Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Balancing Your Life With Meeting Women

It's been on my mind for a long time how I can balance meeting women with maintaining a fulfilling life, which doesn't involve women. For a few years now I have strived to make women a byproduct of my life, while still being successful with them. My main motivation for doing this is to remove all the wasted effort and minimize the time spent with women who are a waste of time (which happens to be a lot of women). My first exposure to this kind of thinking was hearing Brent from the David DeAngelo interviews, in which he talked about not pursuing women and making women a byproduct of a naturally fulfilling life. He was the first person who actually talked about "non-pickup" as a way to meet women. It was a breath of fresh air, since I had reached a point where I was fed up with community concepts and wanted to be free of them, since they were far too draining on my mind and soul. It signaled the beginning of my paradigm shift, from being intently focused on getting women to not caring at all if I get them (while still meeting them).

And so I began my transformation. It was an important process, as it added an important dimension to my thinking, which up till then had been too one-sided. I think of it as going from Conservative to more Socialist in terms of shifting of viewpoints. Of course, neither side is completely right or wrong, but at least I was able to encompass more perspective in the way I viewed women and dating.

I think now I'm more moderate in my views. I'm much more capable of seeing a broader range of perspectives and separating reality from personal beliefs, simply because I'm the kind of person who questions things and is not averse to change. So I won't cling to an old way of thinking just to save face. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work, and I'll fix it.

I apply the same scrutiny to Brent's teachings as well. Even though he is, by far, one of the best guys to learn from just because of his healthy outlook, and empowering methods, there are still a few flaws in his thinking. For example, he says calling women is giving away your power. That's a blanket statement, and he doesn't seem to want to go any deeper than that. So for a while, after first hearing Brent, I had this nagging feeling that if I call a girl I am giving away my power. But after getting some more experience of my own I realized that this is not necessarily the case. Yes, there are times when calling a girl is giving away your power, just because of the particular dynamics of that situation (e.g. you are chasing her). But let's say a girl shows interest in you first and then gives you her number. According to Brent, you shouldn't call her. But I say that it's okay to call her because you are reciprocating interest. It's give-and-take. Of course, the problem is that most times there is no give-and-take. The guy has to do all or most of the work. So my view is that if you are giving more than you are taking then you are giving away your power, and it just so happens that calling a girl first is very common with guys who are giving away their power. But correlation is not necessarily causality. You have to look at the big picture.

My view is, if men apply the give-and-take concept, that will solve almost all their problems where women are concerned. The first thing that would happen is that men would stop chasing and persisting. The second thing is that they would expect women to do their part. So give-and-take is essentially forced equality.

The nice thing about this concept is that it alerts you to a sense of fairness where dating and women are concerned.

It is perhaps ironic that in learning about indifference I became more sensitive to the dynamics that go on between men and women, and more critical of things that I would at one time have embraced as being unconditionally true. So I feel that it is the paradigm shift of moving away from pursuer-mode, and not due to the nature of indifference, that caused me to develop the perspective I currently have. Indifference was just a catalyst for this process.

However, indifference by itself is not the only solution. It is a major part of the "salvation" you might say, but there are more issues to consider.

I have realized that total indifference all the time is not reasonable. Every single species, when looking for a mate, does so with intent. So it's not reasonable to take the extreme view that meeting women must always be a 100% byproduct of your life all the time. So adding some intent is only natural. However, you must not add too much intent since that crosses over into the needy/desperate category, and we know what happens when that occurs. So you have to add just enough intent to motivate you to talk to women you wouldn't talk to otherwise. And along with this intent, you also need a carefree mindset where you don't care too much if you get the girl or not. The desire is there, but it's on a low burn. So even if nothing happens, you are cool with it.

It's just a matter of getting the mix right. And for each person that comes down to trial and error.

The other thing is, you want to make things as easy for yourself as possible, such as only choosing a club that you enjoy going to, which has a fun atmosphere, and where the women are at least somewhat friendly. Not all clubs are created equal in this regard. So choose your clubs wisely. I have found that it's best to stay away from the more upscale clubs where people go to "be and be seen". They are full of pretentious snotty women. It's much better to go to a more casual place, that has good music, and has a layout which allows hookups to happen without everyone else in the club noticing; such as with separate rooms, darker, etc. In well-lit clubs that don't have separate rooms (i.e. everything is in the open) women are more self-conscious since they feel that everyone can see them if they hook up, and they will sabotage your efforts to meet them, even if they like you.


So how much of your life should you devote to meeting women?

That largely depends on you, but I think you should keep it to a minimum, since there are so many other things in life besides women.

I personally think it's a good rule-of-thumb to devote about 5% of your life to meeting women. This translates into 4-8 hours a week.

So I will spend 4-8 hours a week meeting women, with intent. And the best place to do this is at the clubs, since it's the most efficient. Clubs and bars have the highest concentration of women. Daytime pickup is out of the question for me since I have never gotten it to work (which I posted about before). And if it did work it would probably take a lot more time to get the same results as I would in a club, since the women are more "spread out". But with a club you can do a lot of work in a short time, and even create competition between women who see you talking to other women.

But like I said before, it's important to choose a fun club with friendly-er women, so even if nothing happens you at least have a good time. The important thing is to get as many things working in your favor as possible, while avoiding as many obstacles as possible.

You can also use the online personals to meet women, but it's best to let them message you and rarely send messages yourself.

The rest of the time outside of this 4-8 hour window I focus on my own projects and interests, and I don't even think about women. Furthermore, outside of this time window I treat meeting women as a 100% byproduct. In other words, I have no intent to meet women as I go to the mall, bookstore, etc. But if a good opportunity comes up I'll take it; such as a girl standing next to me, and eyeing me up and down. But otherwise, I won't make any effort at all to meet women outside this 4-8 hour window.

This is nice because it operates on the concept of schedule. You schedule an important part of life to fit into a certain time window (like exercise) and the rest of the time you don't think about it.

The difficulty I had before was that I would be focused on making women a 100% byproduct of my life all the time, so that if I ever meet them, I should never have any intent behind it (100% outcome independent). But the problem with this approach is the sheer randomness of it, and because there's no deliberate action to change your situation (since that would make you outcome dependent), you tend to get discouraged. The conflict is in wanting to meet women, but also in wanting to follow the indifference (outcome independent) way of life. Now, if women came to me, being totally indifferent would be okay. But they don't do that. They are far too passive in this part of the world, so this entails that I must do something, even if it's minimal. And the only way is for me to add some intent to the mix. This has the effect of making me more proactive, and in some ways more attractive, since I am deliberately talking to more women. But because I am not that attached to the outcome, people will see me as more of a fun person. And as a result, they tend to make it easier for you to talk to them. Some will even go so far as helping you hook up with their friends. Yes, this has happened before.

It's just a matter of getting the desire-indifference mix right, and getting as many things as possible working in your favor (e.g. choosing the right club).

Let's face it, women are a normal part of life, and it's natural to put in some effort to be with them. But I also know from past experience that I have to temper my desire with a healthy level of indifference, just not total 100% indifference. Think of it as going to buy a snack. You go to the store because you want a snack and that's where the snacks are, but at the same time you aren't needy for the snack. And if you don't find the snack you want, you won't be that upset. You'll just move on. This is the level of desire you want with women. Not too much, not too little.

Monday, October 12, 2009

How Does Feminism Affect You?

Feminism has mostly affected my life in the dating sphere. It has made it difficult for me to meet women by creating the presumption of guilt and inadequacy in women's minds where men are concerned.

Feminism has also contributed to fear and insecurity in the minds of women, by enslaving them to popular opinion and public approval rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.

It has encouraged passivity among females, who on the surface appear to be passive, but in reality are very active in doing nothing. So much energy is spent by women in doing nothing, or rather structuring things so that the man does all the work (and takes all the risk), while avoiding responsibility themselves (e.g. fear of rejection). The slew of these "doing nothing" tactics are: avoidance, subterfuge, resistance, etc. These are all defensive strategies, which women have been taught to do to thwart men's chances of getting close, and the justifiable male response (anger and masculinity) is discouraged.

The trap for men is, wanting to do more when women make it difficult for them to get close. The natural impulse of men is to do more in the face of obstacles. But what most men fail to realize is that the women are playing an active role in making things difficult for you. So by ratcheting up your efforts you are only causing her to ratchet up her own efforts to resist you. Contrary to belief, women who resist are not screening for "alpha" men, because persistence does not work. The cardinal rule is, if a woman wants to get with you she makes it easy for you. Period. And if by chance a woman likes to play "hard to get" then you should immediately respond with your own version of hard to get, which is moving on. Some will say that a real man would persist. Well, all I can say to that is that some "real" men would persist, but as a THINKING man I know that's a waste of time, and my time is better spent on REAL women who know what they want and aren't afraid to demonstrate it.

Feminism has done a lot of damage, by emphasizing the negatives of masculinity without looking at the positives. And this is especially true with regards to sexuality, where the sex act is demonized due to its penetrative nature. Radical feminists frame sex as a violation of women's bodies. But unfortunately for them, women enjoy sex too. So this creates a problem: The difficulty men usually encounter with regards to getting sex is not because many women hate sex, but because many women are taught to hate (or fear) men, or at least masculinity. And furthermore, men love sex. So there's that connection. It's bad to give the "enemy" what they like, even if you like it too. It must suck fraternizing with the enemy so often.


Acceptance Of Female Recklessness

In some ways, feminism has screwed over men not by what it does, but by what it fails to do. Feminism fails to correct reckless female behaviour, which in many ways is innate. If women are not taught a code of proper conduct the result is a lot of screwed up and self-destructive behaviour on the part of women. This is a common consequence of ideological bias, where one group can operate with impunity for reasons of political correctness, which skews the concept of "fairness" in order to further a political agenda.

It is obvious to anyone who has observed women for any length of time, and thought deeply about them, that they are inclined to be at the mercy of their emotions and baser instincts. And because there is nothing to control this (since it would be politically incorrect to do so), women are becoming increasingly reckless.

It is unfortunate that one of the most important checks and balances to combat this (masculinity) is not allowed or is severely restricted under the regime of radical feminism.

So anything masculine is demonized, and anything that can bring the two sexes together in a healthy way is demonized simply because half of that equation involves men (and masculinity). So in a way, feminists are screwing women out of happiness also.

The other problem is that, because feminist propaganda increasingly fuels women's sense of entitlement, you are getting more and more women holding out for higher and higher quality men (who statistically speaking, are in a smaller and smaller minority). Again, there are no checks and balances to reverse this trend. The result is that many women are screwing themselves over in their pathological and "socially downloaded" desire to find "Mr. Right".

If you are always looking for the right one, you get to enjoy no one. And that is becoming more and more obvious to me as time goes on. I see so many women who shut themselves out of GOLDEN opportunities because something didn't quite match up with one or more items on the "checklist". It's a sign of extreme vanity and near-sightedness when you can't even enjoy a brief encounter with someone because they didn't measure up in some small way. As men, we know that it's not a big deal to lower our standards somewhat to score a one-night stand. It's not a big deal to us because we know the time dimension is so short anyway, so it's hardly worth fretting over. BUT women (most anyway), cannot compromise even one iota when it comes to something short-term and casual. For them it's gotta be "perfect" all the time, even if it only lasts a few hours (which they would otherwise have spent sleeping or whatever). This can only be a result of extreme vanity and social myopia - the inability to see far.

I feel that the time will come when I completely blacklist women in these parts and outsource my libido instead, using vacations, and trips to other cities (i.e. friendlier demographics), using the "traveler status" to my advantage. And the rest of the time, when I'm home, I completely focus on personal projects. I think this is where I'm heading, since after almost 8 years in the game, the difficulty is still intolerably high, especially since I'm not the kind of person to wear blinders. If I was, then I would find reasons to "tough it out", like many guys do.

Let's put it this way, I am slowly getting tired of throwing pearls before swine (so to speak). And although I enjoy social interactions (for my own benefit), it is also dawning on me that giving people value who do not appreciate that value, is pretty stupid. When I talk to a woman and putting my best foot forward I am giving her value, and too often these women do not appreciate the value I am giving them. In other words, they act like swine that have been given pearls. It is something they do not appreciate, and furthermore it is too good for them anyway.

So stop giving pearls to swine. Put a price on your time and your value. I talked about this before. One way is to only talk to women who have a sexy confident energy that invites dialogue. Don't talk to women who won't even look at you or acknowledge you as a MAN. This is how we start taking back the power. Learning techniques to fuck the swine is not taking back the power. It only lowers your intellect and creates self-loathing.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The Good Looks Myth

I regularly get compliments on my looks, from both men and women. Usually the people giving the compliments assume that it must be easy for me to get women, because I'm so "good looking". It's hard for them to imagine that this is not the case. And in fact, it is not the case. Most times women will give me a second look but that's where it usually ends, and things progress no further.

Now, to be honest, there are times when my looks will help, and women will make it very easy for me to have sex with them as a result. But there are also quite a few times when women will have their guard up as a result of my looks. They practically assume I'm a slick player who will "pick them up" if they're not careful. So up goes the shield. Most guys won't know what I'm talking about here since most guys don't set off the bitch shield just by their looks alone. So in a way I'm in a unique position. I get to observe how much good looks help, and don't help. And my conclusion is that good looks are a double-edged sword. They can help but also hurt, as proven by the fact that I don't hook up nearly as much as many people seem to think.

The problem as I see it, is this:

Many women look at me and assume that I am getting a lot of girls, and they feel threatened by that, so their natural reaction is to avoid me. But ironically, if all women were to think this way I would never hook up. Fortunately, not all women think this way. But many do, and the result is that many women avoid me.

The only group of women I hook up with are the ones who don't care who else I might be fucking. This is the cream of the crop of women (relatively speaking), since they are the most confident, intelligent women who are not possessive and have no agendas.

In some ways I feel that my looks have given me a unique vantage point on female behaviour. Since so many people assume you need looks to get girls, I am proof that this is not the case. Furthermore, I know that lack of attraction is not the main issue guys are up against in the dating world. If it were I would be getting laid like a rock star. And the fact that I am not means that the obstacles men are facing are mostly related to personality issues women have, and not how attractive women find them. Many (most) women in this part of the world have psychological and social issues, which prevent them from meeting men on a healthy level. Being good looking does not erase this fact, and can sometimes aggravate it, as I explained already.

This becomes most evident when I see that a girl is attracted to me (smiling at me, giving me signals, etc.) and when I make a move the walls come up. This tells me that attraction was not a choice, and that she couldn't help but show it, but when it came time to do something about it, she sabotaged her efforts due to her own personal issues; such as psychological problems, insecurities, timid-ness, etc. Some will think I'm full of shit, and that the girls aren't attracted and I'm seeing things that aren't there. And yet, this has happened to me many times in the past, with great consistency. So in other words, I was there and you weren't.

Here's something else to think about. If you're a woman, chances are you see attractive guys wherever you go. Why is it so hard to believe that one of those guys could have an opinion the same as mine?

Lastly, imagine a situation where you see a good looking guy, and you tell yourself that, although he's hot, you'd best avoid him, since chances are he's already getting lots of girls and you would be another "notch" for him. Now imagine if all girls were to think this way. What do you think would happen then? It isn't hard to comprehend that this guy would never hook up. It's the ultimate irony.

Remember, things aren't always as they seem.

Personally, I have found the solution is for me to embrace the guy that women think I am, just because it's who I want to be anyway — you know, the guy who sees different women; the guy who is a player. Any attempt to hide this is useless anyway, as it just means more work on my part and more bullshit. So ladies, what you see is what you get. If you can't deal with it, then step out of the way and make room for the women who can.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Most Women Are Prostitutes

I have concluded that most women are prostitutes. I know this because my sex life has been sporadic for years, and I can't rely on any woman for steady, reliable sex. It turns out I've taken myself out of the market for steady, reliable sex for one simple reason: I refuse to "pay" for it.

I tell women upfront that I don't want a relationship or commitment, and that I just want to have no strings casual fun. And as a result I only get occasional sex. The fact that I don't "give" anything in return for sex is the cause of this. And since most women are prostitutes, the result is that most women want nothing to do with me.

And the ones I do hook up with usually don't stick around very long. Apparently, it's quite a challenge for women to keep giving a guy sex in exchange for nothing. So some will do it for a little while, but the inevitable feeling they have is that I'm ripping them off if this type of arrangement continues.

But I realize this is the price I pay for being a free man. And I think that's entirely a good thing. The last thing I want is to be a slave to some woman's "relationship requirements" just so I can get some on a regular basis.

I think it's most disturbing that it is this way, but looking back, that is exactly what I am forced to conclude. Women, for the most part, cannot enjoy sex by itself. They need an economic incentive to keep it going, otherwise they might get very jealous of all those other girls who are getting regular sex with all the extra goodies.

Some women will argue that women get more emotionally attached to a man after sex so that's why they can't keep it on a casual level. To this I say bollocks. Prostitutes (hookers) are able to have sex with many men (some of them for years) and you never once hear them complain about getting "attached" to their clients. Are prostitutes special? No, but they are getting paid, which is why they can keep doing it.

Naturally, payment can come in different forms, and the relationship format is the usual payment option men exercise in exchange for regular sex.

A relationship means:

• Giving her lots and lots of attention

• Dealing with her shit constantly, and putting up with any new shit that may come up

• Listening to her problems ad nauseum

• Dealing with her insecurities that you might leave her at any time, and giving her constant reassurance that the "relationship" is going where she wants

• Doing things for her (much more than she does for you)

• Buying her shit

• Letting her control you (at least to an extent)


Of course, not all relationships are parasitic dysfunctional arrangements, but the fact is that in almost all relationships the man has to actively "give" something (whatever that may be) in exchange for sex. There is always that certain something the woman will be demanding in return for opening her legs. Very few women, it seems, can enjoy sex by itself for any length of time without some payout. And yet, many women make frequent use of sex toys, so you can see the hypocrisy. It would be better if men were used as sex toys, and then let them go free to do whatever they want, until the next appointment. That would be more honest. But it doesn't work this way. Women are far too opportunistic to not use sex (which men want) to extract as much value as possible for their own personal gain.

Of course, the ultimate form of sex-ploytation is the modern marriage. And I won't even get into that particular hornet's nest. I'll save that for another post, as it deserves a stand-alone discussion.

Some will argue that many women already make their own money, and as a result they don't need a man to pamper and provide for them in exchange for sex. That's certainly true, but it doesn't really change the whore-tendencies of women in a significant way. For many otherwise "well off" women, a man is simply a way for them to get even more material things without extra expenditure and effort on their part. There are few women who wouldn't cash in on the "man factor", especially if they are attractive. As far as they're concerned, it would be like saying no to easy money, and from their perspective that would be foolish.

Women's liberation is largely to blame. As a result woman are now, more than ever, slaves to their emotions and selfish baser instincts. And they can' t be fixed. The current generation of western women is completely incurable in this regard. And how funny that they will act as if they are completely within their rights, doing what they do, and always reframing their actions to take focus away from the damage they cause.

No, educating the current generation of women is not the solution here. But training them might be, since training implies that we are dealing with an animal. And an animal can't be reasoned with, but it can be taught to do certain things and not others. This seems to fit well with the typical animalistic western woman who herself is beyond education due to her spoiled upbringing and tainted views towards men. These women can only be trained by men who refuse to take their shit any longer. This will no doubt result in them treating us better, but most likely it will not fix the core problem, given they will revert back to their former state given the first opportunity. So it's better to keep these women at arms length, as they will forever be damaged goods. Have your fun with them, but reserve your greatest sympathies for women who were not raised under the wing of feminism and the women's movement.