If All You Know Comes From Psl And Manosphere Blogs...

[zircon]

.

 

[resu]

I thought this thread would be about PSI (Neosh101).

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

What's PsI?

As for the forum, I prefer it as a free for all. It's a gross exaggeration to say that we have one new poster a week, I'm the forum is underpopulated.

You've been here longer than I am and apparently you were posting extensively even when you were alone.

 

[DoctorHouse]

Zircon, I vote you to be moderator.

 

[Rudiger]

I don't know what these blogs are but I think I have the idea.

But I agree with David really, it may be frustrating reading expert advice on women from kids who don't leave the house, but it's still interesting how this is perceived by others.

Basically you write anything remotely red pilled and that post is guaranteed 5 likes, even if it's basic simple truths like how looks matter to any degree (as long as you don't involve the fact personality is a factor too!). Write anything remotely blue pilled eg "she wasn't interested but we both bonded over the fact we had 45 obscure things in common which we discovered after knowing each other for 3 years and then she came around" and you're thrown to the wolves or flat out ignored.

Such a possibility is insane, it may have took 3 years and an incredible amount of similar interests, but she just liked you because of how you look. End of story.

But as I say, frustrating as it may be at times, it is the division that makes this place so interesting at its core. Maybe you see these petty quibbles as regression when we could be chatting about more interesting things, but I think we'd be quite inactive without it.

Also I don't think the red pill prevalence constantly dominates chat as much as this topic implies.

 

[Exodus2011]

i agree lol. we shouldn't censor them but they should preface their posts with their dating experience level

i hardly ever post specifics on dating and if i do i quote others with dating experience. or i just mention stuff i've seen (like seeing bald men with hot girls in public)

 

[Medina]

You do understand that hairloss is a cosmetic issue that affects our chances with the opposite sex right? And you want to "ban posts about relationships" lol k

Personally I like hearing peoples opinions whether they're full of crap or not. It's called learning.

 

[Dante92]

I 100% agree. The funniest part is that, in most instances, those people are normal/good-looking fullheads with BDD and who only suffer from attention whorism and from being pussies. The most recent example is xanders.

Guys like me and exodus and c4l who have legit problems don't complain as much as they do and at least we're honest about our faults and lack of experiences.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

I like the lookism stuff that is posted on here. This is probably because I came from a PUA background which is the exact opposite - so hearing about looks theory was a big eye opener.

I still don't know how much I got laid down to looks and how much was social skills and interests - but this place is a good place to work these ideas and theories out (not to mention bitching about hair loss).

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I don't advocate banning discussions about relationships, I advocate prefacing posts espousing viewpoints in the red pill tradition with the poster's actual relationship experience.

Most posts are casual.

That is in part due to a lot of people posting from cell phones. I know that when I post from cell phones I end up submitting less rigorous posts. My points are not explained nor referenced as well, nor are they as coherently structured.

You're kind of coming off as uptight in this thread. Is there something specific bothering you? Was it a specific post or specific out-of-forum life experience?

 

[Medina]

But there's no way of knowing a posters relationship experience

And if they're talking sh*t, the girls on here alone will take care of that

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

This is a very on-the-spectrum interpretation of what I'm saying.

I'm not literally advocating anything, I'm making a comment on something I've observed and trying to get a discussion going about it.

Surprisingly and disappointingly petty.

So be it.

 

[DoctorHouse]

I 100% agree. The funniest part is that, in most instances, those people are normal/good-looking fullheads with BDD and who only suffer from attention whorism and from being pussies. The most recent example is xanders.

Guys like me and exodus and c4l who have legit problems don't complain as much as they do and at least we're honest about our faults and lack of experiences.

Dante, you know us people with BDD really do respect you and like/love you. And I don't ever want to lose your attention. I was a Xander once but I evolved into something so much greater. I am now about the oldest guy on here with BDD. Wait a minute, maybe I think its better to just be Xander and twenty something again. Blackg, I am going to give this some thought.

 

[DoctorHouse]

Don't compare yourself to them, you've always been better than that You never kept vomiting bullshit without knowing anything about real life and experiences, and you surely never complained and whined without even thinking about trying to improve your situation or change at least your mind about some matters when people addressed you. You've always been at least reasonable and open to suggestions and advice.

Thanks Dante, that means a lot to me.

 

[Guzam]

... stop posting about relationships. Seriously.

It seems like every week now we have a new guy busting in to give us his fresh two cents on chads and beta bucks, and every time he's quizzed on his actual relationship experience it turns out he's virgin, incel or some bog-standard normie who got dumped and couldn't handle the stress.

In my opinion there's a reason for this and it's that the sh*t you'll find around these blogs and forums is designed to get clicks from and feed into the insecurities of someone who is looking at relationships from the outside in.

Moreover, the guys who write this content have very little experience themselves and are often making inferences from things like dating app experiment. Consequently the views are extremely toxic and more importantly, mostly incorrect in how they portray the way dating and relations to the opposite sex really works.

So here's my suggestion: Can we please impose a rule that if you start posting sh*t from Lookism, RooshV, ChateauHertiste and the like, you must first give an account of your actual relationship experience first, and then in your every subsequent invocation of content like this? I feel it would be doing all of us a service.

I have a lot of experience in love and its implications and I can assure you that:

1) young and superficial women care only about looks and confidence (both necessary, alone not sufficient) in partners and friends. Losing looks means losing young women.
2) women lower looks standards later in life especially when their own looks go down. Women always date above their own 'rating'.
3) grown and mature women look for men who are financially stable and have a satisfactory social status. Losing stability and status means losing grown women.
4) women are always more influenced by their social circle than men. Women who change social circle will genuinely change in character.
5) women never admit their biological role in the couple, which is the submissive one. They look for men who are leaders in looks, confidence, status and money. Women like to be dominated and lead in love but do not admit it.
6) women are predisposed to selection. They actively select the men in their lives from all point of views, choosing always the optimal ones given their present situations from all point of views. thus they have lower loyalty than men.
7) women actively select men from the genetic point of view. They actively avoid unmasculine traits like early baldness, short height, weak build, stupidity and will abandon the men who develop unmasculine traits. this is 50% why this forum exists.
8) women have the upper hand in human evolution. Gender equality means Darwinism, as they are no more forced to marry non-optimal men they seek only optimal men leaving the non optimal behind. This is good from a general point of view as this will lead to faster human evolution, weeding out the weak traits that today lead to the broad term of inceldom.

All that I wrote is 100% true and I am not a virgin, not an incel, a very social man, and a man who can observe.

 

[hairblues]

This is a very on-the-spectrum interpretation of what I'm saying.

I'm not literally advocating anything, I'm making a comment on something I've observed and trying to get a discussion going about it.

I agree with you.
You are actually spot-on
i think you may have ruffled feathers--but thats only because you are correct.

 

[Rudiger]

Most posts are casual.

That is in part due to a lot of people posting from cell phones. I know that when I post from cell phones I end up submitting less rigorous posts. My points are not explained nor referenced as well, nor are they as coherently structured.

Yeah 90% of my posts are on my phone now, even the lengthy ones, and it's a pain to even quickly go back and re-read. Also I make a lot of stupid errors like typing "of" instead of "if" etc which makes me sound like I'm not a native English speaker.

I don't know of over all it makes a huge difference though.

 

[hairblues]

I have a lot of experience in love and its implications and I can assure you that:

1) young and superficial women care only about looks and confidence (both necessary, alone not sufficient) in partners and friends. Losing looks means losing young women.
2) women lower looks standards later in life especially when their own looks go down. Women always date above their own 'rating'.
3) grown and mature women look for men who are financially stable and have a satisfactory social status. Losing stability and status means losing grown women.
4) women are always more influenced by their social circle than men. Women who change social circle will genuinely change in character.
5) women never admit their biological role in the couple, which is the submissive one. They look for men who are leaders in looks, confidence, status and money. Women like to be dominated and lead in love but do not admit it.
6) women are predisposed to selection. They actively select the men in their lives from all point of views, choosing always the optimal ones given their present situations from all point of views. thus they have lower loyalty than men.
7) women actively select men from the genetic point of view. They actively avoid unmasculine traits like early baldness, short height, weak build, stupidity and will abandon the men who develop unmasculine traits. this is 50% why this forum exists.
8) women have the upper hand in human evolution. Gender equality means Darwinism, as they are no more forced to marry non-optimal men they seek only optimal men leaving the non optimal behind. This is good from a general point of view as this will lead to faster human evolution, weeding out the weak traits that today lead to the broad term of inceldom.

All that I wrote is 100% true and I am not a virgin, not an incel, a very social man, and a man who can observe.

I agree with like half of this.
I think 5 is definitely true and I think this is why a lot of men in 20s struggle because they are not as independent generally speaking as like 20 years ago.

 

[Rudiger]

I have a lot of experience in love and its implications and I can assure you that:

1) young and superficial women care only about looks and confidence (both necessary, alone not sufficient) in partners and friends. Losing looks means losing young women.
2) women lower looks standards later in life especially when their own looks go down. Women always date above their own 'rating'.
3) grown and mature women look for men who are financially stable and have a satisfactory social status. Losing stability and status means losing grown women.
4) women are always more influenced by their social circle than men. Women who change social circle will genuinely change in character.
5) women never admit their biological role in the couple, which is the submissive one. They look for men who are leaders in looks, confidence, status and money. Women like to be dominated and lead in love but do not admit it.
6) women are predisposed to selection. They actively select the men in their lives from all point of views, choosing always the optimal ones given their present situations from all point of views. thus they have lower loyalty than men.
7) women actively select men from the genetic point of view. They actively avoid unmasculine traits like early baldness, short height, weak build, stupidity and will abandon the men who develop unmasculine traits. this is 50% why this forum exists.
8) women have the upper hand in human evolution. Gender equality means Darwinism, as they are no more forced to marry non-optimal men they seek only optimal men leaving the non optimal behind. This is good from a general point of view as this will lead to faster human evolution, weeding out the weak traits that today lead to the broad term of inceldom.

All that I wrote is 100% true and I am not a virgin, not an incel, a very social man, and a man who can observe.

I endorse this post.

On point 1, I've made this point many times but expressed sometimes in a different structure, and get attacked at even mentioning the word "confidence".

Basically if you have zero aesthetics, or even a little below average, confidence means sh*t all. You need something to get a foot in the door, and from there depending on your looks from average upwards, your confidence can play a role in determining how well you will do.

Most of the time you will aim at your own level or below, and that's with a considerable amount of charm and applying your personality.

To aim higher? Well you need to be out of this world extroverted, have status, money, and your popularity instantly draws in admiration from everyone around you. So that's about less than 5% of guys.

The odds are stacked against us for sure, but I think your post is balanced in possibilities over all.

 

[Rudiger]

I agree with like half of this.
I think 5 is definitely true and I think this is why a lot of men in 20s struggle because they are not as independent generally speaking as like 20 years ago.

That's a good observation on how we are socially now. Not a lot of guys are "grown up" like previous generations, as in having their sh*t together, solid job and career driven, living on their own, etc.

Girls see these guys living with their parents and working for minimum wage or part time, and don't respect it.