#MeToo - What it means for you & How to move forward

[fastlife]

I was typing this up in another thread that suddenly disappeared, but I think this is something that needs to be posted.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to become a top high value male and risk it all to be a DJ playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette?

I've gotten into it with multiple poster on this site about this very thing. You don't need money/social status/material object to get laid--in fact, it's more often an obstacle than not.

Why?

Because women have a dualistic mating strategy!!! and they play the game differently with you whether you have higher Lover Potential or Provider Potential--to the extent that most girls have two entirely different personalities depending on what algorithm they put you in. What you're seeing now is a massive backlash against men who represented Provider Potential--whether that be money, or emotional support, or career connection--and tried to switch lanes & sexualize while never following through on that provisioning.

Girls might fvck a Provider--but it's not sex for pleasure, it's sex in exchange for resources. The fact that Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer & company didn't grasp that distinction proves that they hadn't ever experienced desire sex, confirming their low sexual status, which is why they got crucified & dumped while someone like Trump gets elected president in the face of similar allegations (not that I think Trump is a paragon of sexuality or anyone to model yourself after--but he has enough qualities that women are aroused by). It's why rock stars, rappers, and men who are famous for being sexy and not sexy for being famous have remained untouched. Girls don't regret fvcking them, since they fvcked them because they wanted to and not because they wanted something in exchange.

What practical measures can you take? If you make good money, don't tell girls what you do for a living until after you've been fvcking them for a while. I take it a step further--and usually tell girls I work some super low status job like fast food or a super sexualized job like I'm a male dancer. I talk to girls upfront about other girls I'm seeing or have seen. I work sex into the convo early. I'm a little bit of a jerk (but in a fun playful manner). They know exactly what to expect from me and I give them very little reason to think they can expect to get anything out of me other than that. Also, make sure girls feel good about it afterwards--never make them feel like a slvt, talk about what a fun adventure the night was, let them sleep over if they really want to or have a good excuse for reasons they can't that doesn't involve them personally--work in the morning. If it's a one time deal or you want to break things off, have a good reason you can't continue to see them that doesn't involve them personally. I.e., You start feeling trapped in a relationship--you don't know what it is & she's an awesome girl and needs someone who can really be there for her.

Even then, unless she did something to really violate your boundaries, respond to her texts & give her a little comfort when she reaches out without escalating. You don't need clingers or women who feel scorned--find it within yourself to legitimately want to see her happy & support her in moving on (if you outlined expectations properly, she'll know she needs to & eventually you can maybe even be friends). In person, if you ever see her again, don't be awkward or avoidant--greet her, give her a hug, ask her how she's been, and detach yourself. Being genuine--comfortable with yourself and the situation--is huge. Don't fvck girls you work with (duh!) & save texts. Don't get involved with BPD, narcissistic or histrionic chicks (unless you're really, really good )--educate yourself to learn the signs and avoid those girls. Avoid girls who are super Disney Princess-esque. Avoid girls who are drunk. You'll be fine.

If you're just starting out, stick to sexualized venues (bars & clubs) that provide a built in excuse for social faux pas (maybe you're just drunk) where you don't go all that often (maybe a different side of town). Learn to spot when a girl's uncomfortable--and back the fvck up or smile and wish her a good night. Maybe even use a fake name & a burner phone if you're really paranoid. But don't be paranoid. You'll be fine. Just don't ever assume you're high status enough to masturbate in some potted plants.

BTW the whole #metoo phenomenon has all about eliminated male competition for those of us who know what we're doing It's just us & the super creeps, so get off Tinder & go out this weekend!

 

[marmel75]

Guy she has no interest in who hits on her = Sexual Harrassment #MeToo

Guy she wants to bang = sucking his d!ck in the bathroom at work

 

[zekko]

Girls might fvck a Provider--but it's not sex for pleasure, it's sex in exchange for resources.

You're assuming that a Provider type cannot also be sexually desirable, and I completely disagree with that. Having money does not automatically make a man a beta, and I don't believe that having money kills all desire in women either.

Regarding all the sexual harassment accusations lately, apparently most of these guys are targets because they are famous. I'm curious as to what the women's motivations are, especially since a lot of these stories are from decades ago. Does it make them feel powerful to bring down a powerful man? Is this epidemic of accusations going to spread into everyday life? Seems like a lot of what is considered regular "DJ" behavior might be grounds for being accused - kino, sexualizing conversations, aggressive escalation.

 

[Von]

You're assuming that a Provider type cannot also be sexually desirable, and I completely disagree with that. Having money does not automatically make a man a beta, and I don't believe that having money kills all desire in women either.

Regarding all the sexual harassment accusations lately, apparently most of these guys are targets because they are famous. I'm curious as to what the women's motivations are, especially since a lot of these stories are from decades ago. Does it make them feel powerful to bring down a powerful man? Is this epidemic of accusations going to spread into everyday life? Seems like a lot of what is considered regular "DJ" behavior might be grounds for being accused - kino, sexualizing conversations, aggressive escalation.

I think fastlife just destroyed the entire "make money, have status = you'll get laid".... at least the perverted way of doing it.

Like Marmel wrote: she will sue you if she doesnt like you, but wil do it anywhere if you make her wet.

The thing that happened is this: POWER

Thèse guy probably said to themselves: i need money, I need status to get laid.

So being in need of sex without qualities to Advantage them (ugly, small D, etc..), they décidéd to do something about it... they décidéd to be in provider mode.

What's provider associated with? Power
What's status and money symbolise? Power
What women love among m'en? Power

So they became powerhouse in their field and used that power to get laid in exchange of roles/show. It might have bothered the female but they never considered doing anything about it because they sold themselves to POWER.
They did it willingly.

However Power corrupt and when you are used to have your way... you start applying it to everyone, everywhere. And you believe POWER will protect you, the fact you are the alpha provider.

But eventually... your POWER lower.. you have less influence, you are older so considered weaker and less active. BOOMM... your victims are now attacking you... the same who were submissive (even if not willing).... and they destroy you... and they can because you let power corrupt you and made your behaviour public.. so they have witness outside the victims.

The victims were already damaged goods.. ready to do anything for fame.

If you wanna look about à figure losing power due to age... Robert Mugabe this week.

In the end, most of the victims who complained and were submisse were also the one that got nothing in return for their body.


I would not be surprised if there is mâle influence in the dénonciation influence....

these mâle are just waiting their own time to power so they can use their power/provider status to get laid.

The King is death, long live the king

 

[lizardking82]

Girls might fvck a Provider--but it's not sex for pleasure, it's sex in exchange for resources. The fact that Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer & company didn't grasp that distinction proves that they hadn't ever experienced desire sex, confirming their low sexual status, which is why they got crucified & dumped while someone like Trump gets elected president in the face of similar allegations (not that I think Trump is a paragon of sexuality or anyone to model yourself after--but he has enough qualities that women are aroused by). It's why rock stars, rappers, and men who are famous for being sexy and not sexy for being famous have remained untouched. Girls don't regret fvcking them, since they fvcked them because they wanted to and not because they wanted something in exchange.

This is pure gold. This is why there are no rape rumours about Genne Simmons or Slash and there are rape rumours for guys like Harvey Weinstein and others like him that a girl would not bang anyways LOL

Being a player is a skill that is not acquired by making money or having status. You either got it or you don't.

 

[btownbuck2012]

The fact that Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer & company didn't grasp that distinction proves that they hadn't ever experienced desire sex

Excellent point. @fastlife really do enjoy your posts man.

 

[fastlife]

You're assuming that a Provider type cannot also be sexually desirable, and I completely disagree with that. Having money does not automatically make a man a beta, and I don't believe that having money kills all desire in women either.

Again, the question is why are they sexually desirable--in what contexts, and how are they expected to behave in the future? Let's make a distinction of male qualities that can lead to sex:

• Arousing: Behaviors or qualities that lead primarily to conception (for conception's sake).
• Attractive: Behaviors or qualities that lead primarily to relational or parental investment (although conception can be a side effect).

In a harsh, resource-scarce environment like, say, the third world or throughout most of our 'civilized' past, women's biology cannot afford to make that distinction. Attraction = Arousal, in that context, since Survival would be a more immediate priority than Replication.

However, to the extent that Survival needs are readily met, Replication takes greater priority. So in a resource-abundant environment--like America in 2017 or say, Rome, at the peak of its powers, Attraction =/= Arousal. There are two different biological endgames that are motivated by two different sets of behavior. Additionally, the further a woman is from peak fertility, the more priority is placed on Attractive behaviors & qualities. So if a woman is 40, of course she doesn't want or cannot realistically entertain the same type of men she sought in her youth.

Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, etc. were all Attractive men. It's why their fan-base was primarily made up of middle-aged women & why no teen girls had posters of them on their walls. Men who are Attractive (safe bets for a relationship that you could take home to Mom) aren't allowed to be sexual for sexuality's sake. Conception isn't their primary usage or potential benefit. They stepped outside their hypergamous lanes & violated their biological contracts.

For STR, a man needs very few (or possibly no) Attractive qualities. For an LTR, he might need some--but the nature of that LTR & whether his provisioning is Valued or Expected depends on how Arousing he was when sex first took place and how Arousing he remains throughout the course of the relationship. So she might not let her BF at 25 who she plans to marry cvm on her face, even though at 19 she let the campus pot-dealer or the guy she met on vacation do so--maybe even asked him to. Same girl; but different biological endgames, different presentation & different expectations. You can literally test this out by conveying different qualities to the same girl at different times.

BUT it's not something that most guys are supposed to know. It's why women talk sh1t about 'jerks' to her providers; and why she talks sh1t about her providers to her lovers--she needs to preserve both sets of behavior in different men.

Regarding all the sexual harassment accusations lately, apparently most of these guys are targets because they are famous. I'm curious as to what the women's motivations are, especially since a lot of these stories are from decades ago. Does it make them feel powerful to bring down a powerful man? Is this epidemic of accusations going to spread into everyday life? Seems like a lot of what is considered regular "DJ" behavior might be grounds for being accused - kino, sexualizing conversations, aggressive escalation.

For a single, middle-aged woman (who most of the accusers are), it lets them reassert their sexual agency & seem like they could compete in a market where they're no longer as competitive as younger women. However, for a Provider--these men have to pay since they didn't follow through on their role. If a woman posts a picture on Instagram of her with Harvey Weinstein, this does absolutely nothing to boost her sexual status--especially if she failed to procure any of his resources. She's a failure as a sexual woman. But she can post a pic in bed with Julian Edelman or Oddell Beckham--and, since these men are 'sexy,' she's good.

Most guys probably don't have enough resources or sexuality for her to really bother with either--unless it boosts her status in her immediate social circle. So, for instance, at work if you're the GM then she might benefit from ousting you. Or if she has girlfriends who would also like to sleep with you (i.e. you're more of a Lover type), fully expect her to brag about y'all's exploits.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Again, the question is why are they sexually desirable--in what contexts, and how are they expected to behave in the future? Let's make a distinction of male qualities that can lead to sex:

• Arousing: Behaviors or qualities that lead primarily to conception (for conception's sake).
• Attractive: Behaviors or qualities that lead primarily to relational or parental investment (although conception can be a side effect).

In a harsh, resource-scarce environment like, say, the third world or throughout most of our 'civilized' past, women's biology cannot afford to make that distinction. Attraction = Arousal, in that context, since Survival would be a more immediate priority than Replication.

However, to the extent that Survival needs are readily met, Replication takes greater priority. So in a resource-abundant environment--like America in 2017 or say, Rome, at the peak of its powers, Attraction =/= Arousal. There are two different biological endgames that are motivated by two different sets of behavior. Additionally, the further a woman is from peak fertility, the more priority is placed on Attractive behaviors & qualities. So if a woman is 40, of course she doesn't want or cannot realistically entertain the same type of men she sought in her youth.

Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, etc. were all Attractive men. It's why their fan-base was primarily made up of middle-aged women & why no teen girls had posters of them on their walls. Men who are Attractive (safe bets for a relationship that you could take home to Mom) aren't allowed to be sexual for sexuality's sake. Conception isn't their primary usage or potential benefit. They stepped outside their hypergamous lanes & violated their biological contracts.

For STR, a man needs very few (or possibly no) Attractive qualities. For an LTR, he might need some--but the nature of that LTR & whether his provisioning is Valued or Expected depends on how Arousing he was when sex first took place and how Arousing he remains throughout the course of the relationship. So she might not let her BF at 25 who she plans to marry cvm on her face, even though at 19 she let the campus pot-dealer or the guy she met on vacation do so--maybe even asked him to. Same girl; but different biological endgames, different presentation & different expectations. You can literally test this out by conveying different qualities to the same girl at different times.

BUT it's not something that most guys are supposed to know. It's why women talk sh1t about 'jerks' to her providers; and why she talks sh1t about her providers to her lovers--she needs to preserve both sets of behavior in different men.



For a single, middle-aged woman (who most of the accusers are), it lets them reassert their sexual agency & seem like they could compete in a market where they're no longer as competitive as younger women. However, for a Provider--these men have to pay since they didn't follow through on their role. If a woman posts a picture on Instagram of her with Harvey Weinstein, this does absolutely nothing to boost her sexual status--especially if she failed to procure any of his resources. She's a failure as a sexual woman. But she can post a pic in bed with Julian Edelman or Oddell Beckham--and, since these men are 'sexy,' she's good.

Most guys probably don't have enough resources or sexuality for her to really bother with either--unless it boosts her status in her immediate social circle. So, for instance, at work if you're the GM then she might benefit from ousting you. Or if she has girlfriends who would also like to sleep with you (i.e. you're more of a Lover type), fully expect her to brag about y'all's exploits.

So how can a guy gain sex appeal? Is this even possible?

 

[fastlife]

So how can a guy gain sex appeal? Is this even possible?

Yes, every guy can. Most guys won't.

The easiest way to increase your sex appeal is by having sexual success--to the extent that you internalize that success. But if you're not having sexual success in the first place, well then you're pretty fvcked (or, more accurately, not fvcked lol), right?

Well, not really. The primary difference between men who are regularly sexed by girls they find desirable & those who aren't is this: STRESS. When I say STRESS, I mean: Anxiety, Depression, Inhibition, Insecurity, Fear Self-Consciousness, Neuroticism, Neediness, Nervousness, Negativity, Shyness, Timidness. But all those can all be traced to a single source and are all just different experiences of that same source: STRESS.

But STRESS can be relieved & just about eliminated to the extent that your behavior, speech, mannerisms mimic those of a man who's sexually successful. You could cheat & just pop some Xanax or Opiates or Alcohol (most of the guys I know who are good with girls have substance abuse problems)--but that isn't a very good longterm solution. Meditation is a good place to start. Exercise is a good place to start. Fixing your diet is a good place to start. Then you can start exposing yourself to stress (approaching girls & dealing with rejection) to build your body's tolerance to stressful situation (Cortisol levels diminish with regular exposure to a single stressor). As STRESS lowers SUCCESS will increase, TESTOSTERONE will increase; eventually you'll start creating a positive feedback loop that can get your foot in the door & from there it's just a matter of consistency--testing behaviors, increasing behaviors that lead to success & eliminating behaviors that don't.

BUT most guys won't do any of those things--they are addicted to STRESS. Understandably--STRESS ensures that your low status azz doesn't do anything that might get you killed (though many of those threat & fears no longer exist in modern society). In fact, I predict you'll fire back with multiple excuses with why you can't do any of these things or why doing any of these things aren't worth it in the first place--there's nothing I can do about that, though, if you think maybe you aren't such a special snowflake that maybe universal behavioral patterns might work for you, well, feel free to continue this discussion

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Again, the question is why are they sexually desirable--in what contexts, and how are they expected to behave in the future? Let's make a distinction of male qualities that can lead to sex:

• Arousing: Behaviors or qualities that lead primarily to conception (for conception's sake).
• Attractive: Behaviors or qualities that lead primarily to relational or parental investment (although conception can be a side effect).

In a harsh, resource-scarce environment like, say, the third world or throughout most of our 'civilized' past, women's biology cannot afford to make that distinction. Attraction = Arousal, in that context, since Survival would be a more immediate priority than Replication.

However, to the extent that Survival needs are readily met, Replication takes greater priority. So in a resource-abundant environment--like America in 2017 or say, Rome, at the peak of its powers, Attraction =/= Arousal. There are two different biological endgames that are motivated by two different sets of behavior. Additionally, the further a woman is from peak fertility, the more priority is placed on Attractive behaviors & qualities. So if a woman is 40, of course she doesn't want or cannot realistically entertain the same type of men she sought in her youth.

Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, etc. were all Attractive men. It's why their fan-base was primarily made up of middle-aged women & why no teen girls had posters of them on their walls. Men who are Attractive (safe bets for a relationship that you could take home to Mom) aren't allowed to be sexual for sexuality's sake. Conception isn't their primary usage or potential benefit. They stepped outside their hypergamous lanes & violated their biological contracts.

For STR, a man needs very few (or possibly no) Attractive qualities. For an LTR, he might need some--but the nature of that LTR & whether his provisioning is Valued or Expected depends on how Arousing he was when sex first took place and how Arousing he remains throughout the course of the relationship. So she might not let her BF at 25 who she plans to marry cvm on her face, even though at 19 she let the campus pot-dealer or the guy she met on vacation do so--maybe even asked him to. Same girl; but different biological endgames, different presentation & different expectations. You can literally test this out by conveying different qualities to the same girl at different times.

BUT it's not something that most guys are supposed to know. It's why women talk sh1t about 'jerks' to her providers; and why she talks sh1t about her providers to her lovers--she needs to preserve both sets of behavior in different men.



For a single, middle-aged woman (who most of the accusers are), it lets them reassert their sexual agency & seem like they could compete in a market where they're no longer as competitive as younger women. However, for a Provider--these men have to pay since they didn't follow through on their role. If a woman posts a picture on Instagram of her with Harvey Weinstein, this does absolutely nothing to boost her sexual status--especially if she failed to procure any of his resources. She's a failure as a sexual woman. But she can post a pic in bed with Julian Edelman or Oddell Beckham--and, since these men are 'sexy,' she's good.

Most guys probably don't have enough resources or sexuality for her to really bother with either--unless it boosts her status in her immediate social circle. So, for instance, at work if you're the GM then she might benefit from ousting you. Or if she has girlfriends who would also like to sleep with you (i.e. you're more of a Lover type), fully expect her to brag about y'all's exploits.

Why does she NEED those two guys though? Women are not biologically polygamous like men are. Hence why we say they’d rather share a winner rather than multiple losers. They need both because they want both, but very few men have both traits. You can be arousing and attractive at the same time. What you need to do (and this is how you get a chick to have oneitis for you, or top her High Score list as Desdinova would say) is be ‘arousing’ first before being ‘attractive’, if that makes any sense. In fact, I think that you should have them find out your ‘attractive’ qualities on their own without you telling them. They will be in awe of you after that. The same guy who’s kind of an ass towards her also volunteered at the local puppy shop and doesn’t actually work at Wendy's but is really a medical student studying to become a doctor. “Oh he must have been joking when he said he worked at fast food. But why is he always such an ass towards meeeee???” It’s not just one or the other. You have to know when you want to be which depending on the situation

 

[btownbuck2012]

Desire sex, in my opinion, is the absolute #1 criteria that must be meet in order to even CONSIDER becoming serious with a woman. If she's not f*cking you because she wants to, A. you shouldn't even be seeing her or B. you cannot think long term. Very sad how many, MANY men are with women who are f*cking for multiple other reasons than they actually WANT to.

How do you know you're getting desire sex?

- she comes to you. I don't care if she has to take 3 buses across town, she'll make the trip to come over and f*ck you. She'll almost always initiate contact for it too
-nothing will be off limits in bed. She'll WANT to put your d*ck in her mouth. She'll rip your belt right off your pants to get it. She'll BEG for you to finish on her face, inside her, etc. ANY position is OK with her.
- she'll want to impress you. If she's wearing lingerie and going to Victoria secret a-lot to impress you, that's a great sign, too.

If you're not getting that from your woman it should raise serious red flags.

 

[fastlife]

Why does she NEED those two guys though? Women are not biologically polygamous like men are. Hence why we say they’d rather share a winner rather than multiple losers. They need both because they want both, but very few men have both traits. You can be arousing and attractive at the same time. What you need to do (and this is how you get a chick to have oneitis for you, or top her High Score list as Desdinova would say) is be ‘arousing’ first before being ‘attractive’, if that makes any sense. In fact, I think that you should have them find out your ‘attractive’ qualities on their own without you telling them. They will be in awe of you after that. The same guy who’s kind of an ass towards her also volunteered at the local puppy shop and doesn’t actually work at Wendy's but is really a medical student studying to become a doctor. “Oh he must have been joking when he said he worked at fast food. But why is he always such an ass towards meeeee???” It’s not just one or the other. You have to know when you want to be which depending on the situation

Only to the extent that societal pressure dictates she can't have both (which is why society needed rules dictating female selection in the first place). LOL. If women, say, had almost total control over provisioning--like, say, through divorce, through an education system that shames masculinity, through sugaring, through a lopsided judicial system--then there's no need to compromise on arousal

Arousal is rarer than Provisioning. Why? Well one super hot stud can impregnate the whole village if all the other men can be convinced to help raise those kids. If you provide enough arousal, then you really hardly need Provisioning at all--though it would help if you want to say, raise children, but even then.... The fact that you stay committed automatically makes you less arousing.

By all means cultivate both, but don't make the mistake of thinking that if you're the best overall package there isn't still selection pressure on both sides of the hypergamous equations: Provisioning & Arousal. Be it an orbiter who provides better emotional support or a player who provides more arousal. It ain't pretty, but it's also a workable equation--assuming you find a girl with enough societal pressure, self-esteem, and security to keep her from pursuing better provisioning or better genes. Most of the girls I've slept with the past year have S/O's and almost all of those S/O's are really solid dudes. Better overall packages than I offer to provide, but if you can eliminate risk, than what's stopping her from maxing out part of the hypergamous equation? In fact, she is often the one to seek it out.

Make sure to read @btownbuck2012 's post above. That's the only real tell & if you stop getting that, then it's time to drastically scale back the provisioning & to start being more arousing. Dread game, in other words.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

The fact that you stay committed automatically makes you less arousing.

Because you want what you can’t have, and if you tell her that you are committed, it means that she now has you. Now she doesn’t have to work for you. That doesn’t mean you are a provider.

Only to the extent that societal pressure dictates she can't have both (which is why society needed rules dictating female selection in the first place). LOL. If women, say, had almost total control over provisioning--like, say, through divorce, through an education system that shames masculinity, through sugaring, through a lopsided judicial system--then there's no need to compromise on arousal

Believe me, I fully understand what you mean by this. But the reason why this is, is not because they’re are naturally polygamous, it is because they become whatever boundaries there are. And if there are no boundaries (i.e. they make them) then they basically become just that. It’s a strange concept to think about. Read a little bit from Otto Weininger. Although it is within their nature to be monogamous, the urge to push the sexual boundaries for control are even stronger, simply because of how men used to be (societal conditioning fvcked a lot of us up). That’s why they love you more when you give them less a lot of times—you are showing the masculine, dominant nature which just takes, and makes your own, which means she is monogamous. Dom/sub relationships take it even further. They basically have all of the above while also satisfying their rape fantasy. In an evolutionary viewpoint, a woman who is able to enjoy being forced by another man after times when her mate was cucked or killed is more likely to survive say a war or something like that. That’s why lots of women have rape and gangbang fantasies lol.

Something that has bothered me about emphasizing this aspect of women is that they won’t actually sacrifice much for you though with this. Sure, they’ll do underhanded things for you like drive an hour away for ‘a wedding’ or some other bs, but will they actually give up anything for you? The other side has the opposite issue; they’re too vanilla with each other and therefore not truly free or lustful after one another. They might care for each other, but not lust after. And thus no love. The jerk will stimulate arousal but no caring, and thus, no love or sacrifice. You have to make her lust after you first, and then she will find out about who you really are and then care about you more. And as long as you never officially declare being committed, she will love you while you don’t necessarily care as much about her. As long as you never officially declare being committed to her, then she will never feel less aroused around you. Overall though, I believe that arousal > attraction, using your terms, because you don’t have to show your status before social ability and physical appeal.

It’s all about value systems though. Just understand where I’m coming from. I care more about scarring them with an image of me forever when they think about relationships. You seem to care more about fvcking them as fast and as wildly as possible. Why am I like this? Well because like you, I would be able to steal them from their current S/O whenever I please, but I can also take them away from studs like you too. I wish to leave a permanent mental imprint on them.

 

[user43770]

I was typing this up in another thread that suddenly disappeared, but I think this is something that needs to be posted.



I've gotten into it with multiple poster on this site about this very thing. You don't need money/social status/material object to get laid--in fact, it's more often an obstacle than not.

Why?

Because women have a dualistic mating strategy!!! and they play the game differently with you whether you have higher Lover Potential or Provider Potential--to the extent that most girls have two entirely different personalities depending on what algorithm they put you in. What you're seeing now is a massive backlash against men who represented Provider Potential--whether that be money, or emotional support, or career connection--and tried to switch lanes & sexualize while never following through on that provisioning.

Girls might fvck a Provider--but it's not sex for pleasure, it's sex in exchange for resources. The fact that Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer & company didn't grasp that distinction proves that they hadn't ever experienced desire sex, confirming their low sexual status, which is why they got crucified & dumped while someone like Trump gets elected president in the face of similar allegations (not that I think Trump is a paragon of sexuality or anyone to model yourself after--but he has enough qualities that women are aroused by). It's why rock stars, rappers, and men who are famous for being sexy and not sexy for being famous have remained untouched. Girls don't regret fvcking them, since they fvcked them because they wanted to and not because they wanted something in exchange.

What practical measures can you take? If you make good money, don't tell girls what you do for a living until after you've been fvcking them for a while. I take it a step further--and usually tell girls I work some super low status job like fast food or a super sexualized job like I'm a male dancer. I talk to girls upfront about other girls I'm seeing or have seen. I work sex into the convo early. I'm a little bit of a jerk (but in a fun playful manner). They know exactly what to expect from me and I give them very little reason to think they can expect to get anything out of me other than that. Also, make sure girls feel good about it afterwards--never make them feel like a slvt, talk about what a fun adventure the night was, let them sleep over if they really want to or have a good excuse for reasons they can't that doesn't involve them personally--work in the morning. If it's a one time deal or you want to break things off, have a good reason you can't continue to see them that doesn't involve them personally. I.e., You start feeling trapped in a relationship--you don't know what it is & she's an awesome girl and needs someone who can really be there for her.

Even then, unless she did something to really violate your boundaries, respond to her texts & give her a little comfort when she reaches out without escalating. You don't need clingers or women who feel scorned--find it within yourself to legitimately want to see her happy & support her in moving on (if you outlined expectations properly, she'll know she needs to & eventually you can maybe even be friends). In person, if you ever see her again, don't be awkward or avoidant--greet her, give her a hug, ask her how she's been, and detach yourself. Being genuine--comfortable with yourself and the situation--is huge. Don't fvck girls you work with (duh!) & save texts. Don't get involved with BPD, narcissistic or histrionic chicks (unless you're really, really good )--educate yourself to learn the signs and avoid those girls. Avoid girls who are super Disney Princess-esque. Avoid girls who are drunk. You'll be fine.

If you're just starting out, stick to sexualized venues (bars & clubs) that provide a built in excuse for social faux pas (maybe you're just drunk) where you don't go all that often (maybe a different side of town). Learn to spot when a girl's uncomfortable--and back the fvck up or smile and wish her a good night. Maybe even use a fake name & a burner phone if you're really paranoid. But don't be paranoid. You'll be fine. Just don't ever assume you're high status enough to masturbate in some potted plants.

BTW the whole #metoo phenomenon has all about eliminated male competition for those of us who know what we're doing It's just us & the super creeps, so get off Tinder & go out this weekend!

You know your sh1t.

 

[zekko]

Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, etc. were all Attractive men. It's why their fan-base was primarily made up of middle-aged women & why no teen girls had posters of them on their walls. Men who are Attractive (safe bets for a relationship that you could take home to Mom) aren't allowed to be sexual for sexuality's sake

I don't agree with your definition of "Attractive". I don't agree that attractive men cannot be arousing. This is typical self serving PUA speak to pump up their own egos: "I'm a player, therefore women can only be attracted to players. She married that guy but she can't really love him, she's just using him as a chump. She really wants to be with me, the player". I don't agree that having money and being successful automatically makes her see you as a beta, and that she would rather be banging that homeless guy across the street. I don't agree that everything is black and white and that there are only two kinds of men. It's like introverts and extroverts: Virtually no one is wholly one or the other, people exist on a scale somewhere in between.

The problem with a lot of these guys who have been accused of sexual harassment is that they've tried to have their cakes and eat it too. They got married (like a Provider), but continued to try to get multiple women by continuing to be sexual with them. And it isn't just the powerful and famous who are being accused either. There's a franchise called Massage Envy that is currently under fire. There are 180 cases where women have accused masseuses of sexually assaulting them. Just as I said, this epidemic of sexual accusations are creeping into everyday life.

 

[BeExcellent]

This is a good thread @fastlife. I would make 2 observations.

The first is regarding the #Metoo stuff. As @Von correctly pointed out it is not about sex at all. It is about POWER. As in power exerted over another with some deleterious consequence hanging in the balance (as in: Do this or else). The exertion of power simply was applied through a sexual medium. It is the abuse of that power where the problems arise. It is no different than the scandal the Catholic Church found itself enmeshed in several years ago where priests had preyed sexually on young boys.

It could be homosexual sex abusing men or boys, heterosexual sex abusing women, it doesn't matter. They are the same thing. The abuser uses fear to suppress consequences coming back to roost, no matter who the victim happens to be. Victims come forward once they no longer fear the repercussions of doing so (or are prepared to face them). In the cases involving the church this occurred when the victims were older and more empowered or felt the support of family and those around them to help combat the shame they felt for having been abused. For the women, it is maturity and stature to a point where they are either no longer threatened with the deleterious consequences or they are prepared to deal with all the fallout. Gwenyth Paltrow is not going to have any issue getting work in Hollywood. She is Gwenyth Paltrow.

But these types of abusers abuse power - and the medium happens to be sexual.

My second point is regarding your bigger discussion about desire sex versus provider sex, it isn't either/or at all in my experience personally nor in what I have observed other women doing. Rather it falls along a continuum where on the left you have strictly the provider and on the right you have strictly the lover. The continuum is the sliding scale between the two. I think that is a better model to consider but one must also know that how each individual woman selects along the continuum has everything to do with her own needs and her own desire nature. A woman's desire nature can be triggered to a greater or lesser degree obviously depending on the man she is exposed to, but it there are people (men as well as women) who want sex MORE and some who want sex LESS just as they happen to exist in the world.

There are women for example, who might be just fine if they never had sex ever again in their lives. They truly don't care for it really. Those women don't factor in sexual desire when evaluating a man as a partner. They see sex more as a chore. They will choose men toward the provider side of the scale.

There are also women for whom sexual expression is very important. They like sex, enjoy sex, and can't imagine a relationship without sexual expression. Those women are going to fall closer to the lover side of the scale. They value the lover more than the provider.

Most women are going to fall somewhere in the middle, which is why I concur with @zekko that the two things are not mutually exclusive. Using myself for the sake of example I fall more closely aligned to the lover archetype, and I will not consider a man who I do not desire greatly, no matter how rich or good looking he is relative to my other options. In the same way, I am never going to be a sugar mama for a sexy loser who cannot be self sufficient and who I otherwise do not respect as an autonomous adult with his act together. So I fall in the middle of the scale, skewed toward the lover side of things.

 

[fastlife]

I don't agree with your definition of "Attractive". I don't agree that attractive men cannot be arousing. This is typical self serving PUA speak to pump up their own egos: "I'm a player, therefore women can only be attracted to players. She married that guy but she can't really love him, she's just using him as a chump. She really wants to be with me, the player". I don't agree that having money and being successful automatically makes her see you as a beta, and that she would rather be banging that homeless guy across the street. I don't agree that everything is black and white and that there are only two kinds of men. It's like introverts and extroverts: Virtually no one is wholly one or the other, people exist on a scale somewhere in between.

The problem with a lot of these guys who have been accused of sexual harassment is that they've tried to have their cakes and eat it too. They got married (like a Provider), but continued to try to get multiple women by continuing to be sexual with them. And it isn't just the powerful and famous who are being accused either. There's a franchise called Massage Envy that is currently under fire. There are 180 cases where women have accused masseuses of sexually assaulting them. Just as I said, this epidemic of sexual accusations are creeping into everyday life.

You're putting your own spin on what I wrote. Not all men who are arousing are players, but every player is arousing--which is what gives him that option & that liberty societally. Let me make that distinction more clear. Attraction is based on things that can be interpreted logically--good looks, good job, ambitious, good with kids, etc. Attraction is what gets women on a date. Arousal is pre-logical--it exists on a very visceral plane where logic means...nothing. You can literally talk nonsense all night and still speak to that part of a woman. Oh, it's just the way he makes me feel. (You're the same way (or you were when you were younger with higher testosterone & a less developed pre-frontal cortex)--your d1ck doesn't care if the girl is mother-material or financially stable or if she would ruin your life. BPD & histrionic chicks are often super arousing--but they aren't attractive people; if you weren't under the spell of arousal, everything you find charming would probably seem a little repulsive. Just like I'm sure you've met objectively beautiful women with awesome personalities who just didn't turn you on. But even then, men are much more capable of being rational/compartmentalized in the face of arousal.)

Women will still sleep with guys who are more attractive than they are arousing--but it's a much more calculated decision. Rationalization for sex happens before sex occurs. With arousal, rationalization happens after. I've experienced both, sometimes even with the same woman in different points in time...totally different experiences that are interpreted differently & come with different sets of expectations.

You can hypothetically be both, but one or the other is the predominant driving motivation for any sexual interaction that occurs. And certain attractive behaviors--like the willingness to commit automatically makes you less arousing. Familiarity & all that. If all it took was being a 'good guy with a strong backbone' then plenty of guys wouldn't be knocking their head against the wall.

The good news is that arousal for women is primarily based in behavior--it can be learned.

Something that has bothered me about emphasizing this aspect of women is that they won’t actually sacrifice much for you though with this. Sure, they’ll do You have to make her lust after you first, and then she will find out about who you really are and then care about you more. And as long as you never officially declare being committed, she will love you while you don’t necessarily care as much about her. As long as you never officially declare being committed to her, then she will never feel less aroused around you. Overall though, I believe that arousal > attraction, using your terms, because you don’t have to show your status before social ability and physical appeal.

It’s all about value systems though. Just understand where I’m coming from. I care more about scarring them with an image of me forever when they think about relationships. You seem to care more about fvcking them as fast and as wildly as possible. Why am I like this? Well because like you, I would be able to steal them from their current S/O whenever I please, but I can also take them away from studs like you too. I wish to leave a permanent mental imprint on them.

I get where you're coming from. I had similar thoughts when I was younger & newer, better options weren't so easily attainable (HINT--having those options is what drives women to make sacrifices). But it’s an immature (read narcissistic) desire--and I don’t put that as a knock on you, but it’s just that the desire to have a girl hung up on you forever is really just rooted in a need for validation & the fact that you can’t go out a couple nights next week & meet someone just as awesome who likes you just as much.

I don’t expect you to understand that until you reach that point. And it really doesn’t matter--girls always always always come back. With one notable exception: High self-esteem girls won’t come back if you fvck with their emotions & manipulate them. And Low self-esteem girls won’t come back if you are genuinely happy in her absence (she loses all her power). So that begs the question, do you want girls to come back because you were a great time and an escape from the pressures of everyday life, or do you want them to come back for a codependent, wounded-dancing-of-the-souls type validation chase?

It also brings up some moral & practical dilemmas. Practically, when the girl is no longer attractive to you, do you really want her pining after you? It does you no good to be at the top of her high score list if you no longer want to sleep with her (and if you have newer, better options you will lose attraction for her at some point). Morally, women have a far shorter shelf-life than men--at least if they aspire toward marriage or child rearing or even for just enjoying the best of male attention: do you really want her to waste her best years pining away for you for nothing in return? I find it better to give girls everything they need to detach--even if it hurts my ego a little in the process. I want them to live the best lives possible & for most of them, that's not something I could offer them longterm. Things eventually run their course.

 

[fastlife]

So I fall in the middle of the scale, skewed toward the lover side of things.

Every high self-esteem girl skews that way They are capable of detaching their self-worth from their sexuality or their relationship with men. Girls with low self-esteem are the ones who most seek provider traits--reassurance, support, commitment, etc (though they're also the most likely to cheat). High self-esteem girls might want commitment but they are comfortable without it & can enjoy a good fling for what it is because they want to.

My second point is regarding your bigger discussion about desire sex versus provider sex, it isn't either/or at all in my experience personally nor in what I have observed other women doing. Rather it falls along a continuum where on the left you have strictly the provider and on the right you have strictly the lover. The continuum is the sliding scale between the two. I think that is a better model to consider but one must also know that how each individual woman selects along the continuum has everything to do with her own needs and her own desire nature. A woman's desire nature can be triggered to a greater or lesser degree obviously depending on the man she is exposed to, but it there are people (men as well as women) who want sex MORE and some who want sex LESS just as they happen to exist in the world.

There are women for example, who might be just fine if they never had sex ever again in their lives. They truly don't care for it really. Those women don't factor in sexual desire when evaluating a man as a partner. They see sex more as a chore. They will choose men toward the provider side of the scale.

There are also women for whom sexual expression is very important. They like sex, enjoy sex, and can't imagine a relationship without sexual expression. Those women are going to fall closer to the lover side of the scale. They value the lover more than the provider.

Agreed. Human behavior exists on a spectrum. It's never black-and-white & it's context-dependent. But for a man to even begin to grasp & realistically assess those distinctions he has to have experience. I admittedly primarily deal with a super small segment of the overall female population--late teens/early twenties, upper-end attractiveness. I prefer classy girls over 'wild' girls (most nights). But I interact with enough girls that I have a pretty solid feel for the middle of the bell curve--so that's what I focus on. And the behavior that's effective doesn't really vary all that much. Arousal is arousal--and you know it when it happens, when you've experienced it enough. Some girls more readily act on that arousal than others--I have a very tough time with STEM majors, for instance, since they are generally more inclined to throw logic into the spokes; older women generally have more self-control & awareness of what they're experiencing & make a conscious decision whether to act on that arousal or not. But for the middle of the bell curve, arousal overpowers every single other consideration.

 

[lizardking82]

Desire sex, in my opinion, is the absolute #1 criteria that must be meet in order to even CONSIDER becoming serious with a woman. If she's not f*cking you because she wants to, A. you shouldn't even be seeing her or B. you cannot think long term. Very sad how many, MANY men are with women who are f*cking for multiple other reasons than they actually WANT to.

How do you know you're getting desire sex?

- she comes to you. I don't care if she has to take 3 buses across town, she'll make the trip to come over and f*ck you. She'll almost always initiate contact for it too
-nothing will be off limits in bed. She'll WANT to put your d*ck in her mouth. She'll rip your belt right off your pants to get it. She'll BEG for you to finish on her face, inside her, etc. ANY position is OK with her.
- she'll want to impress you. If she's wearing lingerie and going to Victoria secret a-lot to impress you, that's a great sign, too.

If you're not getting that from your woman it should raise serious red flags.

Absolutely.

Each of the 3 girls I am having sex with right now does this. They all come to my place, all dress sexy underwear, 2 of them don't wanna put my **** in their mouth, 1 of them just loves it LOL (the other two just need to submit a little further, I guess), and they beg for the *** and for the sex like good little girls.

This is what a man should be looking into a woman. This is why I and others often tell guys here not to pursue girls who are not willing to do these things. Only give your time and attention to women who show you they want you.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I get where you're coming from. I had similar thoughts when I was younger & newer, better options weren't so easily attainable (HINT--having those options is what drives women to make sacrifices). But it’s an immature (read narcissistic) desire--and I don’t put that as a knock on you, but it’s just that the desire to have a girl hung up on you forever is really just rooted in a need for validation & the fact that you can’t go out a couple nights next week & meet someone just as awesome who likes you just as much.

True, I never actually looked at it this way. Honestly, I’ve been trying to work on this for a while. I mean I don’t NEED them to desire me a crap ton, it’s just one of those things where it’s nice to have I guess (like no one NEEDS a Ferrari, but it’s just nice to have lol). I’ve always had the desire to be the best ever since I was a toddler who could barely walk and this might be another form of it’s manifestation coupled with some sort of desire for validation I guess.

How do I improve this?

The good news is that arousal for women is primarily based in behavior--it can be learned.

I understand part of what these behaviors are, but what are they to you? And do you also believe that they change from person to person based on what level they’re at? And what to you is the difference between the attractiveness man and the beta male (also the alpha male and arousing male? Are these just your own definitions to describe them or is there a crossover of sorts?)