Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

This is the first really personal post of mine ever, so be understanding, but don't reserve the truth bombs.

It seems like an overwhelming number of the call-in shows involving women make a mention Bad Boys. Please confirm that I am not the only one who finds this to be like a track on repeat.

Is there a philosophical assessment of the bad boy that Mr.Molyneux has already made? Is there an explanation as to why women keep falling into the same trap over and over again?

This is important to me because I am a bad boy myself. I like manipulating women, I like their attention, I feel powerful when I see their tears, I love building uncertainty and mystery, I like the thrill of conquest, I feel validated when I get the prettiest and most innocent girl in the room, and I like undressing her and deflowering her.
This is an unusual trait for me to have because neither of my parents were promiscuous, neither of my brothers are either. My paternal grandfather was a true player, however I never saw him.

Also worth noting that my family does not look leniently upon my tendencies. My brothers have ostracised my for my behaviour, and my father and I have not spoken for over a year partly due to my behaviour. My family is first generation Roman Catholic, so morals are still pretty strong. What I am looking for is not what is right or wrong, but an intellectual evaluation of such behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot say for a certainty whether I'm on the mark or dead wrong, or if any of what I'm about to say is relevant to you and your history, but I'll dare to try to analyze you and your so-called "bad boy manipulation". 

On Stef and bad boys: Refer to pretty much any podcast or youtube video with the word "pick up artist" or some other synonym and you'll have his general idea as to why bad boys are the way they are and why some women are attracted to them. I'll try to boil it into two sentences (note he hasn't said this to my knowledge but I think this can summarize it and be used as a ruler): bad boys hate their mothers, bad girls hate their fathers, and since both bad boys and bad girls want, for some reason, to repeat their childhoods into adulthood (perhaps for sexual success), they intuitively seek out that which is most familiar to them.

If a man has a slut for a mother and a deadbeat for a father, he's likely to have a bad impression of both genders and feel indifferent towards manipulating women for sex and pissing on men for whatever. If a woman has basically the same childhood she's bound to see men as temporary animals and therefore merely pursue men for sex, especially when a welfare state absolves her of the need for a provider, then she's likely to pursue men like her dad and coincidentally fit the bad boy's mom. I think the reason why people do this is because it is both familiar and sexually successful--and we mammals pretty much live to be sexually successful. Therefore I assume you don't respect women (to be clear I mean see them as merely holes for semen or lesser animals that either need guiding or can't be held responsible for their own behavior) because you, either  consciously or subconsciously, were raised to think that by your own parents perhaps because they lived that model or that was the lesson you inherited by their example. 

I could say this is why lots of women don't respect men, and why lots of traumatized people don't respect or think little or people in general--their childhoods imprinted subconsciously that people are fundamentally like robots doing what they're commanded to do, or like dominoes doing what they do because some other domino hit them.

And if you, consciously or subconsciously, see most people like dominoes or robots then it is pretty easy to see why you'd be indifferent to using cheep women for sex and hungering to "defile" high quality women with your "impure sperm". 

Perhaps by extension you have a very low opinion of yourself and therefore "punish yourself" by including yourself in the "cheep" and "low rent" categories of people.

I say this in part because I can relate; when I used to be a Communist and later a Fascist, I used to think very poorly of the average man and to some degree I still have this problem, hence why I decided to stop talking about politics and the human condition in public until I have confidence that I'm not merely projecting the "lessons learned" from my own childhood. 

I think fundamentally you lack confidence and don't value most people. You probably punish yourself with impossible (or just beyond your reach) standards and have a bad relationship with your parents, and therefore enjoy "manipulating and defiling women" as both a form of self-flagellation and revenge against your parents. 

I know it's a pretty far-fetched theory, but I'm sure at least 10% of it is applicable to your situation and the remaining 90% can be adjusted to fit your case. The fact you describe yourself like a barbarian at the gate of civilization who is unworthy to enter and takes pleasure at defiling it hints me that. 

It might also be a race thing. Being Eurasian, you might have an extra layer of complicated feelings because you probably feel kinship with two distinct races and have criticisms of both and are probably frustrated that so many of both groups don't accept your criticisms and reform themselves. 

Or maybe I'm projecting a bit, since I can kinda relate to being angry at my tribe and therefore seeking of a new one. As much as I love the Philosopher Tribe it is few in numbers and hard to find offline, and non-existent outside my weekly sessions.  

I think a therapist, ideally an older married man, might have be the man you need with a shovel and a pickaxe ready to dig into your soul and discover what it is that pains it and causes you to feel gratification for that which you know to be evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎01‎. at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

On Stef and bad boys: Refer to pretty much any podcast or youtube video with the word "pick up artist" or some other synonym and you'll have his general idea as to why bad boys are the way they are and why some women are attracted to them. I'll try to boil it into two sentences (note he hasn't said this to my knowledge but I think this can summarize it and be used as a ruler): bad boys hate their mothers, bad girls hate their fathers, and since both bad boys and bad girls want, for some reason, to repeat their childhoods into adulthood (perhaps for sexual success), they intuitively seek out that which is most familiar to them. If a man has a slut for a mother and a deadbeat for a father, he's likely to have a bad impression of both genders and feel indifferent towards manipulating women for sex and pissing on men for whatever. 

Hi, Siegfried von Walheim 

The pick-up artist videos I am very familiar with, but I never found them too informative. They don't really dig deep into WHY things are happening, but rather just HOW they are happening. They are like instructions on how to assemble a nuclear warhead, but does not discuss what the splitting of the atom is.

I have watched every single video of FDR going back 5 or 8 years, but somehow could never find an analysis that was applicable to me. 
I don't hate either of my parents, and I definitely love my mother to death. My relationship with my father may be questioned though.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎01‎. at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Therefore I assume you don't respect women (to be clear I mean see them as merely holes for semen or lesser animals that either need guiding or can't be held responsible for their own behavior) because you, either  consciously or subconsciously, were raised to think that by your own parents perhaps because they lived that model or that was the lesson you inherited by their example. I could say this is why lots of women don't respect men, and why lots of traumatized people don't respect or think little or people in general--their childhoods imprinted subconsciously that people are fundamentally like robots doing what they're commanded to do, or like dominoes doing what they do because some other domino hit them. And if you, consciously or subconsciously, see most people like dominoes or robots then it is pretty easy to see why you'd be indifferent to using cheep women for sex and hungering to "defile" high quality women with your "impure sperm". 

Now here you are on to something. I have noticed a couple years ago that I don't care about anyone outside my family, and I view them as machines. However, I don't use women for sex. It is hardly about sex. In fact, I have found sex to quite disappointing, as it basically ends the high I get from the game. It is not at all about sex, and I can say that with utmost solemnity. What I enjoy is the game, not the prize. Makes sense?

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎01‎. at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Perhaps by extension you have a very low opinion of yourself and therefore "punish yourself" by including yourself in the "cheep" and "low rent" categories of people.

I think fundamentally you lack confidence and don't value most people. You probably punish yourself with impossible (or just beyond your reach) standards and have a bad relationship with your parents, and therefore enjoy "manipulating and defiling women" as both a form of self-flagellation and revenge against your parents. 

I know it's a pretty far-fetched theory, but I'm sure at least 10% of it is applicable to your situation and the remaining 90% can be adjusted to fit your case. The fact you describe yourself like a barbarian at the gate of civilization who is unworthy to enter and takes pleasure at defiling it hints me that. 

I definitely have a low opinion of myself. And that can be most likely traced back to my father. But that still doesn't explain everything.
As I said, playing helps validate my worth. That much is vlear, but it is still not the explanation I'm looking for.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎01‎. at 12:21 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think a therapist, ideally an older married man, might have be the man you need with a shovel and a pickaxe ready to dig into your soul and discover what it is that pains it and causes you to feel gratification for that which you know to be evil. 

I have spoken with tons of outstaning men, and a lot of it has helped. The problem is that they don't really see or understand my situation. Which is the main reason I'm here. Maybe someone here has a perspective.

I am not a "player" in the most common sense. I don't like wooing tons of women, I only like the very best of them. And I am not a pickup artist either, since I hardly say anything, let alone cheesy pickup lines. Nor am I a wonanizer, because I don't do it for sex. But I am definitely a bad-boy for breaking a good number of hearts (around 10-15), and for enjoying it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

'Erro! ;)

EDIT: Evil misclick=anger clouds my judgement. At least my response will be more succinct. 

Quote

The pick-up artist videos I am very familiar with, but I never found them too informative. They don't really dig deep into WHY things are happening, but rather just HOW they are happening. They are like instructions on how to assemble a nuclear warhead, but does not discuss what the splitting of the atom is.

I know he has had two particular call-in-shows that come to mind. 

Number 1: a PUA who had massive social anxiety as a kid, around women especially, and Stef dug out that his mom divorced his dad and took him to the cleaners for everything he spent decades working for. Pretty clear why the PUA enjoyed manipulating women and avoided commitment.

Number 2: a married Spanish or Arabian man (sounded something along those lines) who had "compulsive affairs" and considered his wife like a nun relative to the whores he defiled. His considered his dad a "weak man" and feared his mother, leading him to be like his mom towards his wife who was like his dad, and similarly had affairs like his mom. 

Quote

I have watched every single video of FDR going back 5 or 8 years, but somehow could never find an analysis that was applicable to me. 
I don't hate either of my parents, and I definitely love my mother to death. My relationship with my father may be questioned though.

I think you think of your father as a weak or lesser man, especially in regards to his family life. Therefore you seek to be greater than him as an "alpha" male. Likewise you are arrogant in regards to world and see people as merely robots, without recognizing your own robotic tendencies. 

Quote

Now here you are on to something. I have noticed a couple years ago that I don't care about anyone outside my family, and I view them as machines. However, I don't use women for sex. It is hardly about sex. In fact, I have found sex to quite disappointing, as it basically ends the high I get from the game. It is not at all about sex, and I can say that with utmost solemnity. What I enjoy is the game, not the prize. Makes sense?

Warband is fun for the battles and conquests, not the post-unification. 

Either way you are getting dopamine hits from being with women and being like a favorite puppy of their's, for some reason. 

I can't say for sure but I think the place you want to focus on is your father and your father's relationship with his wife, his kids, and you in particular. 

Quote

I definitely have a low opinion of myself. And that can be most likely traced back to my father. But that still doesn't explain everything.
As I said, playing helps validate my worth. That much is vlear, but it is still not the explanation I'm looking for.

 

Quote

I have spoken with tons of outstaning men, and a lot of it has helped. The problem is that they don't really see or understand my situation. Which is the main reason I'm here. Maybe someone here has a perspective.

I am not a "player" in the most common sense. I don't like wooing tons of women, I only like the very best of them. And I am not a pickup artist either, since I hardly say anything, let alone cheesy pickup lines. Nor am I a wonanizer, because I don't do it for sex. But I am definitely a bad-boy for breaking a good number of hearts (around 10-15), and for enjoying it too.

Dopamine hits and all that. Whether you pursue cheep trash, femme fatales with rings, or damsels in castles, it's all for dopamine. The question is why do you seek the dopamine in the first place? Chances are it's because you don't get it on your own, and it's like taking drugs to elevate yourself to what for most people is normal, and when you "crash", you realize how painful it is to be merely a body bag without anything to be particularly proud of and have to be fruitful in a seemingly barren world.

I get that. I didn't understand why I had such a low opinion of myself even though I'm relatively handsome, very intelligent, very studious, wise beyond my years, possessed of great self-discipline, and a writer of millions of words until I realized why it's "never enough"--it's because, I think, I don't (or didn't) value other people. I failed to follow the Christian principle of humility: recognition of both my strengths and limitations, as well as the strengths and limitations of others', as well as assigning to myself the same moral agency and responsibility I assigned to others--no more, no less. When I was a Communist I had high standards for others and low for myself; as a Fascist I had high for myself and low for others; now as a Truth Seeker and Logic-Facts-Arguments-And-Reasoning Lover I am coming close to balancing my standards and making good on my values versus simply holding or preaching them. 

I recognize myself as a highly talented young man, in spite of his tough upbringing, who has the potential to really do good for himself, his future family, his future friends, and the world at large, so long as he does what he considers necessary to become the man he wants to be: a reliable, honest, wise, six-figures, middle-class, father, husband, and champion of his own values and virtues and somebody who continues to grow rather than shrink, as well as brings new life into the world and imparts upon them the lessons learned through both wiser men and women as well as experience. 

 

Edited by Siegfried von Walheim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm seeing the topic as two main questions. As for the question of, "Is there an explanation as to why women keep falling into the same trap," I think this is way too much overthinking of a relatively simpler issue. The attraction to "bad boys" is simple evolutionary psychology.

If women are the more communal, cooperative, and openness-centric of the two sexes because our evolution as a species necessitated that it be so, then women going along with their invaders and accepting the biggest and the baddest of the stronger and often-more-violent men worked to their advantage, because by that point their defenders had all been killed. Biologically, evolutionarily, psychologically, it just makes sense that they go for that, because it ensures the propagation of their genes. So women are built to be that way.

That's the reason. Really the only reason.

The other question, the matter of the assessment of the "bad boy" himself, and your own psychology, personal history, etc... I'll leave that for someone else far more qualified to comment on such matters. Sieg did a damn fine job thus far, so I'll defer to him on the matter. =]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SnapSlav said:

So I'm seeing the topic as two main questions. As for the question of, "Is there an explanation as to why women keep falling into the same trap," I think this is way too much overthinking of a relatively simpler issue. The attraction to "bad boys" is simple evolutionary psychology.

If women are the more communal, cooperative, and openness-centric of the two sexes because our evolution as a species necessitated that it be so, then women going along with their invaders and accepting the biggest and the baddest of the stronger and often-more-violent men worked to their advantage, because by that point their defenders had all been killed. Biologically, evolutionarily, psychologically, it just makes sense that they go for that, because it ensures the propagation of their genes. So women are built to be that way.

That's the reason. Really the only reason.

The other question, the matter of the assessment of the "bad boy" himself, and your own psychology, personal history, etc... I'll leave that for someone else far more qualified to comment on such matters. Sieg did a damn fine job thus far, so I'll defer to him on the matter. =]

Hey man, I'm just some 19 year old guy on the internet.

Also @Mishi2, I failed to put this in the post above, but I think I got ahead of myself: I'd appreciate it if you answered these few questions since they'd help me and others help you shovel your mound.

1: What exactly is your relationship with your father? Specifically your opinion of him and your big memories of him.

2: Same question but with your mother.

3: Same question but with your siblings.

4: Do you feel/think your dual-ethnic background might be a complicating matter in terms of the way you see people from both Hungarian (or White in general) and Mongolian (or "Oriental" in general) racial groups? Like maybe you look down on them, or are more attached to them, or some mix of both?

5:What theories do you have about yourself already? You might already be close to the truth of the matter, and I think it'd help everyone if you laid down some facts for reference and/or your own trail to truth.

@Everybody Else: Please add pertinent questions of your own if you think they're warranted or could be helpful. I am after all just a new man on the internet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably one of few themes here:

Humans have survival strategies, which revolve around obtaining needs like food. If these needs are sated, which they typically are for many in the west, you then have the opportunity to indulge in luxuries. Collectively once humans and animals come into a favourable set of circumstances they tend to gorge until a point at which they can gorge no more. The luxuries can be physical: buying gold bars, cars, houses etc. or mental: virtue signaling, social validation, physical validation etc. One thing that many young, unphilosophical, directionless women find valuable is being excited by an (typical fake/temporary) alpha male. This is a luxury women in the developing world can't really afford as it will ruin their social reputation and marriage prospects and leave them with a kid to provide for with no welfare state. In countries (Africa) where this degeneracy pervades with no welfare state and low incomes, you get situations where development is virtually impossible. In other poor countries, the society engages in social-moral policing as they don't want to be stumped with the bill of illegitimate children, as used to be the practice in Europe before the nationalisation of welfare and the fall of moral policing.

Conversely, you (as I suspect) as the temporary/fake alpha male value what you describe: violating women, dominating them, gaming them etc. And you say it yourself - it validates you and I imagine you draw a lot of your self professed low opinion of yourself from your ability to do what a lot of men would like to do, but can't - have sexual access to a lot of young women.

I think that is probably the or one of the largest drivers behind both you and your victims behaviour: you are chasing something you value: excitement, status, validation. But this is all very temporary and not particularly deserved. It seems like a primary or the primary drive in your life is:

- emotionally eviscerating women to manipulate your body chemistry to get a high (which you are likely addicted to)
- validate yourself in the state of having high testosterone

But as you note, once you blow your beans, this temporary validation turns into disgust.

It's my belief that unless you are building something constructive and wholesome, you will be depressed or have a negative state of mind. You're not putting your efforts into building anything that lasts long and probably often ends in the destruction of relationships, girls' emotions and your own image of yourself. For you, what you do is probably relatively easy, thus the fruits aren't that great due to small investments. You will be more fulfilled if you put your efforts into the challange of building and sustaining a healthy marriage and raising smart, independent children. With this, you don't get the fast thrills and baubles of chasing big knorks and tight asses. You have to forego those short-term thrills and invest for the long-term. This relates to Stefan's regular statement about deferring gratification. If you build a stable family, it takes huge investment and will leave you with a genuine sense of accomplishment and positivity. If you invest your youth in honing your game, the only thing left on the other end is emotional wrecks, including yourself.

As for why girls keep falling for guys like you: as above, they have the luxury to do so; but I think the key factor is that they are completely directionless; they've probably never analysed their behaviour or anyone elses; they don't question anything, people's motives, the world etc.; they just end up in situations and probably blame everything bad that happens to them on someone else.

I don't agree with SnapSlav's assertion that evolutionary biology is the only reason and it's to do with selecting violent mates and passing on genes. Evolutionary biology plays a role in how we behave, but society has changed dramatically from the times when access to women and resources revolved around bashing heads together. If you behaved like that in a developed society today, you'll end up behind bars. The key difference between the societies, I outlined above - that we live in societies where many people have access to leisure and luxury. This is something that was only afforded to a very few in the past: alpha males and their women. In the past, you had to get resources before you could get the best women. Now because of widespread access to luxury it is no longer a necessity for men to seek resources to attract the most sought after women. Today access to women has a lot more to do with social status and being able to excite women who are driven by the desire to pleasure themselves. In the past you used to have to work hard to get resources to get in this position - to have both social and economic status. Now the two have been decoupled. There is a situation where young men gain social status largely by their ability to play social games, manipulate perceptions and emotions. Getting to the top of the pack will lead you to being an alpha male, or the leader of a group of men or dominant man in a group of men. For women who have the ability to pursue luxury and have zero self- or social knowledge, this is extremely desirable. But what is this alpha male leading his boys to? Is he going to improve their standard of living? Is he going to win a battle? Pass down plunder to them? Build a university? Make peace with a foe? No. The only thing he's likely to lead them to is the next pub or bar. In much else he is likely completely directionless.

But once the late 20s and 30s come, things start to change. Deep evolutionary biological gear begin kicking in to high gear, his economic status is likely declining against his peers, his physique is likely crumbling under booze etc, some of his underlings may have torn off a bit got their head down and got their economic game together. As his 30s progress, he will become depressed as his socio-economic status is eroded and women begin to look more for a stable beta. By the time he is 40 he will be fat, bald, depressed and have a below average income. If he got married his wife will likely be dissatisfied with the deflation of her husband's SMV. He spent his life building temporary and irrelevant mirages of pleasure. Meanwhile there were other guys who got their heads down and rode promotions, worked hard, started businesses - deferred gratification. This is the pool from which alpha males will be chosen - those with economic and social status. He only ever had social status which was built on the flimsiest of gimmicks. And thus, we no longer live in a world where typical alpha males are actually the alpha males.

Second point is I don't think the overarching drive for men to have sex is passing on genes, it's pleasure. If passing on genes is a factor it is largely subconscious and something most people are unaware of.

Penultimately, you mention that you like to see girls cry. That is the main area in which I would seek to analyse yourself as it seems a very destructive and sinister motive to have. Recently I had the opportunity to play someone for the first time in my life. I could have extracted some pleasure from them and left them in an emotional wreck, but instead I pulled away, tried to give them some avenues for self-analysis and pushed them away. I find the idea that I would do what you do disgusting. I don't think most men are capable of rape. If most Western men encountered a beautiful passed out women, I don't think many would be able to go through with raping her. I don't think many can also do what you do.

Finally, you mention you don't know where you got these drives from. One observation on this is that, particularly in the West, it's possible children are raised more by external sources than by their parents: teachers (state), media and peers. You also mention your family is Catholic. I find the problem is with religion is that the alleged values are only backed up by arguments like "because the Bible says so" or "I fear God" etc. This isn't really a sufficient backing for values as there is no reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎02‎. at 5:39 AM, SnapSlav said:

So I'm seeing the topic as two main questions. As for the question of, "Is there an explanation as to why women keep falling into the same trap," I think this is way too much overthinking of a relatively simpler issue. The attraction to "bad boys" is simple evolutionary psychology.

If women are the more communal, cooperative, and openness-centric of the two sexes because our evolution as a species necessitated that it be so, then women going along with their invaders and accepting the biggest and the baddest of the stronger and often-more-violent men worked to their advantage, because by that point their defenders had all been killed. Biologically, evolutionarily, psychologically, it just makes sense that they go for that, because it ensures the propagation of their genes. So women are built to be that way. That's the reason. Really the only reason.

Hi, SnapSlav !

Yeah, I've heard that explanation from Mr.Molyneux and Jordan Peterson, but somehow it seems lacky to me. I don't think a badboy is evolutionarily advantageous. Hear me out. It is a big misconception that armies of old went around the country burning and pillaging at will. A general, no matter how incompetent he was, tried to avoid pillaging wherever he could, because pacification of a region following a massacre was not easy. If you look into the Secret History of the Mongols, for example, you will find that the hordes were given permission to rape and pillage only on very special occasions. As an example, Baghdad was conquered completely peacefully, because the city surrendered after the Abbassid Caliphate lost the war. It was only after they rebelled that the city was razed. Which means that the average Mongol soldier had to be very disciplined in the first place in order not to get out of line. Same is even more true for European soldiers. During the Napoleonic Era, ladies and lords would sit at the edge of the battlefield to watch it like a football match, all without the fear of being assaulted by random soldiers.
My point is, a badboy is not disciplined, but reckless, untrustworthy, emotionally volatile, and quite annoying to be honest.
So how exactly is the badboy gene evolutionarily advantageous? Or is it simply that women have kept the badboy gene alive throughout the middle ages due to even older evolutionary strategies?

16 hours ago, aviet said:

Conversely, you (as I suspect) as the temporary/fake alpha male value what you describe: violating women, dominating them, gaming them etc. And you say it yourself - it validates you and I imagine you draw a lot of your self professed low opinion of yourself from your ability to do what a lot of men would like to do, but can't - have sexual access to a lot of young women.
I think that is probably the or one of the largest drivers behind both you and your victims behaviour: you are chasing something you value: excitement, status, validation. But this is all very temporary and not particularly deserved. It seems like a primary or the primary drive in your life is:
- emotionally eviscerating women to manipulate your body chemistry to get a high (which you are likely addicted to)
- validate yourself in the state of having high testosterone
But as you note, once you blow your beans, this temporary validation turns into disgust.

Hi, aviet

I think your assessment of a degenerate society is spot on. However, I am not sure I am a product of that society.

Just a couple  of things: First, "violate" is a tad strong of a word. Second, it is not about quantity for me, but about quality. I only take the best. Imagine your stereotypical good catholc girl, with a stable family, who has never even held the hand of a man. In my mind, if I can conquer that, I am a champ. And yes, I am probably addicted to it, because even after having zero contact with women under 25 for half a year, I still know I won't be able to resist the temptation once I return to the arena.

About the beans, that is not exactly what I said. What I mean is that I get my high out of playing the game, and I have found that getting the prize only diminishes my high. So I like to keep it zpped for as long as humanly possible.

16 hours ago, aviet said:

1. As for why girls keep falling for guys like you: as above, they have the luxury to do so; but I think the key factor is that they are completely directionless; they've probably never analysed their behaviour or anyone elses; they don't question anything, people's motives, the world etc.; they just end up in situations and probably blame everything bad that happens to them on someone else.

2. I don't agree with SnapSlav's assertion that evolutionary biology is the only reason and it's to do with selecting violent mates and passing on genes. Evolutionary biology plays a role in how we behave, but society has changed dramatically from the times when access to women and resources revolved around bashing heads together. If you behaved like that in a developed society today, you'll end up behind bars. The key difference between the societies, I outlined above - that we live in societies where many people have access to leisure and luxury. This is something that was only afforded to a very few in the past: alpha males and their women. In the past, you had to get resources before you could get the best women. Now because of widespread access to luxury it is no longer a necessity for men to seek resources to attract the most sought after women. Today access to women has a lot more to do with social status and being able to excite women who are driven by the desire to pleasure themselves. In the past you used to have to work hard to get resources to get in this position - to have both social and economic status. Now the two have been decoupled. There is a situation where young men gain social status largely by their ability to play social games, manipulate perceptions and emotions. Getting to the top of the pack will lead you to being an alpha male, or the leader of a group of men or dominant man in a group of men. For women who have the ability to pursue luxury and have zero self- or social knowledge, this is extremely desirable. But what is this alpha male leading his boys to? Is he going to improve their standard of living? Is he going to win a battle? Pass down plunder to them? Build a university? Make peace with a foe? No. The only thing he's likely to lead them to is the next pub or bar. In much else he is likely completely directionless.

1.  There is certainly truth there. I have found that men instinctively spot the girls who have had bad relations with their parents. The harder ones to get are the ones with parents. Which happen to be my type.

2. This begs the question really. How did the badboy gene survive throughout the centuries of a true badboy can only exist today? Or is it simply "human nature" to indulge yourself in the luxuries? I kinda have to doubt the second explanation, seeing so many exceptions to the rule. 
Either way, it still does not explain my situation.

16 hours ago, aviet said:

Second point is I don't think the overarching drive for men to have sex is passing on genes, it's pleasure. If passing on genes is a factor it is largely subconscious and something most people are unaware of.

Yeah, this is very important of a question in my opinion. Why do I seek this pleasure? Is it because everyone needs to have a vice? I don't drink, smoke, party, game, sleep around or anything. Could it be that I only do my thing because I simply need something to do that is destructive?

16 hours ago, aviet said:

Penultimately, you mention that you like to see girls cry. That is the main area in which I would seek to analyse yourself as it seems a very destructive and sinister motive to have. Recently I had the opportunity to play someone for the first time in my life. I could have extracted some pleasure from them and left them in an emotional wreck, but instead I pulled away, tried to give them some avenues for self-analysis and pushed them away. I find the idea that I would do what you do disgusting. I don't think most men are capable of rape. If most Western men encountered a beautiful passed out women, I don't think many would be able to go through with raping her. I don't think many can also do what you do.

It is very sad, because I am a very empathetic person (no, really). It breaks my heart whenever I see anyone crying, or when someone else makes a girl cry. But for some reason, I feel power when I do it. This is by the way the same power that one feels when they are public speaking, and making the audience laugh or boo. Control is the keyword here. I don't think I would go through with rape, because there is no challenge there, but emotional manipulation is definitely something I like to do. "If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything." I say "If you can make a girl cry, you can make here do even more."

16 hours ago, aviet said:

Finally, you mention you don't know where you got these drives from. One observation on this is that, particularly in the West, it's possible children are raised more by external sources than by their parents: teachers (state), media and peers.

You also mention your family is Catholic. I find the problem is with religion is that the alleged values are only backed up by arguments like "because the Bible says so" or "I fear God" etc. This isn't really a sufficient backing for values as there is no reasoning.

I have had the luck of having been homeschooled for 2 years after my parents realised that school was doing more harm than good. Coincidentally, I started exercising my new hobby at that time. Franky, I don't think there is a connection.

I am afraid you don't have a good understanding of Catholic morality. For over a millenium, the smartest people on the planet had been Catholic. Take Augustine, Thomas or whomever. They have been draining their brainpower building Catholic morality, which is extremely well-argued once you look into it. My favourite is GK Chesterton, as almost everything he says is very current even after a hundred years. As I said, it is all very well in my head. To be honest, it is Catholicism that has kept me alive for the past decade, as I have figured out there was no point in living very early on. But that is another story.

 

Your posts are coming in very late, Siegfried von Walheim

Quote

I know he has had two particular call-in-shows that come to mind.
Number 1: a PUA who had massive social anxiety as a kid, around women especially, and Stef dug out that his mom divorced his dad and took him to the cleaners for everything he spent decades working for. Pretty clear why the PUA enjoyed manipulating women and avoided commitment.
Number 2: a married Spanish or Arabian man (sounded something along those lines) who had "compulsive affairs" and considered his wife like a nun relative to the whores he defiled. His considered his dad a "weak man" and feared his mother, leading him to be like his mom towards his wife who was like his dad, and similarly had affairs like his mom. 

1. I think you think of your father as a weak or lesser man, especially in regards to his family life. Therefore you seek to be greater than him as an "alpha" male. Likewise you are arrogant in regards to world and see people as merely robots, without recognizing your own robotic tendencies. 

2. Warband is fun for the battles and conquests, not the post-unification. Either way you are getting dopamine hits from being with women and being like a favorite puppy of their's, for some reason. Dopamine hits and all that. Whether you pursue cheep trash, femme fatales with rings, or damsels in castles, it's all for dopamine. The question is why do you seek the dopamine in the first place? Chances are it's because you don't get it on your own, and it's like taking drugs to elevate yourself to what for most people is normal, and when you "crash", you realize how painful it is to be merely a body bag without anything to be particularly proud of and have to be fruitful in a seemingly barren world.

I have listened to both, and have drawn much knowledge, but as you see, wasn't enough. There was a lot that I could relate to, yet it still does not explain my situation. Quite franky, I don't think those guys were badboys, but simply womanizers and abusers. What I am talking about is rather different.

1. I know this sounds like every other caller, but I have never judged my father. And I am very much unlike the rest of my family in this regard. My mother and my siblings judge him and condemn his actions, whereas I don't. Don't get me wrong. I know his flaws, but I have made an effort to understand where from those flaws stem. There might be something to dig for here,

2. Yeah, as I have mentioned above, maybe I simply need a vice. Since I don't smoke, drink, game, gamble, or anything. But it's not like my life is empty. I am very athletic, I study a lot, I think a lot, I work a lot. Either way, I do seek dopamine, as all do. But why in this manner?

Quote

Also @Mishi2, I failed to put this in the post above, but I think I got ahead of myself: I'd appreciate it if you answered these few questions since they'd help me and others help you shovel your mound.
1: What exactly is your relationship with your father? Specifically your opinion of him and your big memories of him.
2: Same question but with your mother.
3: Same question but with your siblings.
4: Do you feel/think your dual-ethnic background might be a complicating matter in terms of the way you see people from both Hungarian (or White in general) and Mongolian (or "Oriental" in general) racial groups? Like maybe you look down on them, or are more attached to them, or some mix of both?
5:What theories do you have about yourself already? You might already be close to the truth of the matter, and I think it'd help everyone if you laid down some facts for reference and/or your own trail to truth.
@Everybody Else: Please add pertinent questions of your own if you think they're warranted or could be helpful. I am after all just a new man on the internet. 

1. I know he abused me a lot emotionally, as he did with his family. He beat me most realtive to my peers. He often said I looked and behaved like a girl, and recently he said I behaved gay (still an insult in Asia). Nevertheless, he is a very good man, relative to others I have encountered, I would give him a 7 out of 10. For he grew up with nothing, and he worked his way up from nothing as an entrepeneir, and he has given up massive amounts of his life for his family. It is hard to judge him once you get to know his full story.
2. I love my mother as much as a son can. She had been abusive early in my life due to birth control. She quit it as soon as she figured out what was causing her to be so evil. Since then, she has been an angel. My parents even tried having more children, but my mother was unable to, probably due to the past extensive birth control use. The only thing I cannot easily forgive is that she went working a few years after we were born. We had practically no parents for about 6 years.
3. My brothers are my only best friends, and I know we would die for each other without a thought. We are much closer than we are with our parents. We have had hostilities in the past, but we have been allies since our homeschooling years. We call out each other on our flaws without mercy. Mine being my badboyness. Still, there is only so far the subjective view of my brothers can go.
4. I am at complete peace with my background, but my sexual preferences lean towards Europe. I think the original Celtic homeland is where the most beautiful people live. From Bern eastward, from Nürnberg southward, from Budapest Westward, from Milan northward. 
There is one thing: When I first arrived in Europe, I did not think anyone found me attractive, since I don't look like anyone here. Oh boy was I ever wrong. So I started seeking out my next target at school, and I aimed as high as possible in order to affirm that I was indeed acceptable even in Europe.
5. I think I have said everything in the first post.

One thing I forgot to say is that my father had foreseen my nature when I was 6. I remember him telling me to be careful with girls. Something he did not tell my brothers, only me. He is very allergic to womanizers, his father being one. So the question would be: How did he know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Hi, SnapSlav !

Yeah, I've heard that explanation from Mr.Molyneux and Jordan Peterson, but somehow it seems lacky to me. I don't think a badboy is evolutionarily advantageous. Hear me out. It is a big misconception that armies of old went around the country burning and pillaging at will. A general, no matter how incompetent he was, tried to avoid pillaging wherever he could, because pacification of a region following a massacre was not easy. If you look into the Secret History of the Mongols, for example, you will find that the hordes were given permission to rape and pillage only on very special occasions. As an example, Baghdad was conquered completely peacefully, because the city surrendered after the Abbassid Caliphate lost the war. It was only after they rebelled that the city was razed. Which means that the average Mongol soldier had to be very disciplined in the first place in order not to get out of line. Same is even more true for European soldiers. During the Napoleonic Era, ladies and lords would sit at the edge of the battlefield to watch it like a football match, all without the fear of being assaulted by random soldiers.

Where do you learn all this stuff? I mean, I know most of this stuff from collecting a whole of lot things here and there.

I'm interested in where you learn about the way soldiers/nobles historically lived/behaved. 

50 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

My point is, a badboy is not disciplined, but reckless, untrustworthy, emotionally volatile, and quite annoying to be honest.
So how exactly is the badboy gene evolutionarily advantageous? Or is it simply that women have kept the badboy gene alive throughout the middle ages due to even older evolutionary strategies?

My assumption is it has to do with the R/K thing. The Badboy is the Bandit, not the Soldier. When the soldiers are fighting in the fields, weren't there bandits hitting the supply lines, plaguing the villages, and, more broadly including criminals in general, living in the now and not really caring for tomorrow?

Genetically the advantage is merely in numbers. One man can impregnate hundreds of women per year, although children born of such conception rarely lived to adulthood, enough would live for it to be viable for genetic reproduction and survival. 

50 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I am afraid you don't have a good understanding of Catholic morality. For over a millenium, the smartest people on the planet had been Catholic. Take Augustine, Thomas or whomever. They have been draining their brainpower building Catholic morality, which is extremely well-argued once you look into it. My favourite is GK Chesterton, as almost everything he says is very current even after a hundred years. As I said, it is all very well in my head. To be honest, it is Catholicism that has kept me alive for the past decade, as I have figured out there was no point in living very early on. But that is another story.

That last thing: what do you mean you learned "[I learned] there was no point in living early on"? May be something relevant to it you hadn't thought about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Yeah, I've heard that explanation from Mr.Molyneux and Jordan Peterson, but somehow it seems lacky to me. I don't think a badboy is evolutionarily advantageous. Hear me out. It is a big misconception that armies of old went around the country burning and pillaging at will. A general, no matter how incompetent he was, tried to avoid pillaging wherever he could, because pacification of a region following a massacre was not easy. If you look into the Secret History of the Mongols, for example, you will find that the hordes were given permission to rape and pillage only on very special occasions. As an example, Baghdad was conquered completely peacefully, because the city surrendered after the Abbassid Caliphate lost the war. It was only after they rebelled that the city was razed. Which means that the average Mongol soldier had to be very disciplined in the first place in order not to get out of line. Same is even more true for European soldiers. During the Napoleonic Era, ladies and lords would sit at the edge of the battlefield to watch it like a football match, all without the fear of being assaulted by random soldiers.
My point is, a badboy is not disciplined, but reckless, untrustworthy, emotionally volatile, and quite annoying to be honest.
So how exactly is the badboy gene evolutionarily advantageous? Or is it simply that women have kept the badboy gene alive throughout the middle ages due to even older evolutionary strategies?

No, you misunderstand. The evolutionary advantage is in the women submitting to "bad boys", not the men being bad boys. So the bad boys get to spread their genes, but only because the women accepted them, and the women accepted them because it was either submit or die. Men didn't have that choice, it was either kill or be killed, and bigger, badder male usually got to live another day by killing the less big, less bad rival male. Also, we're not talking about the last few thousand years, we're talking about primitive times where there were no such thing as "armies". Remember, most of human history was over a hundred thousand years of hunter gatherer small and primitive tribal society, and only relatively recently have we had civilization. Our species is adapted to that huge period of primitive living, where rival tribes would kill everything that wasn't them, not armies following orders.

So, to recap, for most of human existence, there were tiny tribes of primitive hunters and gatherers. They featured stoic men who would hunt to provide for the tribe, and rarely express their "emotions" (disappointment, fears, worries, etc) because it was evolutionarily disadvantageous to air your grievances/failures if you came back to the camp from an unsuccessful hunt without any food because it would only spread panic that could destabilize and endanger the tribe. Then there were the physically weaker, open and supportive gatherer women women who needed those communal bonds and openness instincts to nurture the children and aid each other in their daily tasks (being physically weaker and requiring teamwork) to keep the tribe alive. In that environment, when a rival tribe decides that it's easier to eliminate their rivals than to relocate and find better hunting grounds, the men have no option but to kill their enemies, or they die. The women have a different choice: submit to their invaders, and they can survive. This is the origin of the preference for "bad boys".

It's not that the men have ANY kind of genetic advantage for possessing this trait. It's that women are bred to select this trait, because doing so guaranteed their own survival.

Make more sense when it's explained that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Where do you learn all this stuff? I mean, I know most of this stuff from collecting a whole of lot things here and there. I'm interested in where you learn about the way soldiers/nobles historically lived/behaved. 

The particular example of Baghdad, I learned it from the Secret History of the Mongols. The idea of soldiers going around raping women started to seem dubious to me while I was watching a russian WW2 movie by Nikita Mihalkov, in which, most surprisingly, the germans were not going about raping people en mass. So that got me thinking in the first place that maybe it was just a hollywood trope. And once you look into it, it is. There are numerous accounts of soldiers being penalised in modern wars for misbehaviour (notably the entire RONA legion was executed for rape), but not only in modern times. I learned it stretches back to the ancient era. The 30 Years War was an interesting outlier, in which they mostly made use of mercenary armies, which were basically a band of utter badboys. That was the reason the 30 Years War was so devestating. Needless to say, Europeans generally stopped hiring them afterwards. The very reason the Swiss Guard were so highly valued, is that they were mercenaries who were not badboys. As for ancient times, you can read a ton about Alexander, who made special effort to keep his soldiers in line, as he was instructed by his mentor Aristotle. You can read about that anywhere. In fact, it was the Spartans who were the weird ones, since they were basically let rouge when they went on campaign, for which they were despised by the Greeks.
In short, all you have to do is look for authentic reports, not hollywood tropes.

23 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. My assumption is it has to do with the R/K thing. The Badboy is the Bandit, not the Soldier. When the soldiers are fighting in the fields, weren't there bandits hitting the supply lines, plaguing the villages, and, more broadly including criminals in general, living in the now and not really caring for tomorrow?
2. Genetically the advantage is merely in numbers. One man can impregnate hundreds of women per year, although children born of such conception rarely lived to adulthood, enough would live for it to be viable for genetic reproduction and survival. 

1. Exactly my point. For some odd reason, the women of the ages have kept the badboy gene alive despite all its evolutionary disadvantages. For example, even being excluded from the military for thousands of years. A bandit does not live very long, let's put it mildy. So is it really just the old evolutionary conditioning the thing that has been prompting women to lay with bandits?
2. It is still just odd. The badboy gene is an anomaly in the gene pool that women cause to persist for some reason. Even if we go with the "ancient conditioning" explanation, it still does not explain why that trait still exists in women. Wouldn't a woman with such preferences be quickly rooted out of the gene pool? Apparently not. So why does that genetic trait still persist?

23 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

That last thing: what do you mean you learned "[I learned] there was no point in living early on"? May be something relevant to it you hadn't thought about.

It is just logic and cost-benefit calculation to me.
My life will end in a few decades, maybe tomorrow, but the entire universe will end in a few trillion years. So even if somehow humankind survives the death of the solar system, my memory, my deeds, my footprint will only be around for a short while. And I won't even be around anymore. So what's the point? Suffer on this miserable planet, only to be made mention of in a history book at the most in a few decades? It just doesn't seem like a good deal. I have only lived 20 years, and I already think I have suffered too much to be worthwhile. Not to mention that I still have 40 years of suffering to go, supposing I live until 90 and if we suppose that from 20 to 50 it was complete heaven. Quite frankly, I have no idea how one survives as an atheist. Clearly most modern philosophers don't either. Once you travel to the end of logic, it is either religion or nihilism. Surprising how few people dare make that journey. Even Mr.Molyneux only goes a few hundred years.

 

22 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

No, you misunderstand. The evolutionary advantage is in the women submitting to "bad boys", not the men being bad boys. So the bad boys get to spread their genes, but only because the women accepted them, and the women accepted them because it was either submit or die. Men didn't have that choice, it was either kill or be killed, and bigger, badder male usually got to live another day by killing the less big, less bad rival male. Also, we're not talking about the last few thousand years, we're talking about primitive times where there were no such thing as "armies". Remember, most of human history was over a hundred thousand years of hunter gatherer small and primitive tribal society, and only relatively recently have we had civilization. Our species is adapted to that huge period of primitive living, where rival tribes would kill everything that wasn't them, not armies following orders.

So, to recap, for most of human existence, there were tiny tribes of primitive hunters and gatherers. They featured stoic men who would hunt to provide for the tribe, and rarely express their "emotions" (disappointment, fears, worries, etc) because it was evolutionarily disadvantageous to air your grievances/failures if you came back to the camp from an unsuccessful hunt without any food because it would only spread panic that could destabilize and endanger the tribe. Then there were the physically weaker, open and supportive gatherer women women who needed those communal bonds and openness instincts to nurture the children and aid each other in their daily tasks (being physically weaker and requiring teamwork) to keep the tribe alive. In that environment, when a rival tribe decides that it's easier to eliminate their rivals than to relocate and find better hunting grounds, the men have no option but to kill their enemies, or they die. The women have a different choice: submit to their invaders, and they can survive. This is the origin of the preference for "bad boys".

It's not that the men have ANY kind of genetic advantage for possessing this trait. It's that women are bred to select this trait, because doing so guaranteed their own survival.

Though I think badboys were never advantageous in any society, and that the male you describe is not exactly a badboy, that is an acceptable explanation.
However, that still does not explain why the genes that cause women to have such preferences still exist. We have had thousands of years during which badboys and the preference for them was very disadvantageous for survival. I'll say 4 thousand years at least. SO during such a long time, what prevented the prefernce of women from being rooted out of the gene pool? Or is it currently being rooted out? Or, horrifically, is it that the badboy gene is having a grand comeback due to lack of accountability for female sexuality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The particular example of Baghdad, I learned it from the Secret History of the Mongols. The idea of soldiers going around raping women started to seem dubious to me while I was watching a russian WW2 movie by Nikita Mihalkov, in which, most surprisingly, the germans were not going about raping people en mass. So that got me thinking in the first place that maybe it was just a hollywood trope. And once you look into it, it is. There are numerous accounts of soldiers being penalised in modern wars for misbehaviour (notably the entire RONA legion was executed for rape), but not only in modern times. I learned it stretches back to the ancient era. The 30 Years War was an interesting outlier, in which they mostly made use of mercenary armies, which were basically a band of utter badboys. That was the reason the 30 Years War was so devestating. Needless to say, Europeans generally stopped hiring them afterwards. The very reason the Swiss Guard were so highly valued, is that they were mercenaries who were not badboys. As for ancient times, you can read a ton about Alexander, who made special effort to keep his soldiers in line, as he was instructed by his mentor Aristotle. You can read about that anywhere. In fact, it was the Spartans who were the weird ones, since they were basically let rouge when they went on campaign, for which they were despised by the Greeks.
In short, all you have to do is look for authentic reports, not hollywood tropes.

All I can say: very interesting. 

Reminds me of how when Nobunaga Oda marched on Kyoto, because the city itself was a war-weary wreck, he explicitly forbade any kind of harassment be it rape or theft, and the punishment for any lawbreaker was death on sight.

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Exactly my point. For some odd reason, the women of the ages have kept the badboy gene alive despite all its evolutionary disadvantages. For example, even being excluded from the military for thousands of years. A bandit does not live very long, let's put it mildy. So is it really just the old evolutionary conditioning the thing that has been prompting women to lay with bandits?

Perhaps it's a perversion of "aggressiveness". 

Theoretically aggressiveness can be bad via "banditry" or "modern day gangster" while it can be good via "hard-nosed entrepreneur" or "Stefan Molynuex". 

Not to mention, it isn't all women who get the wets for the bandits. Nor all men who get the hards for the tramps. Each race and culture has a different ratio of K's to r's and my assumption as to why no race is 100% K and 100% r is that everyone has at least some predisposition to r/K selection, genetic mutation, and of course the Free Will which determines what might be "awakened" from an otherwise dormant gene. Like if a K dad beats his son, the son might have some repressed r genes awakened. However a son born of an r family isn't "doomed" to always be an r--he can evolve beyond that. Like Stefan Molyneux who otherwise would have made an interesting gangsta-rapper (ever see him in a beanie with sunglasses? Lol). 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:


2. It is still just odd. The badboy gene is an anomaly in the gene pool that women cause to persist for some reason. Even if we go with the "ancient conditioning" explanation, it still does not explain why that trait still exists in women. Wouldn't a woman with such preferences be quickly rooted out of the gene pool? Apparently not. So why does that genetic trait still persist?

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

It is just logic and cost-benefit calculation to me.
My life will end in a few decades, maybe tomorrow, but the entire universe will end in a few trillion years. So even if somehow humankind survives the death of the solar system, my memory, my deeds, my footprint will only be around for a short while. And I won't even be around anymore. So what's the point? Suffer on this miserable planet, only to be made mention of in a history book at the most in a few decades? It just doesn't seem like a good deal. I have only lived 20 years, and I already think I have suffered too much to be worthwhile. Not to mention that I still have 40 years of suffering to go, supposing I live until 90 and if we suppose that from 20 to 50 it was complete heaven. Quite frankly, I have no idea how one survives as an atheist. Clearly most modern philosophers don't either. Once you travel to the end of logic, it is either religion or nihilism. Surprising how few people dare make that journey. Even Mr.Molyneux only goes a few hundred years.

And I reverse that with the mindset Stefpai introduced me to: The Universe only matters BECAUSE we exist!!! Who cares if the existence of one man is merely but a memory compared to the age of the universe?? Either we wait ourselves to death and be content with what little we started, or we dare to risk, dare to live, and make something of ourselves so that at least our descendants can remember us! --To paraphrase Nobunaga Oda, who faced the possibility of either marching to his death or being starved to death in his castle when he was being invaded by the Imagawa Clan. Guess what: Neither happened. He rolled the dice and made one of history's most daring surprise attacks and successfully killed Yoshimoto Imagawa and drove out the massive enemy army, eventually leading to Nobunaga becoming the de facto Supreme Ruler of Japan until his assassination at the age of 49, shortly before his birthday.

And now every Japanese knows him, 500 years later. Not to mention Ieyasu Tokugawa who'd eventually end the Warring States Period and bring about 3-400 years of peace. The Tokugawa Clan, and even Nobunaga's direct descendants, remain alive and active in the world today.

I personally can't stand the "man is so small" viewpoint of the world, when clearly man has the potential to be so great and magnificent. I'd rather, to make it personal, fail in my dreams of becoming a financially successful author than never have made the attempt. If I succeed, I become minorly famous and wealthy enough to support a large family. If I fail, then it would be no different from if I had simply waited to death, except with the bonus of a much stronger and more productive character. 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 

Though I think badboys were never advantageous in any society, and that the male you describe is not exactly a badboy, that is an acceptable explanation.
However, that still does not explain why the genes that cause women to have such preferences still exist. We have had thousands of years during which badboys and the preference for them was very disadvantageous for survival. I'll say 4 thousand years at least. SO during such a long time, what prevented the prefernce of women from being rooted out of the gene pool? Or is it currently being rooted out? Or, horrifically, is it that the badboy gene is having a grand comeback due to lack of accountability for female sexuality?

The last part certainly makes sense. Bandits are the new Soldiers, Deadbeats the new Heroes. It's like the Late Roman Empire: we either got to shape up or get beaten by outsiders into shape. Therefore we must do what we can to wake people up and make the plane landing as soft as possible rather than a hard crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Boys

Sparta - Yeah I remember documentaries saying they had their children before they went to war to replace any loses. Were much less flexible with their culture compared to other city states.

K - Kill everyone, Scorched Earth or at least those who do not submit and pose a threat. Territorial, more stable. Businessman. Order.

r - Better to be fucked than killed. Entrepreneurial, less stable. Chaos.

Sack of Rome - Not a lot of happy paintings from the time, looked on Wikipedia said a lot of HRE soldiers died after the sacking from venereal diseases.

An Example of a Bad Boy situation resolved

When I was talking to a farmer in Portugal, who was a former shepherd. He mentioned that he was once a typical Bad Boy, was atheist and became Catholic. His wife was rather plain and I think her parents were landowners in the region. Anyway he mentioned that when his daughter was born he settled down, had quite a large expression of joy, kind of in contrast to when I mentioned the Pig sacrifice in Spain and saw the blood drain out his face, might have been wrong on the throat cutting I think he mentioned they stab it in the heart. I was helping out as he had done his back in. When I was cleaning out the stables he said to go slowly, which I did, was pretty surprised when he saw how much I cleaned out. Interesting to see how physiology plays out, I reckon I'm Norwegian Nordic mostly phenotype wise, broad shoulders useful for filling hay lofts and moving rocks.  

"All that glitters is not Gold" interesting to look at the wider context of the quote.

Stoicism

When listening to Marcus Aurelius Meditations, it mentioned thanking his mentors for not letting him fall into mindless sex with concubines. Apparently it was considered and still is considered, to be womanly to give into mindless lust, at least in parts of Asia.

 

Finding a mate

And thus we get to the heart of the matter. Often I have heard it said that men are predisposed to giving women resources. But is that always the case? I guess the vast majority of men on the forum are predisposed towards that. Although what if you're not, and to some degree the situation working the other way round. Perhaps a strategy could be reasoned out doesn't have to be perfect, but allow for some psychological matching if not entirely values based? Do the whole Big 5 Personality thing and try to infer where your type of girl/woman might be? High Conscientiousness - Intrinsically motivated. Low Conscientiousness - Extrinsically motivated. Do Good works for the community? Nooo, although as a side effect fair enough.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Though I think badboys were never advantageous in any society, and that the male you describe is not exactly a badboy, that is an acceptable explanation.
However, that still does not explain why the genes that cause women to have such preferences still exist. We have had thousands of years during which badboys and the preference for them was very disadvantageous for survival. I'll say 4 thousand years at least. SO during such a long time, what prevented the prefernce of women from being rooted out of the gene pool? Or is it currently being rooted out? Or, horrifically, is it that the badboy gene is having a grand comeback due to lack of accountability for female sexuality?

Again, we're talking about 4  having less of an impact than 100-200. Even if we included ALL of human history post-agriculture, we're only talking about 11, which is still nothing compared to 100-200. A couple thousand years aren't enough to change our genes so drastically. Considering 4 thousand years "a long time" genetically is just a mistake, because that's just a flash in the pan that is our genetic history.

Additionally- again -it's not that "bad boy" genes are advantageous (to the males who have them), it's that female behavior to submit to "bad boys" is what's advantageous (to the women who have that). Think of it as guy A running a successful business versus guy B owning of a subsidized "business". Guy A doesn't understand how guy B could stay in business, because he has poor business practices, wastes money, has little diligence or hard-work ethics, so HOW could he still be running a business? It's not that he's running a successful business at all, he's just being kept "in business" because tax-funded subsidies are keeping him afloat. This is what female selection versus male exception is all about. If women choose poorly, you get more of the bad genes, and if you've paid ANY amount of attention to the "single mother" series of videos of Stefan's, you might notice that there are many women who make very bad choices. Some men spread their genes by being exceptional, some men spread their genes simply because women chose them.

Maybe the way you can look at it is that all those "efforts" to make better sexual selection is really only giving us better people. But that's still just select individuals, which you have to seek out and identify with great care over a long period of time. It's not the species as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎04‎. at 6:53 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Reminds me of how when Nobunaga Oda marched on Kyoto, because the city itself was a war-weary wreck, he explicitly forbade any kind of harassment be it rape or theft, and the punishment for any lawbreaker was death on sight. 

Its funny that I only know these Japanese references of yours because of Shogun Total War. You play?

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎04‎. at 6:53 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Perhaps it's a perversion of "aggressiveness". Theoretically aggressiveness can be bad via "banditry" or "modern day gangster" while it can be good via "hard-nosed entrepreneur" or "Stefan Molynuex". Not to mention, it isn't all women who get the wets for the bandits. Nor all men who get the hards for the tramps. Each race and culture has a different ratio of K's to r's and my assumption as to why no race is 100% K and 100% r is that everyone has at least some predisposition to r/K selection, genetic mutation, and of course the Free Will which determines what might be "awakened" from an otherwise dormant gene. Like if a K dad beats his son, the son might have some repressed r genes awakened. However a son born of an r family isn't "doomed" to always be an r--he can evolve beyond that. Like Stefan Molyneux who otherwise would have made an interesting gangsta-rapper (ever see him in a beanie with sunglasses? Lol). 

I think there is some conflation going on here. A badboy is not necessarily an aggressive guy. He is definitely strong-willed, but the reason I use the term badboy, is that he makes it his thing to defraud women. But yeah, the rest I agree with.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎04‎. at 6:53 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

And I reverse that with the mindset Stefpai introduced me to: The Universe only matters BECAUSE we exist!!! Who cares if the existence of one man is merely but a memory compared to the age of the universe?? Either we wait ourselves to death and be content with what little we started, or we dare to risk, dare to live, and make something of ourselves so that at least our descendants can remember us!

I personally can't stand the "man is so small" viewpoint of the world, when clearly man has the potential to be so great and magnificent. I'd rather, to make it personal, fail in my dreams of becoming a financially successful author than never have made the attempt. If I succeed, I become minorly famous and wealthy enough to support a large family. If I fail, then it would be no different from if I had simply waited to death, except with the bonus of a much stronger and more productive character. 

So if i understand you correctly, life is worth living because there is a good chance that we will go on to do something "great". To be honest, I don't give a damn. Also, please don't misunderstand my argument. I did not say that man is so small etc. My main point was that it was not worth it for me personally.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎04‎. at 8:17 PM, RichardY said:

Bad Boys
Sparta - Yeah I remember documentaries saying they had their children before they went to war to replace any loses. Were much less flexible with their culture compared to other city states.
K - Kill everyone, Scorched Earth or at least those who do not submit and pose a threat. Territorial, more stable. Businessman. Order.
r - Better to be fucked than killed. Entrepreneurial, less stable. Chaos.
Sack of Rome - Not a lot of happy paintings from the time, looked on Wikipedia said a lot of HRE soldiers died after the sacking from venereal diseases.

Hi, RichardY

I don't think R/K is relevant here. A badboy is not necessarily out to get pussy. His main thing is to toy with women. There are R/K variants within badboys, as we see that there are those like me who don't go for quantity, but for quality, and not to lay, but to dominate.

Sack of Rome? Yep. All were mercenaries of whom the Emperor lost control.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎04‎. at 8:17 PM, RichardY said:

Stoicism
When listening to Marcus Aurelius Meditations, it mentioned thanking his mentors for not letting him fall into mindless sex with concubines. Apparently it was considered and still is considered, to be womanly to give into mindless lust, at least in parts of Asia.

Finding a mate
And thus we get to the heart of the matter. Often I have heard it said that men are predisposed to giving women resources. But is that always the case? I guess the vast majority of men on the forum are predisposed towards that. Although what if you're not, and to some degree the situation working the other way round. Perhaps a strategy could be reasoned out doesn't have to be perfect, but allow for some psychological matching if not entirely values based? Do the whole Big 5 Personality thing and try to infer where your type of girl/woman might be? High Conscientiousness - Intrinsically motivated. Low Conscientiousness - Extrinsically motivated. Do Good works for the community? Nooo, although as a side effect fair enough.

Quite franky, I don't know how these points are releveant. But of course I appreciate the wisdom.

19 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Again, we're talking about 4  having less of an impact than 100-200. Even if we included ALL of human history post-agriculture, we're only talking about 11, which is still nothing compared to 100-200. A couple thousand years aren't enough to change our genes so drastically. Considering 4 thousand years "a long time" genetically is just a mistake, because that's just a flash in the pan that is our genetic history. Additionally- again -it's not that "bad boy" genes are advantageous (to the males who have them), it's that female behavior to submit to "bad boys" is what's advantageous (to the women who have that). Think of it as guy A running a successful business versus guy B owning of a subsidized "business". Guy A doesn't understand how guy B could stay in business, because he has poor business practices, wastes money, has little diligence or hard-work ethics, so HOW could he still be running a business? It's not that he's running a successful business at all, he's just being kept "in business" because tax-funded subsidies are keeping him afloat. This is what female selection versus male exception is all about. If women choose poorly, you get more of the bad genes, and if you've paid ANY amount of attention to the "single mother" series of videos of Stefan's, you might notice that there are many women who make very bad choices. Some men spread their genes by being exceptional, some men spread their genes simply because women chose them. Maybe the way you can look at it is that all those "efforts" to make better sexual selection is really only giving us better people. But that's still just select individuals, which you have to seek out and identify with great care over a long period of time. It's not the species as a whole.

Yeah, I got all of that. It's not that I am trying to argue with you. Just that the whole phenomenon makes little sense to me; then again, not a rare thing that biology makes no sense.
And it is so frustrating too to know that only if women would stop doing what they are doing, the badboy gene would go extinct, and Mr.Molyneux would not have a call-in show anymore.

I first started noticing the effects of female sexual preference when I was still in high school, where I had many good friends of outstanding character. And for a reason I could not figure out, none of the girls were sexually interested in them - Zero. And I simply could not figure it out, and I still can't to this day.
There was a female colleague of mine whose husband was an exceptionally serene and considerate guy, not to mention very diligent, and a doctor. The woman was a very agreeable person herself from a stable family and a christian background. Yet one day she just gets up and cheats on the guy. Her excuse was the usual "I need to live", "I was dissatisfied", "I need to find myself". My cognitive dissonance can only be stressed so far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Its funny that I only know these Japanese references of yours because of Shogun Total War. You play?

Nope. As a console peasant my entrance to Japanese history was Samurai Warriors at the age of 7-8 and eventually the Nobunaga's Ambition series by Kou Shibusawa. 

That particular example I remembered from Nobunaga's Ambition Rise to Power, in an event scene where Nobunaga, after clearing the way, enters the Capital with the wannabe Shogun Yoshiaki Ashikaga. 

I strongly recommend Nobunaga's Ambition Sphere of Influence to anyone wanting to play something that combines history with expand, exploit, and diplomacy gameplay. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I think there is some conflation going on here. A badboy is not necessarily an aggressive guy. He is definitely strong-willed, but the reason I use the term badboy, is that he makes it his thing to defraud women. But yeah, the rest I agree with.

A "bad boy" is generally any "rake" (i.e. a hot good for nothing) with a wick. What you're describing is far more personal. I assume the reason is because you either want to get revenge against bad women by "debasing high quality women" or want to "step over" your father. \

I think trying to find out why the "manipulator" gene exists is like trying to find why the "killer" gene exists; it's case by case. Therefore instead of trying to abstract it, I recommend you zoom the camera back onto yourself so we can make this more productive instead of merely theoretical abstraction. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

So if i understand you correctly, life is worth living because there is a good chance that we will go on to do something "great". To be honest, I don't give a damn. Also, please don't misunderstand my argument. I did not say that man is so small etc. My main point was that it was not worth it for me personally.

Basically. I think you're not really "living" unless you have some greater goal and a willingness to live for it. I think you not having much of a motivation to live without Christ or a grand ambition is tied to why you manipulate women. 

I think you either fear women because of something involving your father, or want to get revenge because of something involving your mother. 

I'd appreciate if you opened up more on this account since I can't tell if my shovel is hitting metal or gravel. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Sack of Rome? Yep. All were mercenaries of whom the Emperor lost control.

That Sabaton song "the Last Stand" comes to mind...

Well, the Kaiser was quite dependent on his commanders who, from what I remember, did their own thing while the courtiers poisoned the commanders' reputations in an effort to prevent any rebellions by, say, Generalissimo Wallenstein. 

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

And it is so frustrating too to know that only if women would stop doing what they are doing, the badboy gene would go extinct, and Mr.Molyneux would not have a call-in show anymore.

It goes both ways: don't fuck tramps, and you do half the work! Instead, breed like crazy with super fine high quality females. Unless you yourself happen to be low quality, in which case you need Self Knowledge, therapy (either by a religious professional or a secular one or both), and mindset reformation. 

Perhaps Stefpai might be interested in having you on his Call-in-Show... ;)

12 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There was a female colleague of mine whose husband was an exceptionally serene and considerate guy, not to mention very diligent, and a doctor. The woman was a very agreeable person herself from a stable family and a christian background. Yet one day she just gets up and cheats on the guy. Her excuse was the usual "I need to live", "I was dissatisfied", "I need to find myself". My cognitive dissonance can only be stressed so far.

Short answer: there was more going on than you knew or either of those two were letting you know. Men and women may be irrational, but we aren't totally random and crazy. If they were truly good and stable, there wouldn't be any adultery or whatever. Nothing comes from a void...remember, you can only know yourself and your future children 100%. You could also learn about your future wife 100% too--if you pay attention and are sensitive to the signs people emit subconsciously. 

Not saying that's easy or obvious; but I think it can be learned with wisdom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

And it is so frustrating too to know that only if women would stop doing what they are doing, the badboy gene would go extinct, and Mr.Molyneux would not have a call-in show anymore.

Oh, I wouldn't be THAT charitable. That might take out a sizable chunk of the world's problems, but I'm sure there are PLENTY more woes in the world to solve that would give Stefan ample content to work with... unfortunately.

 

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I first started noticing the effects of female sexual preference when I was still in high school, where I had many good friends of outstanding character. And for a reason I could not figure out, none of the girls were sexually interested in them - Zero. And I simply could not figure it out, and I still can't to this day.
There was a female colleague of mine whose husband was an exceptionally serene and considerate guy, not to mention very diligent, and a doctor. The woman was a very agreeable person herself from a stable family and a christian background. Yet one day she just gets up and cheats on the guy. Her excuse was the usual "I need to live", "I was dissatisfied", "I need to find myself". My cognitive dissonance can only be stressed so far.

Sexual selection doesn't really target the qualities that make "good men", such as virtue, honesty, integrity, for the same reason as explained above in the 4 vs 200 point. These were not "valuable" traits in the hunter gatherer sense of survival needs. They seek assertiveness and aggressiveness in male partners because that's what safeguards and provides in that primitive environment, and both alphas and bad boys exhibit those qualities. So on an instinctual level they can't distinguish between the two. They want alphas, but they don't have filters for the important characteristics that differentiate an alpha from a bad boy, so they go for both indiscriminately. And for the women who are smart enough to KNOW the difference, good luck winning the argument between her frontal lobe and her lizard brain. In the moment, we all follow our instincts.

On an aggregate level, some women will get lucky and nab an alpha by following their instincts, while most will just get caught up dealing with the bad guys they ought to steer clear of. "Serene" and "kind" are just not traits that women select for, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎06‎. at 1:23 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

A "bad boy" is generally any "rake" (i.e. a hot good for nothing) with a wick. What you're describing is far more personal. I assume the reason is because you either want to get revenge against bad women by "debasing high quality women" or want to "step over" your father. \

Let's get our terms straight then.
- There is the player, someone like Don Juan, I would think. Because he goes for quantity. And because he uses tactics of the pickup artist.
- The pickup artist is quite simple. He only has his tactics to build on, but not much else. As seen in the movie Hitch.
- The womanizer is someone who can't keep it zipped, and goes around irresponsibly banging women. Bill Clinton for example.
- The badboy is someone who uses his charisma and dominant demeanour to defraud quality women. He goes for quality women because cheap women don't require much effort. Going for cheap women would render him as a womanizer, which he finds demeaning.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎06‎. at 1:23 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Basically. I think you're not really "living" unless you have some greater goal and a willingness to live for it. I think you not having much of a motivation to live without Christ or a grand ambition is tied to why you manipulate women. 

I think you either fear women because of something involving your father, or want to get revenge because of something involving your mother. 

I'd appreciate if you opened up more on this account since I can't tell if my shovel is hitting metal or gravel. 

I can't tell either. Neither of those seem applicable to my case. If they were, trust me, I would admit. You can ask questions to get deeper, coz I don't know where to start.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎06‎. at 1:23 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

That Sabaton song "the Last Stand" comes to mind...

In the name of God! Goosebumps every time...

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎06‎. at 1:23 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. It goes both ways: don't fuck tramps, and you do half the work! Instead, breed like crazy with super fine high quality females. Unless you yourself happen to be low quality, in which case you need Self Knowledge, therapy (either by a religious professional or a secular one or both), and mindset reformation.
2. Perhaps Stefpai might be interested in having you on his Call-in-Show... ;)
3. Short answer: there was more going on than you knew or either of those two were letting you know. Men and women may be irrational, but we aren't totally random and crazy. If they were truly good and stable, there wouldn't be any adultery or whatever. Nothing comes from a void...remember, you can only know yourself and your future children 100%. You could also learn about your future wife 100% too--if you pay attention and are sensitive to the signs people emit subconsciously. 

1. As I said before, I don't care for low quality women.
2. I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing my intimate life on air. If anything, I want to talk about the refugee crisis with him, because that is my field of expertise. Without exaggeration, I am the person who knows the most in the entire world about the matter. 
3. You are tight, she had her reasons, but they were reasons I can't really accept. There is absolutely no valid reason for cheating on a good man.

 

21 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Sexual selection doesn't really target the qualities that make "good men", such as virtue, honesty, integrity, for the same reason as explained above in the 4 vs 200 point. These were not "valuable" traits in the hunter gatherer sense of survival needs. They seek assertiveness and aggressiveness in male partners because that's what safeguards and provides in that primitive environment, and both alphas and bad boys exhibit those qualities. So on an instinctual level they can't distinguish between the two. They want alphas, but they don't have filters for the important characteristics that differentiate an alpha from a bad boy, so they go for both indiscriminately. And for the women who are smart enough to KNOW the difference, good luck winning the argument between her frontal lobe and her lizard brain. In the moment, we all follow our instincts.

On an aggregate level, some women will get lucky and nab an alpha by following their instincts, while most will just get caught up dealing with the bad guys they ought to steer clear of. "Serene" and "kind" are just not traits that women select for, unfortunately.

Suppose I were your daughter... What advice would you give me to help me distinguish between badboys and alphas? 

As some men have learned to override their biological preferences of going after butts and buns, how would women accomplish the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

Suppose I were your daughter... What advice would you give me to help me distinguish between badboys and alphas? 

As some men have learned to override their biological preferences of going after butts and buns, how would women accomplish the same?

Like I said, we're talking about "in the moment". We all know what things are good qualities in people. Some people simply choose not to act on that knowledge. There's no special "lesson" to give our daughters/sisters/cousins/etc that will prevent them from picking bad boys. They either have the capacity to see past instinctual urges and think about the long-term impact of their decisions- what Stef refers to as "deferral of gratification" -or they don't. Find me a women who when asked whether they'd date a man who was honest or who never told them the truth they'd pick the latter, because I'm positive they'd all say they want the honest man. But that doesn't mean they will actually pick a man with integrity over a serial liar, when presented the choice.

Again, we're talking about instincts, here. Rational thinking (sadly) does not apply. After all, the question you posed was not "how can we change them" but "why do they do this?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Let's get our terms straight then.
- There is the player, someone like Don Juan, I would think. Because he goes for quantity. And because he uses tactics of the pickup artist.
- The pickup artist is quite simple. He only has his tactics to build on, but not much else. As seen in the movie Hitch.
- The womanizer is someone who can't keep it zipped, and goes around irresponsibly banging women. Bill Clinton for example.
- The badboy is someone who uses his charisma and dominant demeanour to defraud quality women. He goes for quality women because cheap women don't require much effort. Going for cheap women would render him as a womanizer, which he finds demeaning.

I can't tell either. Neither of those seem applicable to my case. If they were, trust me, I would admit. You can ask questions to get deeper, coz I don't know where to start.

All right. 

Can you think of ANYTHING in your past that would cause you to like defiling quality women? I doubt it's simply because you're half-Mongolian or whatever. (Not saying you said or think that--I just can't help but get an image of Genghis Khan asking why he likes conquering the world so much...)

Quote

1. As I said before, I don't care for low quality women.

Not what I meant. I meant if men in general wouldn't bang low quality women, half the war would be over. 

Quote


2. I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing my intimate life on air. If anything, I want to talk about the refugee crisis with him, because that is my field of expertise. Without exaggeration, I am the person who knows the most in the entire world about the matter. 

Then you will find hundreds of men braver than you merely speaking into a microphone without a face on his Call-in-Shows. I get it--it's awkward, and very vulnerable. However that's not really any different than here--except you keep abstracting away from yourself. I don't think understanding abstractions will get you any closer to self-knowledge. If it did, wouldn't you already know by now?

Quote


3. You are tight, she had her reasons, but they were reasons I can't really accept. There is absolutely no valid reason for cheating on a good man.

You're right. Except I doubt he's a good man. Either he's secretly disturbed in some way, or he has bad judgement and therefore married with his wick as a tick.

Quote

 

Suppose I were your daughter... What advice would you give me to help me distinguish between badboys and alphas? 

Alphas: JUST LIKE DADDY (assuming I live my life as I intend to and maintain my self-discipline and desire to evolve instead of what most guys my age do--clock out or live with the expectation of dying tomorrow)

Bad boys; they dodge personal questions, attempt to portray themselves in ways bigger than they really are, they care too much about their self-image, they shy away from the truth and deep, meaningful discussions, they manipulate and act like they're something special, etc. etc. It's really easy to point out bad boys and other low-lives. It's hard to find and attract the high quality. I can't say I'm "high quality", but I do believe I'm "high quality in progress" which beats half the male population by far.  

Quote

As some men have learned to override their biological preferences of going after butts and buns, how would women accomplish the same?

Simple: by showing examples. If enough women were to demonstrate what it means to choose right versus choosing wrong, and popularize it via the internet or (hypothetically) the MSM, then women all across the world would be changing their behaviors overnight. 

If you want that to happen, you must start with yourself. Become a high quality male, find a high quality female, live happily and fruitfully, and them BAM. A perfect example of what it means to do good and live good and how that's far superior and preferable to being bad. 

The hard part is actually doing it. And I know you know that--hence why you're trying to open up and get someone to dig our your inner poop and replace it with gold. 

All I can ask, that might set you on the right direction, is: WHEN and HOW did you discover your fetish for debasing "high quality" women? Perhaps the key is when you first discovered your kink for being b-b-bad to the b-b-bone...

Edited by Siegfried von Walheim
Minor grammatical errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎07‎. at 3:05 AM, SnapSlav said:

Like I said, we're talking about "in the moment". We all know what things are good qualities in people. Some people simply choose not to act on that knowledge. There's no special "lesson" to give our daughters/sisters/cousins/etc that will prevent them from picking bad boys. They either have the capacity to see past instinctual urges and think about the long-term impact of their decisions- what Stef refers to as "deferral of gratification" -or they don't. Find me a women who when asked whether they'd date a man who was honest or who never told them the truth they'd pick the latter, because I'm positive they'd all say they want the honest man. But that doesn't mean they will actually pick a man with integrity over a serial liar, when presented the choice.

Again, we're talking about instincts, here. Rational thinking (sadly) does not apply. After all, the question you posed was not "how can we change them" but "why do they do this?"

I agree with the bulk of what you said, however, you seem to be coming from a genetic determinist angle. Of course there is a lesson that has to be taught to young girls about choosing men. Even we men talk about the "red flags" to look out for, as an example.

My question rephrased would be: There is definitely a glaring difference between true alphas and badboys. What is it? Is there a way to test for it?

Even in the very latest call-in show, the girl asks: "Where do you find good men?" And she was not the first. So it is quite clear that girls honestly have no idea.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎07‎. at 5:09 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Can you think of ANYTHING in your past that would cause you to like defiling quality women? I doubt it's simply because you're half-Mongolian or whatever. (Not saying you said or think that--I just can't help but get an image of Genghis Khan asking why he likes conquering the world so much...)

At around the age of 16, I realised that I don't have any lust for bad girls. They can't get me hard even when they are rubbing up against me. So that leaves the quality women.

I began labeling myself a badboy around the age of 14 when I realised how much I control women by very simple things. I even wrote a simple set of instructions for myself: "One look, one word, one smile, and she is all mine."
My father has a gift for knowing people just by simply looking at them, and I have it as well. We don't really know how it works, but it does. We use this skill daily, and apply it too. He applies it in his business "human resources", and I apply it when I am dealing with women.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎07‎. at 5:09 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Then you will find hundreds of men braver than you merely speaking into a microphone without a face on his Call-in-Shows. I get it--it's awkward, and very vulnerable. However that's not really any different than here--except you keep abstracting away from yourself. I don't think understanding abstractions will get you any closer to self-knowledge. If it did, wouldn't you already know by now?

Abstractions are part of it, but you are right, I have to be as personal as possible in order to make the discussion fruitful. Still, not ready for a call-in yet.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎07‎. at 5:09 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

You're right. Except I doubt he's a good man. Either he's secretly disturbed in some way, or he has bad judgement and therefore married with his wick as a tick.

I don't throw around the term "good" willy-nilly. He is definitely a good man. Definitely not a jock or a chad... rather quite gently. I guess that is the problem.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎07‎. at 5:09 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Alphas: JUST LIKE DADDY (assuming I live my life as I intend to and maintain my self-discipline and desire to evolve instead of what most guys my age do--clock out or live with the expectation of dying tomorrow)

Bad boys; they dodge personal questions, attempt to portray themselves in ways bigger than they really are, they care too much about their self-image, they shy away from the truth and deep, meaningful discussions, they manipulate and act like they're something special, etc. etc. It's really easy to point out bad boys and other low-lives. It's hard to find and attract the high quality. I can't say I'm "high quality", but I do believe I'm "high quality in progress" which beats half the male population by far.  

You say it is easy, but clearly not so easy for women. Just listen to the last call-in. "Where do I find good men?". My brain wen "WOMAN, you serious?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Before I go any further: I made a second post which was modded out of existence. It recognized there was a post of yours I missed ("Siegfried...Your posts are coming in very late") and basically I'm thinking you're not assigning moral responsibility to your parents because you excused both of them in that post.

Email me if you want quicker answers.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

My question rephrased would be: There is definitely a glaring difference between true alphas and badboys. What is it? Is there a way to test for it?

Ask them straightforward questions and wait to see if they give straightforward answers. Also, notice how vain they are. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Even in the very latest call-in show, the girl asks: "Where do you find good men?" And she was not the first. So it is quite clear that girls honestly have no idea.

My generation wasn't taught how to date; just how to mate. I can't say I'm surprised that girls are as clueless as guys. I'll definitely be catching up in the call-in-shows. I just finished the Menendez and Weinstein ones last night.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

At around the age of 16, I realised that I don't have any lust for bad girls. They can't get me hard even when they are rubbing up against me. So that leaves the quality women.

Can't say I felt any differently. The thing was, I really distrusted women in general and had no friends. I started slacking in sexual standards once I started becoming humbler, and lost the desire to white knight once I realized why I was white knighting...

...Then I had a black knight problem. Which was fixed when I realized good girls, like good guys, do in fact exist. It's REALLY hard to believe sometimes, but they do.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I began labeling myself a badboy around the age of 14 when I realised how much I control women by very simple things. I even wrote a simple set of instructions for myself: "One look, one word, one smile, and she is all mine."

I've heard guys really have no power of picking up girls and in reality it is always the girls that choose to bang the guys. May be true, may be apocryphal. 

Either way, I'm  starting to think maybe you have a need to feel powerful and in control while in environments you have no control in. Like dating: you can only control yourself and give yourself the illusion of controlling your date.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:


My father has a gift for knowing people just by simply looking at them, and I have it as well. We don't really know how it works, but it does. We use this skill daily, and apply it too. He applies it in his business "human resources", and I apply it when I am dealing with women.

I understand. That gift runs in my family too. Perhaps we should become Kings...I mean, being a good judge of character is really all that's needed.

...Until I discover I'm not so good as I think I am. Better make sure that doesn't happen by keeping my eyes open. 

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Abstractions are part of it, but you are right, I have to be as personal as possible in order to make the discussion fruitful. Still, not ready for a call-in yet.

I don't throw around the term "good" willy-nilly. He is definitely a good man. Definitely not a jock or a chad... rather quite gently. I guess that is the problem.

Then it was his wick. Or you simply didn't know him well enough. Or both. Not saying she's blameless, just only half the fault.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

You say it is easy, but clearly not so easy for women. Just listen to the last call-in. "Where do I find good men?". My brain wen "WOMAN, you serious?"

It's easy once you know. It's a mystery while still in the Leftist Modernity Matrix of Eternal Hedonism and Long-winded Acronyms (LMMEHL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 8:46 AM, Mishi2 said:

I agree with the bulk of what you said, however, you seem to be coming from a genetic determinist angle. Of course there is a lesson that has to be taught to young girls about choosing men. Even we men talk about the "red flags" to look out for, as an example.

My question rephrased would be: There is definitely a glaring difference between true alphas and badboys. What is it? Is there a way to test for it?

Even in the very latest call-in show, the girl asks: "Where do you find good men?" And she was not the first. So it is quite clear that girls honestly have no idea.

It might seem like I'm making the deterministic argument, but I'm fundamentally not, because I'm always advocating for personal agency. You always have agency in your decisions, even if the decision is just, "I'm not going to associate with someone whose genes are the reason they're that type of person." That's because when it comes to the matter of "nature vs nurture", I'm nowhere near the fence, I'm unabashedly on the "nature" side of the yard. I place the bulk of the emphasis on genetics. But that doesn't mean the nurture effect isn't real, and I do recognize that many things that people are up to are a direct result of their childhood. (See Sieg's comments for a perfect example, in how he's probing for childhood history to answer his questions.) But that does mean that I'm ignoring the nurture element because it's a minority of responsibility, to me, and therefore not as important to address. I'm not discarding the effects of environment, nor am I advocating that anyone just do whatever-the-fuck they want because it won't affect them at all (it really would), I just don't want to add tedious little disclaimers of "not all [insert]" or "not every time" to all of my statements, just to acknowledge that 20-40% of developmental impact. That's a waste of time. It's much more expedient (to me) to just assume that we all understand that there are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't discount the rule automatically.

The obvious difference between a "true" alpha and a bad boy is empathy. A real alpha would not extract pleasure from corrupting others, or witnessing them experience any kind of pain. But this is not a characteristic that you can gauge by simple observation. Just like how a genuinely good person and an absolute sociopath can both exhibit amiable behavior outwardly, the distinctions that differentiate the two won't be observed until you delve deeper and discover the things about themselves that they actively hide.

But are there other differences that are easier to spot? Yeah, there are: the friends they keep. You can tell a lot about someone by their company. It will tell you 2 very powerful things abouthem: 1) Who they want in their company, and 2) Who they despise. You can learn a lot about someone by who/what they hate. If you walk into someone's room, and it's immaculate, with everything neatly organized, color-coded, etc, you might conclude that this person despises disorderliness, and that makes them neurotic, and chances are you'd be right. A person who keeps a lot of weak people around him might not be a true alpha, because he's surrounding himself with people that make him look good. People who are easily influenced and pose no threat to that person's authority. But what if a person is surrounded by egotistical giants who act very competitively? Clearly that person isn't out to control them, because he can't. Maybe that means he's confident that he deserves their companionship? Maybe that means he knows he can compete with them (and win)? That's an alpha.

The problem with women seeking out the defining characteristics is that they don't embody them, so they can't readily identify them. Hyper-competitiveness is a distinctly masculine attribute, so guys will more easily identify drive and motivation in a competitive environment, whereas women might instead identify threats or obstructions. Big differences in perception. So yes, they "have no clue", because you're asking them to understand a language they do not speak. It's not a deterministic point, because it can be learned (in a manner of speaking), but inherently they do not start out equipped with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently reading through "The Two Gentlemen of Verona"(Shakespeare) Not quite finished it, but, one of the two main protagonists "Valentine" and his servant "Speed" I guess are a particular sort of Badboy and "Proteus" the other Antagonist another.  

Maybe someone can suggest some literature on the topic of Badboy.  

Speaking of quality, what qualifies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎09‎. at 7:21 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Before I go any further: I made a second post which was modded out of existence. It recognized there was a post of yours I missed ("Siegfried...Your posts are coming in very late") and basically I'm thinking you're not assigning moral responsibility to your parents because you excused both of them in that post.

I've heard guys really have no power of picking up girls and in reality it is always the girls that choose to bang the guys. May be true, may be apocryphal. 

Either way, I'm  starting to think maybe you have a need to feel powerful and in control while in environments you have no control in. Like dating: you can only control yourself and give yourself the illusion of controlling your date.

I don't think I excused them. Excusing them would be depriving them of moral agency. That I certainly do not. However, I don't think it is just to blame a native Japanese for only speaking at an A1 level in english after having studied a month. I see my parents' improvements, and thusly cannot be mad at them for too long.

Well, as they say, men propose and women dispose. In my experience, if you permit me another analogy... It is like a battle that starts with very minor skirmishes, and only gradually escalating to full frontal assault. And in the end, looking back, it is very hard to determine who began the skirmishes in the first place. Most of the times however, I feel like it is the women who relay the first signal. If it is the man, it comes off as creepy, and nothing comes of that relationship.

Control, as I said, is the main issue here. As I may have mentioned before, I lost my free will almost completely around the age of 14, and am still recovering from it. Maybe it was a way for me to exercise and actualise my free will. What better way that to dominate someone else's free will.

 

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎12‎. at 7:39 PM, SnapSlav said:

1. It might seem like I'm making the deterministic argument, but I'm fundamentally not, because I'm always advocating for personal agency. You always have agency in your decisions, even if the decision is just, "I'm not going to associate with someone whose genes are the reason they're that type of person." That's because when it comes to the matter of "nature vs nurture", I'm nowhere near the fence, I'm unabashedly on the "nature" side of the yard. 

2. The obvious difference between a "true" alpha and a bad boy is empathy. A real alpha would not extract pleasure from corrupting others, or witnessing them experience any kind of pain. 

3. But are there other differences that are easier to spot? Yeah, there are: the friends they keep. You can tell a lot about someone by their company. It will tell you 2 very powerful things abouthem: 1) Who they want in their company, and 2) Who they despise. You can learn a lot about someone by who/what they hate. Maybe that means he's confident that he deserves their companionship? Maybe that means he knows he can compete with them (and win)? That's an alpha.

4. The problem with women seeking out the defining characteristics is that they don't embody them, so they can't readily identify them. Hyper-competitiveness is a distinctly masculine attribute, so guys will more easily identify drive and motivation in a competitive environment, whereas women might instead identify threats or obstructions. Big differences in perception. So yes, they "have no clue", because you're asking them to understand a language they do not speak. It's not a deterministic point, because it can be learned (in a manner of speaking), but inherently they do not start out equipped with it.

1. Makes sense, although that area is still in debate by people much smarter than any of us. In my case, I am really suspecting a lot of nature, as I have mentioned further back. There were a lot of signs very early in my childhood.

2. There is no question that I am empathetic. I don't even want to question that, as it has been determined very well so far. On the other hand, I don't think being empathetic excludes enjoying torture. There are hundreds of very evil people, who use their empathy to know people and harm them thereby. I have made great use of my empathy to figure women out.
One more thing about empathy that may be relevant is that it does cause a constant war inside a bad person. Feeling the pain of the other and enjoying it at the same time is a very strenuous and conflicting state of mind.

3. As sad as it is, I think that goes a bit too deep for the average lass. Figuring one person out is hard enough for them, all without throwing in all the acquaintances.

4. So I guess they should be taght by daddy to be fluent in man. Makes sense. A father figure is without question a great challenge, speaking from a badboy perspective.

 

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎13‎. at 11:10 PM, RichardY said:

Currently reading through "The Two Gentlemen of Verona"(Shakespeare) Not quite finished it, but, one of the two main protagonists "Valentine" and his servant "Speed" I guess are a particular sort of Badboy and "Proteus" the other Antagonist another.  Maybe someone can suggest some literature on the topic of Badboy.  

Speaking of quality, what qualifies?

That's a good idea. I am already familiar with certain figures from the classics, like the Phantom of the Opera, The Silent Knight (Hungarian, don't think anyone here knows), these are the two that pop into mind right now.
The phantom of the opera in particular has a special place in my heart, as I saw the movie version when I was not yet in school, and the character clicked for me instantly. Not as a role model, but as a relation. I wanted the power that he has. They actually softened up the character a bit compared to the book, but still.

I suppose you refer to when I say "quality women". Well, I have very good taste, if I do say so myself. Listing beauty as a criteium would be a waste of time, I trust.
- What I look for first is if she had ever as much as touched a guy. If there was as much as a hand-holding, I walk away. We men are very good at smelling other men, and I pay -special attention in that aspect.
- Secondly, stable family. To be frank, I have yet to find a girl who has complete stability in that area and is also beautiful. But a girl who has good relations with daddy is a prize. This is key, as such girls are usually courageous, honest, caring, loyal, whatnot.
- If the girl has passed so far, then she is most likely also very pure of heart, which is my third criterium. To be honest, these girls start to scare me. You can never approach these girls head-on, because they are not looking for you. So first you have to plant a thought of yourself into their head in a very elaborate and roundabout way through a third party.
- Lastly, the smarts. I believe it is impossible to be all of the above and smart as well. You cannot be street-savvy if you have been sheltered all your life in daddy's arms. But if I am wrong, I have a ring ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.