Thanks for MHO!
@-Asca- When I was young, I was very shy and insecure when trying to pursue a woman. The experience of picking up the phone and calling a woman, getting rejected, picking myself up and trying it again. . . that is what taught me how to be more confident and assertive. If I had been able to text a woman instead of talking to her, I suspect that I would have stayed in my shy and meek shell. Young guys today act like they are afraid of women. Technology is not always a good thing!
@OlderAndWiser So you were shy but aren't anymore. Congratulations on gaining some confidence sir. I don't see how that has anything to do with me or any young people at all though. Young people aren't shy by default and evil phones are not the villain here either. I mean rejection can also come via text, texting someone also means initiating a conversation with the exact same girl you could call instead... did your grandpa also tell you that you young people are cowards because you could call a girl instead of physically walking up to her and speaking?
@-Asca- No, but I did actually walk up to girls and start talking to them. You don;t get comfortable with face-to-face interactions with the opposite sex bu avoiding face-to-face interactions with the opposite sex.I don't think that smart phones are evil. They are inanimate objects.
@OlderAndWiser face-to-face interactions are still a thing and not rare or unusual at all. And if someone is really that shy that he doesn't even talk to female classmates at school I think that texting gives him a possibility to still get used to girls... I mean if he's so afraid how likely is it that he just randomly decides to talk to one face to face? I don't know of course nut I'd assume you were not so shy that even in modern times you wouldn't talk to girls i school or wherever as if that was not a totally normal thing that absolutely everyone does... even today.
@-Asca- "I don't know of course nut I'd assume . . ."
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
It's like worst-case scenarios: do you want to (A) be rejected today or do you want to (B) reject someone today? And that's a no-brainer for me. Definitely A.
If you are interested in someone I think it's important to make the first move, this goes both ways for guys and girls. If you dont go after what you want you'll never get it. Be respectful and understand that asking doesn't mean an automatic yes. But it doesn't mean you will be denied either. In terms of paying for food, the guy is expected to cover the first meal and up to 3 of the initial dates. After that it should be Dutch or the girl should have to cover the cost in order to be fair. When looking at your friends it's even or shared. So your significant other which should hold more weight should be prioritized in the same manner or at bare minimum reflect a balance in terms of what each person makes. If the relationship isnto grow you are to be treated as equals otherwise it becomes a transaction in which the expectations that will be set in place are not level. Meaning if one person has to pay all the time you are in turn saying your time is worth more than theirs. By reciprocity the expectations built are simmilar to that of an escort/courtesan.
@tibit I never mentioned anything regarding paying for the dates. I simply said I prefer to act first, but she happen to make a move before I did and no problem with that.
That’s because the number of men who do approach us first are plentiful.
Yes, and they would like to retain that abundance. It's a unionization effort, conscious or unconscious.
This guy knows what’s up.
Hate to break it to you but men are telling this to women too. There’s a guy named Alex who runs a YouTube called Mindful Attraction 2.0 who runs it home consistently. he's the type of guy I’d definitely say yes too.
Yes, there are such characters. I've heard women reference dating advice guys on YT and such that also say that stuff. But what I point out is that they have a brand and they are trying to sell you something. Funny how what he's telling you feeds into exactly what y'all want to hear. It's weird how you'd trust the salesman over the actual population of dudes who this pertains to who aren't getting paid to pander to you. And of course women want to be pandered to by an attractive guy. Whether you like him or not means nothing to the substantive value of his advice.Listen to real guys for once.
Jazz, who would you suggest women listen to?
The regular guys around them, these are the guys they would end up dating after all.On top of that its not even just listening, women should act with responsibility for their personal experience like a sensible human being. That's just my philosophical way of saying that they can literally just ask guys out or take whatever action it is that is in question and find the answers themselves. There's no excuses there.
If they’re into dating regular guys then I guess they would listen to regular guys. But if they’re into dating high value men, they’ll need the knowledge and strategy involved with doing that. That’s what I deal in.
Wow, again with the loaded terms and subjective language.I don't think you "deal" in *that.* The end result of all I've explained about the way you frame everything and the advice you give through that lens is that all you're doing is encouraging women to be excessively strict and discriminatory such that fewer women actually find happiness thanks to your advice but the ones that do are basically lottery winners and you're taking credit for their win.I'll say this though, even though I think what you provide is negative and you won't budge, at least you're more polite and respectful about it than most. It's still like talking a wall, but a polite wall.
I encourage women to highly selective and only choose men with good behavior patterns. Most regular Joes are predetermined to have mediocre relationships that are very likely to have a short shelf life. I don’t think it’s a crime to expect both men and women to be better and do better.
I should say I encourage them to, not expect. If they want to be regular and hook up with regular, I am not for them and they are not for me.
But when you say "better" it doesn't mean better. It means you've decided what is better for other people on their behalf and did you so through your own personal narrowed lens. While you're here shitting on "regulars", properly wholesome advice would guide women to the right "regular" (to use your terminology). Though, it wouldn't use that language because it wouldn't even sort people into such toxic categories in the first place. Being "highly selective" as you would put it merely offers the illusion of efficacy. I'm not even saying don't be selective, just the way you're going about it isn't wholesome.And I must say I have my doubts that you're placing expectations on women to do better. In fact, part of what I'm saying is that if anything you're acting as an enabler -- enabling them to indulge in weakness rather than grow.
Anyone is free to disagree with me on what is better or wholesome or not. I don’t aim to be wholesome. Like I said, I aim to give strategic, valuable advice to those who want it. What they do with it is their own business. The rest can go their own way if that’s their interest.
Feel free to prefer whatever you like, but I think your discussion with AllThatSweetJazz here has led you to support my claim inadvertently. If you're concerned with the opinion of only "high value man," meanwhile defining a "high value man" as someone who prefers to ask women out rather than vice versa, that's clearly going to bias your perception of what men prefer. You're inserting the conclusion into your own question.
There’s not much in the red pill theory that I agree with, but there are a couple things. One being that the “soul mate” or “one true love” is a myth, and it is and the other is a thing called male “burden of performance.” If you look into that term, they explain it better than I can.
I'm aware. That's Darwin's conclusion regarding sexual selection.
You've already made it abundantly clear you like the notion of 'burden of performance.' There's no need to explain it any further.