The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!
The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.
Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.
77 thoughts on “Open Thread #62”
Need your opinion please.
Which one is better?
Me bald :
Or me with hair:
That would depend on what look you are going for. If you are aiming for the thug look, the former works better. I’d suggest the latter, though, as it’s a bit more versatile. It will also antagonize fewer people in polite society.
When it comes to men, if you aren’t balding, having a head full of hair is always better than being bald, especially if you are older.
He has a pretty good hairline, so it’s fine for him to shave off his hair. He can easily go for an Eastern European or Middle Eastern look (think Niko Bellic from GTA IV).
Thanks Aaron. I will accept my destiny. I look like a thug, serial killer, so i will cut all my hair, i’m going bald and will look 100% danger man.
Now makes sense, even security guard from night clubs are very intimidated by my presence, some are very hostile, they can sense something bad in me. I’m talking about guys on roids, big boys.
In the end, we all can only make the best of what we were given. In your case, it’s clear that you have a very masculine presence, so your best bet is to play it up. Your environment has given you plenty of feedback in that regard as well.
EDIT: To put it succinctly, you are the kind of guy nobody wants to mess with. If you wanted to go for something different, say a preppy style, you would only look incongruent. It would be as jarring as some babyface trying to pull off the Lisbon-Serial-Killer look.
So, if you fuck up with a woman as I have been notorious for, is it still salvageable? I mean if you dont strike while the irons hot, have you blown it for good with that particular woman? Should you give it another try when the woman appears to lose interest?
Normally it is not. Your best bet would be to make a strong impression after some time has passed, but just don’t get your hopes up. Of course, you could also play the long game and just wait for them to contact you in a few years when their options have dried up and they are desperate to lock down a provider.
“Your best bet would be to make a strong impression after some time has passed”.
What does “make a strong impression” really entail? You have mention that once a woman has lost interest its done deal. However, there is no shortage of Relationship Experts who claim how to get your ex back by showcasing your new changes you have undergone. It seems like all these so-called Relationship Experts are out of touch with reality with Hypergamy, Briffaults Law, and Moneky Branching.
My questions is…
1. What strides can a man take in general if he decides to reconcile his relationship with his ex who has lost interest and/or attraction?
2. What are the main reason(s) women often leave relationships and lose interest and/or attraction?
3. When a woman loses attraction and/or interest for a guy, does that mean the guy becomes physically unattractive in her eyes? For example, if Stacy thinks Billy is a 7/10 looks scale, does that mean once Stacy loses interest/ attraction for Billy, Billy will now be a 5/10 on looks?
1. Just do nothing. Don’t reach out until she does. If she doesn’t find her Chadzilla or at least, a better deal than you, she will contact you again. Let that sink in before you take her back assuming she dumped you for no good reason, because your girlfriend may very well have traded up and got dumped, or jumped on the carousel before returning back to you. It’s not a ‘if you love her and let her go and she comes back to you, it’s true love’ scenario.
2. You do something really weak that turns her off and causes her to lose interest, or she monkey branches i.e. hypergamy after securing her new lover. If the latter, she has been cheating on you already.
3. Irrelevant. Though I’d say she can lose attraction if you’re really a corn ball.
Aaron is right. Last night I went out with some friends from work.
At the first venue I had a couple women checking me out and turning their heads to look. Decent looking 7-8’s/10
In the second venue I was approached by two women’s and one woman told me that her friend likes me and what I thought about her. She was decent probably a 6.5/10.
Either way my point is this. If you don’t go out and put yourself out there then sitting at home contemplating whether you’re good looking will only make things worse. I still have issues I’m dealing with but this was a good experience.
Also not too boost my ego but generally only sluts/ easy women will actually approach a man so makes me feel hopeful about more attractive women being interested but not approaching because they’re of higher value.
Have you guys ever seen that show from years ago Sex and the City? I saw my first complete episode the other night. I couldn’t believe how shallow and selfish these bitches were. It’s like Aaron or MGTOW wrote the script. The crazy thing is that the writers (I’ve heard they are gay men) actually wrote this to APPEAL to women, and it worked. It’s like the horse shoe effect.
Sex and the City was a stroke of genius. I watched the entire show and was quite amused by it, but not in the way the screenwriters intended. The writing is so incredibly obvious in its manipulation that it is surprising that women didn’t catch on to it. The premise of the show is that mediocre-looking women in their 30s can have any man they want, a stellar career, and even the most alpha guy there is: Yes, Mr. Big, an alpha among alphas could fall head over heels for the most average woman! That story arc in particular encapsulates what Sex and the City is all about: That chick smashed right through the wall, yet ended up with a guy who could have his pick among women half her age. How can anyone believe this? This is less plausible than the plot of your typical porn movie, back when they still had plots.
Hey Guys, is start preparing for covid19. I started months ago but it’s getting bad. Here in Canada Costco is selling out of toilet paper and basic supplies. I’m assuming only 20% of the population in taking this seriously. When 100% of society will know then it’ll be too late.
Excellent! Everybody should do some prepping, even when there isn’t a virus pandemic at the door.
I think we are well below 20% at this point, by the way. The lines you see at Costco may be huge, but it’s a tiny fraction of the population.
Also, note that a few short weeks ago you were a far-right nutter if you “prepped”. After all, by stockpiling food and supplies, you express that you don’t trust Daddy Government to take care of you in case of emergency, and to believe that is, obviously, the height of lunacy. On that note, I chuckle whenever I come across some mainstream journos saying that X or Y isn’t necessary because the government said so. That would be a good argument if we had a meritocratic system, as opposed to this ginormous workfare program which we call “civil service”. Trust in government, and elites in general, is arguably at an all-time low at this point, at least in the West.
While I share a prepping mindset broadly speaking, the coronavirus panic still looks massively overblown to me.
You are more likely to die from suicide than from coronavirus, let that sink in.
I got 110k+ calories for 2 persons and 200+ litres of water and quite some firepower at home. Nobody of my gun-buddies has anything less than that, but sure as hell if you tell anybody else that you have a bit of extra food at home, people look at you strangely.
I say this: as long as there’s electricity and internet, things are alright. Once those two go away, it’s showtime. And don’t really want that. I wanna be able to flush my toilet and I want to be able to pick my news sources.
In that regard, anybody hoarding massive amounts of gold is a delusional idiot, given the bitcoin alternative. When the internet and electricity are gone, that gold won’t buy much either. Better be armed than rich in gold.
If society ever destabilizes that much I’m literally going to sit and stare at my navel until it either blows over or I die. If I had children I would be much less apathetic, but if it’s just me then I’m good to go.
Anyone else following the U.S. Democratic Party’s nominee race? I’m feeling pretty giddy as a contested convention seems likely now as moderates begin coalescing against Sanders, which would all but seal a victory for Trump.
I have been. Only the fanatics support Bernie. Many Democrats know it is suicide to nominate Bernie and many Dems don’t even want someone as radical as him. He and Trump and nearly polar opposites. The fact that Bernie has done so well is alarming, though. Only a matter of time before someone like him actually does get elected. Give it a generation or two.
Anyways, Biden did well in SC so we will see what happens. I do worry about the economy and if it could tank enough to cause a change in power. Otherwise, I’d say Trump wins 100% no matter who the Dems nominate. But Bernie would get crushed so hard it would be embarassing.
Bernie has the best chance for the Democrats, as he only needs to retain the “Blue Wall” that Hillary counted on four years ago to win the election. There are probably enough radicals and disaffected working class seduced by Bernie’s jubilee promises to flip Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
As an aside, you could put a ham sandwich as the Democratic nominee and it would still win the coastal states here in the U.S.
However if a contested convention comes and Sleepy Joe Biden (a.ka. Hillary 2.0) is the nominee, l expect a lot of liberals to cynically sit this election out.
But l agree that if Bernie is the nominee, l would hope for, and expect, a loss big enough to end to this idiotic Communist revival.
I would get taxed to hell and back, but I like Bernie. You have to have been poor in the US to understand. If you grew-up in a middle or upper class family, you wouldn’t get it. If I lose everything tomorrow, I am screwed in the US. We don’t have the safety nets that you guys have in Europe. It’s very easy to become homeless and bankrupt here. All it takes is one bad roll of the dice to be completely ruined here, especially if you have a family. I would be okay with the way things are, as is, but it is clear as day that his opponents are trying to cut all safety nets down to the bone. The right has done an amazing job at tricking people into thinking that they are all just temporarily broke millionaires.
There is more than just socialism and capitalism. In general, don’t focus too much on those terms because the US is not a capitalist system. Some have derisively called the actual economic system as “corporate welfarism”.
@Pickernanny, you said “The fact that Bernie has done so well is alarming, though. Only a matter of time before someone like him actually does get elected. Give it a generation or two.”
Does that awful-sounding, awful-looking and awfully-named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez look poised to be heir to the throne then?
AOC will probably run in 2024. She has been built up to be the next Democrat superstar and was, in fact, casted. You really can’t make this up: she studied some useless degree and worked as a bartender for a few years and — poof! — suddenly she’s a big shot in politics. Imagine you were some random dude at the bar she’s worked at, regardless of whether or not she’s sucked your dick. What would you think if you saw this transformation happen? You’d probably lose all faith in politics. In our case, we only think about this and realize that reality has turned into a travesty.
I have no idea what this “safety net” stuff is, aside from a talking point in leftist speeches. From what I know, the only countries in the world who come anywhere near that mythical concept are the scandinavian countries, and they’re not socialist, they’re social. (both words start with the same letters, but very different things).
None of the world nor europe has these safety net thingamajigs. And in fact, neither has any socialist country in the world. Hint, a lot of europe is ex-socialist countries where we hate socialism because we grew up under it.
This “safety net” is an illusion. Eventually the government will run out of taxpayer money because the rich will leave, the corrupt bureaucrats will steal, and the leeches will leech until nothing is left.
Incentive is everything.
By the way, Bernie’s vision is far more extreme than most European countries. It is bound to fail just as every command economy does.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be the most dangerous American politician in terms of her socialist ideology and fanaticism. I don’t follow it too closely, but she was the media darling there for a while. It’s really hard to predict anything about her long term political future, but hopefully the hype around her dies down.
I believe “social safety net” means if you can’t earn money for some reason, the gov’t will give you money to make sure you don’t starve or something like this. In effect the taxpayer will pay for you. From my POV this has at least three problems:
1. Taking money by force, even to redistribute it to the needy is wrong. If I want to help somebody out I can make a *voluntary* charitable donation.
2. It creates incentives for some people to work less.
3. The social safety net function is much better performed by non-government entities. But our culture is state-centered – that is we expect the state to take care of these kinds of things.
In the U.S. mutual aid societies used to be widespread in the 19th century. Everyone who wanted to belonged to one. They were attached to your church, or your trade, or even your race (there were negro mutual aid societies for example).
The way it worked is that you paid your dues every month and if you ever needed assistance you got assistance. If you broke your leg you’d get help until you healed. If you lost your job you’d get assistance until you could get a new job. You’d be encouraged to get a new job ASAP. In the rare case that you became permanently disabled and unable to work, you’d be taken care of.
You also played bowling or whatever with other mutual aid society members. You saw them regularly and they knew and cared about you to some extent – far more than a gov’t bureaucrat ever could. They were also in a much better position to evaluate your situation and your true need for assistance, so cheating was minimal.
In addition to mutual aid societies, there is charity. These solutions aren’t perfect, no solution is, but so much better than a gov’t solution IMO. And just imagine what we could have today in terms of similar organizations with the internet and everything. We could have a “sleazy blog mutual aid society” and assanova wouldn’t have to worry so much :)))
But culturally we expect the gov’t to take care of us. And charity is reduced because 1/3-2/3 of your income is taxed depending on where you are and how much you make. Fifty years ago in the U.S. physicians commonly offered pro bono services to the poor. With the “insurization” of medicine in the U.S. this has become almost unheard of.
Mutual Aid Societies were a great idea, primarily due to their personal nature. That system disincentivized leeches whereas today we have an entire class of people who think they are entitled to supposedly free money from the “government”, which is just redistributing money they take form people who pay taxes. The free-money mentality is prevalent in Scandinavia, by the way. The general opinion is that the welfare system is great because of all the benefits you get whereas in reality, a small percentage of the working population pays a good chunk of it.
Psychologist warns that trump won’t win due to vote shifting and other fraud from big tech companies:
To my above link, I watched the entire 10 min video and I regret posting it here. Please excuse me. I shouldn’t have jumped the gun.
To summarize, guy talks about how subliminal messaging is swaying voters. I thought the video would be about manipulating ballots and stuff, but instead it’s some psychologist rambling about how untraceable ads on the internet are going to shift high percentages of demographics into voting for the Democratic candidate.
I probably need to take a break from politics and natural disasters and shit.
Scott Adams, the guy who created Dilbert, predicted that Trump would win in 2016 based on his analysis of Trump’s manipulation techniques. I skimmed Adams’ book “Think Bigly” on this topic and was a bit disappointed as his hypotheses are generally so vague that they are impossible to refute which is, of course, a hallmark of pseudoscience.
Prediction markets still betting on Trump:
I do think that Bernie is a little too far left, and I agree, if we tax too much, the corporations will just leave and go to another country where they can exploit the laws to favor them. In general, while I am not in favor of moving all the way to the left, more can be done to help workers. They need to de-couple healthcare being tied to employment, remove middlemen in healthcare and consolidate resources to keep costs lower, and do more to protect workers from being randomly fired out of nowhere. I don’t know what the answer is or how to do it, but what I do know is that we need to stop giving so many tax breaks to corporations and the rich. Those post-WW2 days are over, and we’re not going back to that, but it doesn’t mean that we need to reduce families down to feudal peasants, which will eventually happen if corporations keep getting their way.
Healthcare is the biggest societal issue in the US, in my opinion, followed by the absurd costs of higher education. You don’t need full-blown socialism to fix both, though. The cost of college could easily be fixed by either eliminating or drastically reducing the availability of student loans. Clearly, student loans are cheap money, and the more money colleges can make this way, the more they will charge. With healthcare, it’s essentially the same problem. Both systems are essentially incentivized to charge as much as they can as opposed to providing the most cost-effective service possible.
For some solid analysis on this matter, check out Musa Al Gharbi. He was one of the lone voices who predicted Trumps victory in 2016
Most of the points he makes here still stand despite being written in 2017
And then this
A Sanders presidency would be great for the US. Assanova is right, we do have a safety net here in Western Europe that doesn’t exist in the US. The holes in it have been getting bigger for years though. There are a lot of problems here, but at least we don’t have to worry about how to pay for our healthcare.
Guys, forget about cultural and social issues for a moment, in pure economic terms the US is one of the most right wing countries in the first world and has been drifting further right for a few decades. A socialist in the White House for a few years would be a nice way to push the pendulum back a bit. Yes, I know some of you “tax is theft” guys would disagree in principle.
Also, I think Bernie would have a better foreign policy than the other candidates. US foreign policy has been concerning for some time.
The United States is a bad actor, toppling regimes all over the world, directly or indirectly. Reducing its military presence would go a long way in improving that image. After having been the “alpha male” on the world stage, this country has now entered a state of decline. I don’t think that Russia or China are going to attack the U.S. any time soon. However, it could become a pariah as it has been alienating many leaders. It’s only the might of its military that protects them.
I’m curious to see what will happen once the U.S. enters a genuine crisis. I think within a few short years, the Arab states will just flatten Israel. Within the U.S., we may see a secession. Mexico could plausibly claim California, and the Democrats who are perennially in power there would support such ambitions.
“Arab states will just flatten Israel”
Does Israel really have the A-Bomb?
I think Israel could be flattened very quickly. They are like the bratty little brother of the schoolyard bully. The little dipshit acts in an obnoxious manner because he knows that his big brother will protect him, not realizing that his big brother won’t be around forever. Likewise, Israel talks a big game because they have the US standing behind them. We are at the point where the US is talking a big game they can’t quite deliver upon anymore, as the recent precision strikes by Iran have shown.
I don’t think they have an A-bomb. I also don’t believe that their “iron dome” is impenetrable, due to simple logic. Just overwhelm the system with a material onslaught, just like the materially inferior Allies beat the Germans due to bigger numbers. (Oh, what irony that will be.) Of course, for the sake of the argument we’re assuming that the “iron dome” really is a potent means of defense, which it may not be. I’d like to see it respond well to hypersonic missiles, for instance.
Sorry, several things wrong here:
1) Great powers are not inherently good or bad, all of them tend to hegemonically control their areas of influence. Some exert their hegemony in more palatable manners than others. As a Latin American, I am very much aware of the government toppling record of the US. But likewise citizens from countries in the periphery of Russia and China would strongly dispute the idea that those powers behave in a better way. Russia in particular excels at meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, especially in their area of influence, and it has done so since before the US even existed as a country. And for the record, Germany, Sweden, Polan, UK, France, Turkey, all of them did it too back when they were great powers. No reason to believe that any future hegemony that comes after the US will be better in any way.
That being said, the erosion of US power is good in that it will set a limit on the nonsense they can get away with.
2) Great power war between the US vs China or Russia still is and will be extremely unlikely, mostly because of the existence of nuclear arsenals. both of them are arming to deter and counter US adventurerism in their respective regions.
There certainly will be competition between them, and one likely outcome is they might turn the rest of the world into their proxy battlefields, like the US and the USSR did during the Cold War, excacerbating local conflicts by backing different local factions. The US toppling governments was only half the story. Here in Latin America we had USSR and Cuban sponsored guerrillas and terrorists everywhere during the 1960s, 1970s and even the 1980s.
3) Israel does have the A-Bomb, and they have had them at least since the early 1970s. No one in the field seriously disputes this fact. There are plenty of unanswered questions about the design of the weapons, their yield, size of their stockpile, usage doctrine, and capabilities of their delivery systems, due to the secrecy surrounding the program. It is amply known that they had assistance from France, South Africa and even Argentina (we sold them about 100 tons of uranium oxide in the early 60s). By now there is a strong certainty that the 1979 mystery flash detected in the Indian Ocean was a joint israeli-South African nuclear test.
On the other hand, even if they didnt have a nuclear arsenal, dont count on the neighboring arab states wiping out Israel anytime during your lifetime. Arabs armies are notoriously incompetent, even when armed with the latest weaponry and assisted by great powers. The egyptians, to name just one example, performed equally dismally regardless of whether they were assisted by the british, the soviets or the US. There are cultural reasons for this, and there is ample literature analyzing the performance of middle eastern militaries. They do excel at irregular warfare (see Hizballah, ISIS) but it remains a question of debate how much they can scale it up to match the IDF, or any halfway competent conventional military.
Iron Dome is certainly not foolproof, it has been penetrated multiple times. No air defense is ever airtight, thats not the point. Its a damage reduction tool, and on that measure it has performed quite well. But it is quite expensive, and Hamas and Hizballah have been bleeding them dry by shooting inexpensive rockets at them to be intercepted.
There are signs of an impending major crisis in the system, not only in the US. But secession of any US state is extremely unlikely, tough, and possible incorporation of California by Mexico is utter nonsense.
Srry, I hit Post a few seconds early
The US has been an irresponsible player on the global stage since at least 2001, and it has had the luxury of getting away with irresponsible behavior, like unilateral interventions in the middle east, because the international system has been unipolar for so long., so no other powers were able to set them any limits. Those days are increasingly over.
The US will see its power diminish in relative terms no doubt, we are seeing it as it happens. Their freedom of action will be more and more limited, but they wont disappear, tough.
It is an open secret that Israel has the A-Bomb.
Great comment! I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of your analysis.
Female Russian influencer kills three people including her husband from carbon dioxide poisoning by dumping a large quantity of dry ice into a pool.
Apparently, the husband worked in IT. You’d think he would have known better. You’d also imagine they would have done at least a little bit of research online beforehand, easily discovering the dangers involved with handling dry ice in a non ventilated area (pool was indoor, I believe). But then again, people eat tide pods nowadays.
Women’s intense need for attention and validation never ceases to amaze me. Equally so are thirsty men willing to indulge them.
This is crazy. Her actions should easily qualify her for a Darwin Award. Then again, I have the impression, which may be wrong, that this award tends to go to men in an attempt to ridicule the entire sex, so no matter how creatively she removed herself from the gene pool, she won’t get the recognition she would deserve.
“…this award tends to go to men in an attempt to ridicule the entire sex”.
Men are so pathetic here in Los Angeles. I kid you not, there are so many men in L.A. that chase women who are post-wall hitters. You have so many women who are in their 30s into their 40s who are very stuck up. What’s worse is that you have some photographers who recruit older women to do amateur modeling. And there’s no shortage of men who subscribe to webcam, onlyfans just to see women who are very well past beyond their prime.
Regarding coronavirus, I’m not going out of my way to prepare for it. I already have plenty of canned food and an emergency stash of cash, and if Americans won’t accept the U.S. dollar, then I think we’re really fucked.
But on a more pressing note, I wonder how the virus will impact hookup culture. Tinder is warning people about coronavirus now (ignore the idiotic reactions from users):
I really do wonder, if the virus gets more widespread in my country, whether it would be a good idea for my safety to be getting my dick sucked by a girl whom I met 5 minutes ago. Of, even if the risk is minimal, whether women are being extra cautious about whom they hook up with.
For the record, it seems that it’s unknown whether sexual intercourse can spread the virus, but both kissing and simply spending a lot of time in close proximity to someone can.
I’d stack up on bottled water, too.
I agree that society would have to collapse considerably for banknotes to not be accepted. However, barter goods like coffee and cigarettes increase your options. At this point, we are still talking about a rather extreme scenario. Still, I’d feel more confident about having a shelf full of barter goods than a stack of banknotes as the latter can be much more easily stolen.
Your Tinder angle is interesting. There is the concept of a “super spreader”, i.e. an infected person who has contact with a lot of other people who all get infected. You could easily encounter a female super spreader on Tinder who infects all males she’s meeting up with, even if she does not have sex with them. I’m not necessarily thinking about super sluts, but professional daters who have a different guy each evening pay for dinner. They not only meet those guys but also go to restaurants and other public places, thus they are exposed to much more people than some girl next door who hardly ever leaves the house.
I remember in the early 1990s Rupaul (black American drag queen) telling Aresenio Hall ( black American talk show host idiot) about social issues turning left wing. Comparing them to a pendulum: “It’s been so far to right so long it’s gonna CRASH to the left!” The crowd erupted in cheers. I’ve heard other social liberals make the same analogy. Don’t these idiots know that if we take the anology seriously that eventually it will “crash back to the right?” They might be right. As men galvanizing online seems to be the start of a “crashing back to the right.”
Have y’all seen Finland’s campaign to combat migrant rape via tik tok?
No. It’s not meant to be a joke.
We really live in Clown World. For this clip Finland blew a ton of taxpayers’ money, too. Did you spot the two soyboy cucks in the background? They also have a “no-no square”, but they don’t realize it because they hope that by their incessant simping feminists will repay them in sexual favors.
@Aaron, that simp mindset is really sad. I dropped it years ago and feel more liberated and attractive to women than ever. I love telling entitled, rude women off no matter how physically attractive they are. I love expecting women to pull their weight at work no matter how hot they are. In the end, not only did I keep my dignity and self respect, they like me MORE.
Well, the scrawnier guy to the left looks sort of like a homosexual to me. The guy on the right would be raping and pillaging villages a thousand years ago. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
When it comes to LTRs do girls value personality as much as looks? Maybe they value personality a little more than looks for LTRs? Especially if the guy looks like a playboy heartbreaker?
Short answer: kinda
Science is very clear that women weigh looks less in long term attraction and put more weight on non-look traits. As compared to short-term attraction which is entirely based on looks.
While some scientists do use the term “personality” I dont like it because it has a blue pill connotation with normie imaginations of what women want.
I prefer “traits other than looks”. Because that includes stuff like how much you make, your status level etc…
Just to clarify because it can be misunderstood the way I worded it poorly.
I’m not saying that in long-term women care less about looks THAN other stuff.
They care about it less THAN for one night stands.
Even in long-term the looks could be the more important factor and above the other factors.
Its just that in super-short-term (quick lay) the other stuff is at between 0.00% and 0.1%… the longer term the arrangement, the more that percentage grows.
Also, as Don explained it’s not fixed. The hotter the guy, the more his looks are the reason she chose him for an ltr.
Just for illustration sake, random numbers:
If she’s with a 6 guy, “other stuff might be 30% of the reason she chose him for an ltr.
If she’s with a 10 guy for an ltr, other stuff might be at 0% (completely ignored as factor).
And again as Don pointed out, that depends on her own level. A 9 chick isn’t going to completely ignore a guys “personality”, just because hes a 10 in looks.
Damn I forgot to close that blockquote tag, so the entire comment is blockquoted.
Actual comment starts from “Just to clarify”
Makes sense. But I’ve heard some women claim that “good looking guys are assholes.” Just like I’ve heard men and women alike say that good looking girls are bitches. I know this is the REAL shallow bullshit and 100% based on insecurities. And actually shows that they put extra value on what good looking people think. They don’t really care what average/ugly people think.
However, can this be an example of when perception has become reality? In other words, could a girl looking for an LTR assume that a guy is not boyfriend material because he is actually too good looking? Do some girls who are actively looking for an LTR reject such a man because they are afraid that he is a player? A guy that she wouldn’t think twice about fucking, but assumes he would cheat on her. Like, perhaps if you look like her handsome ex?
Good looking guys are only assholes when they pump-and-dump some chick.
The better looking you are, the more you can get away with “being an asshole”. And as Aaron pointed out that means pumping and dumping. But its not just that.
Better looking guys can get away with skipping stages… like going from light flirting straight to “get down on your knees and suck this dick bitch”. An asshole move by definition, but accepted when super hot guys do it.
Most average looking guys would pump and dump if they could. So most guys would be assholes if they could. It’s just that hot guys can afford to be.
+1 to AlekNovy’s clarification regarding “traits other than looks.”
For LTRs, looks matter – a lot, I’d argue – but so do a host of other things. A woman could easily disqualify you based on your politics, your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), your education, your Zodiac sign, your income, your net worth, your job, how much you’ve traveled, whether or not you like dogs, whether or not you want kids, etc.
For hookups, looks are the most important thing by far. You’re also usually having sex before you’d even talk about any of these things. It’s for this reason that I think, as an attractive guy, I’d have a much easier time finding a one night stand or fuckbuddy than a girlfriend.
That said, if you’re, say, a 8 in looks, and meet a girl that’s a 6, she’s going to let an awful lot slide, and these checklists won’t matter much, even if you’re a horrible partner by any measure. If you meet a 10, you’d better match or exceed her social status, and check all the right boxes. But she’s probably used to dating guys who are less attractive than she is, so as long as you meet her minimum threshold.
Girls that I talk to often call me “sweet.” I’m not too comfortable with it because it is too close to “nice” which many men interpret as not attractive. Or is this just PUA propaganda? Is there a difference between “sweet” and “nice” when women say it to men?
I’ve also heard from women that I’m suave, confident, have an edge, mysterious, dapper, sexy, have good energy. I didn’t start getting these compliments until I started commiting myself in the gym and getting good results plus worked on my clothing style. I felt much more confident at that point and it seemed like I carried myself better.
Of course I’ve also heard handsome. So, is it as simple as that, given that I looks maxed? All of the other compliments were just a way of complimenting my looks?
Being called “sweet” is good. Consider it an expression of her (sexual) interest. Girls that want to fuck you but are afraid of a negative response when they call you “hot” may call you “sweet” instead.
I find that when they reference your personality, they are looking at you as a provider. When they reference your looks, they are looking at you as a hook up.
Even if a woman did call you “nice,” that wouldn’t be bad, either. I’ve had plenty of women I’ve fucked call me nice, and this includes for fuckbuddy-type arrangements. They were complimenting me because they liked me.
You can be nice and sweet, and at the same time, have a backbone and not be a beta doormat. If nice and sweet are part of your personality, it might be easiest to work with that instead of trying to act the opposite.
Honestly, one thing I’ve struggled with is really to what extent “acting alpha” or even “not acting beta” matters. It seems to me that getting laid simply comes down to looking good and escalating. A hot guy, with access to a lot of women, that knows how to escalate physically, is going to get laid a lot – and it almost doesn’t seem to matter whether he has a dominant personality or is the more passive type.
Would love for more people to share their thoughts on this.
We should also keep in mind that guys with more passive personalities will not escalate as readily. Also it may not be so much personality but attitude towards women. Like if you’re blue-pilled and you pedestalize women, you’re less likely to escalate and more likely to court and beat around the bush. And even once you get red-pilled it might take a while to adjust your habitual behavior accordingly and fully integrate your red-pilled knowledge into your overall personality.
The first time I discovered this it was shocking to me. I was banging this chick… and anytime I started being sexual, she would refer to it as me being sweet and charming.
Like if someone was reading a transcript of our conversations, the moment I was giving her the “I’m gonna fuck you till you can no longer walk” attitude, and someone read the transcript of that part of our interactions… they’d assume I was giving her romantic dinners and flowers.
A lot of women like to bury sexuality under euphemisms.
Apparently, actors and actresses now need special supervisors to coordinate sex scenes… speak of overcompensating…
The women helping Hollywood shoot safer sex scenes
Still, I gotta congratulate whoever dreamed up this position for scamming uber-woke hollywood out of some easy cash.
I just took a look at S. Korea’s Covid-19 stats and it’s currently looking like a death percentage of less than 0.7% to confirmed cases at 50 deaths and 7,313 diagnosed. I’d reckon that there are perhaps several more cases where either people are having very mild symptoms and not bothering to get checked out, or they are asymptomatic altogether. That would bring the death percentage down even more.
That being said, it’s not a bad idea to be prepared for food/supply shortages as that is probably your biggest threat depending on where you are. However, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that your chances of dying from the disease itself is extremely unlikely. Not to mention the majority of deaths are PROBABLY older people with or without underlying health issues.
Diagnosed group contains dead, recovered and those whose outcome is unknown because the infection hasn’t run its course to recovery or termination.
If every infected infects at least two more people then majority of cases in diagnosed group will be ‘unknown’ because they are recent infections. To approximate mortality rate a bit better divide number of dead with (dead+recovered). In that case we get 3-5% mortality rate.
Germany goes full blown Nazi.
This is pretty crazy. For context, Germany has a highly ineffective government that fully focusses on gender equality and cultural enrichment. This means that even important positions are filled with sometimes shockingly incompetent people. For instance, the minister of research and education is a woman who is apparently so overwhelmed by the situation causes by Covid-19 that she stays away from the public. Similarly, the male minister of health is a dolt. He has a background in banking, not health. That does not matter much if the country does not face serious problems, but that jig is up now. I can’t recall seeing Merkel making any public statements either, by the way.
Also note that Germany sent planes full of masks and hazmat suits to China and Iran. They so willingly gave away their supplies that they forgot to keep a stockpile for themselves, apparently believing that Covid-19 would not make it past the well-protected (lol) German border. Now the virus hit the country pretty hard, with cases in the low four digits — and now those incompetent politicians realize that they have run out of protective masks and suits. I didn’t think that they would withhold exports to Switzerland that are owned by the Swiss. This is pretty crazy. I wonder what’s next.
The French are confiscating masks is what’s next.
I’m debating on Twitter with some morrons who go like “yeah Germany can withhold stuff, it’s the law.”
Like, wtf? This was a contractually agreed upon order that Germany and Switzerland did together with the agreement that Switzerland would get their share. Now they block multiple trucks with 200k+ masks each at the German customs.
Seriously? I am so pissed right now, you have no clue. These fucking Nazis and their grandomania “Deutschland über alles” shit has gone way too far.
I am convinced that if Germany does not release the trucks which in fact are SWISS PROPERTY, then this will have severe consequences in their diplomatic stance on the Rahmenabkommen that has yet to be signed. Oh I hope that the people here wake up to the reality of the bully that Germany is.
Honestly, I’ve rarely been this pissed at anything in politics, ever.
Germany does this to other countries, too. Austria and Italy are affected as well. We should just invade those fuckers. Heck, I would volunteer to join the troups and send some bullets towards the Reichstag eehrrr… the Bundestag. Fuck these pathetic morronic selfish assholes.
Tyler Dyrden the feminist 🙂
He’s sharing the story of the early days of the community, when apparently 95% of PUAs were “feminists” and nobody was trying to get laid (they were just trying to learn the skills that brings them a soulmate).
Wish I was making this up 🙂
I’m surprised that he’s still around. The last I know of RSD is that they had their YouTube account cancelled and that Tyler was about to get deported to Canada. Anyway, the guy looks like a total wreck.