rights". What is rights? Where do they come from? Where do you find them in any of the atoms in the universe? And isn't love a practical function in the body rather than a mystical force? "How can you be so cold!" After hearing this kind of thought from womenfolk my whole life, I realize that very few want to think uncomfortable thoughts about the cornerstones of the universe, which is a requisite for moving forward.

Again, most men are not intellectual either. But much fewer women are.

Agreed; and with this, I am reminded of why I'm such a solitary creature who spends most of her time internet-dwelling (ha!).

 

[Purefilth]

Depends who it is.

Me? Well here are a few things that result in Niagara Falls occurring between my legs:

A guy who can make me laugh until I want to tear my clothes off and furiously screw his brains out.
A guy who is relaxed around me.
A guy with a passion for psychological discussion and theory.

i call Bullshiit.

Depends who it is.

Me? Well here are a few things that result in Niagara Falls occurring between my legs:

A guy who can fight
A guy who at least 6 foot tall
A guy with a body like a greek god.

there - i fixed it for you.