Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Beyond Pickup - Have Your Cake and Eat it Too?

What started out as my exploration of an age-old question: whether total nerds have a chance at snagging highly desired women ripples into a topic that permeates into a thorough exploration of everything regarding the enigma we call 'love' and how it may not be as magical as we first deem it to be.



Reupdate: 3/14/13 Didn't really mean to update on Valentine's Day but there we go. I rescind my 51/49 soul/body split I mentioned in the 3/13 update after responding to Zach's post on Sebastian Marshall's blog http://sebastianmarshall.com/dont-underestimate-biochemistry. I now believe it is a dynamic split that changes based on situation.

Update: 3/13/13 In yet another update of this post's evolution the original question has been staked in the heart by Tynan's latest post Not that kind of person. I am now more convinced than ever that there are no 'pre-sets' in life and the only barriers we put up are the ones of our own making. Not everyone starts on even-footing and some have advantages over others but in the long run for most things we are self-defined. For the longest time I've tackled a deeper philosophical question - is the body a victim of biological processes or are biological processes controlled by the body? (ie can we use willpower alone to induce biological change) Are human personalities just a sum of biochemical reactions or is the human persona a product of the 'soul'? I now believe that we have a lot more power than we give ourselves credit for and even though our bodies and higher aspects (mind/soul) may often conflict with one another ultimately the higher aspects are in control.

Admittedly hormones and such play a big role in our day to day feel/function and have enough weight to throw us off course . Starting out I think we may be a 51/49 split of mind over matter but with self discipline and proper care of the human vessel in my experience that ratio only goes up to pass more control to the higher self.

Update: 9/6/12 Figure I'd clean this up and add in a shortcut to help anyone trapped in the loop of pining for women - most of what is considered "love" doesn't exist just sex. Read the end of this post for the explanation why. Otherwise original post below...

Hey all. I wanted to explore an aspect of pickup that is rarely thought about or mentioned - can even total nerds get the girl? I know they did some sort of TV show on this but I doubt they put the question to rest and just decided to play the media party line and bash nerds instead. Specifically I look to answer the question, "can we have our cake and eat it too?" if you are the type of guy that's orthogonal (perpendicular, totally opposite) to the flow of pickup and the game. In other words - can we have all the benefits of pickup without having to sell ourselves out? Can we 'be ourselves' and get the girl - or must we 'change and improve ourselves' to get her? Most in the pickup realm would say no but I dare push the frontier and challenge this notion!!!

The following blog post will be about pickup obviously but instead of sharing nitty gritty details and tips about how to actually perform in the field I will be exploring the philosophies and concepts that exist behind this 'dark art' and what they entail for nerdlingers in practicality. Besides - if you want tips and tricks /openers / sequences there is an utter wealth of that info on the internet already + workshops. Safe to say, if you have no interest in pickup whatsoever you can safely skip this post from this point onwards. Despite that I encourage anyone here with even a slightest interest in pickup to peruse the contents herein. I hope to break new ground here with all of my type - the very frontiers of pickup. Besides even though this article will focus mostly from my nerdy point of view there may be gems of wisdom in here for all of us in general. All of us want to keep certain aspects of ourselves 'grounded' while tuning the rest to make us more attractive. As man is infinite we now dare ask - can we keep all of our selves and get the girl?

Intro / Background

To start off maybe it would help to understand who I am as a person to get a grasp of why I write the way I do. I'm the kind of person who wants to find the reasons behind everything in hope of synthesizing some universal law that can be used in all situations to yield the most optimal result. Basically a physicist and their obsession with the theory of everything - but I'm not a physicist in manifest - just one by nature. I majored in Comp Sci. way back so I tend to be verbose and thorough (while being able to see the forest for the trees I hope). To elaborate - in an interview with Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata (http://www.1101.com/iwata/2007-08-31.html) regarding the principles he used to help the company succeed he had this to say:

Iwata -  There are people who solve problems via symptomatic treatments, of course. Such as "Let's turn down the air conditioner since it's hot", or "I'll drink some water because I'm thirsty". People like this may actually be the majority.......... I don't think it's a matter of coming from the science field. I think it's just the type of person you are. There are those who are satisfied knowing that thirst is the reason for wanting something to drink, and there are those who want to unfold the cause of their thirst.

I'm the type of person that wants to unfold the cause of their thirst. With that I think that just about sums that up. Oh and I also have strong desires to boot :).

From the above though I guess you may have inferred I may not be the totally testosterone laden strong scruffy manly type stereotypically portrayed in past media (media seems to be moving towards the more Michael Cera-ish paradigm ironically). You'll rarely find such deep philosophical musings such as this on Testosterone Nation anyway (except when they deal with lifting then all bets are off!!!). Action people don't look at the why - they focus on the how. Sure not all philosoraptor's are the stereotypical skin-n-bones nerd but stereotypes stick because they are mostly true and with that I carry a number of significant traits which would put me into that 'nerd' category. But hey - nerds have biological needs as well and with that the type will make do with their strongest traits and battle with those. Besides - you don't train Strength on a Wizard :p.

So yeah given who and what I am I have the unique perspective of having to play the worst equipped class at 'the game'. Somewhere deep inside me though unconsciously I guess I always do like a good challenge (and on the surface I'm still in denial). I can pass myself off as a non-nerd but an any inkling of my true self totally gives me away. I'm not as brave as Tynan and I am calculating instead of spontaneous in flesh. In spirit though I may be a bit of a warrior possibly as I always stay true to myself and have lofty goals. In that I feel a certain kinship with Tynan and all of the community here as they have all looked fear in the eye and spat in it's face to live their lives as they wanted. Now it's my turn to step up to the plate.

Can we have our cake and eat it too? Time to explore...

The Cause

While I cannot speak for anyone besides myself I dare say I know the exact reason you went into pickup in the first place. It's very simple and obvious really - boy wants girl - boy doesn't get girl - boy wonders how to get girl next time or get another girl. To elaborate on this point though the mindset I had pre-game and post-game was like night and day. You see before the 'dawn of game' I lived in a sort of dark ages (churning butter kind of existence) where women were just the end result of fickle strokes of luck by fate. Women were completely random! You'd just be living your life and if fate conspired you'd meet another woman you were attracted to. At this point you'd go all-in and hope that she liked you back. If she did - you scored the *jackpot* - and if you didn't - you just lost your one and only chance and another may not come along.... ever! With a mindset like this we can see why most men have the creepy neediness / desperation to them coupled with the urge of over-pedastalization of women. If one believes women are just a result of fate and the crossing of stars then one is faced with the feelings of having no control and continually being at the mercy of a cruel and indifferent world. Thus we are helpless and fight for whatever scraps land off the table - always preciously holding on because we never know if they may be our last meal. The few scraps that land to a starving man are *always* overly appreciated and overly valued by their relative rarity.

With the 'dawn of game' I learned that life was not an unfortunate set of circumstances without rhyme or reason. There lay certain causes to initiate certain effects. Specifically the things we can do to attract women to us. Walk confidently, move slowly, look at her without staring, breathe deeply, smile, talk about your goals, mine her topics, tell a story, escalate, kino, time compress, move in, break last minute resistance etc etc etc ad nauseum... The effects: women giving us attention, women reciprocating our advances, women becoming interseted in us, women having sex with us, women falling in love with us, etc... Life is suddenly figurable with the knowledge of game. Men have spent many countless hours mapping the cause and effects of whatever actions they took during a night out that fill the bulk of lay reports and forum posts. It's like a human genome project - but for pickup!!! Finding the exact sequences of actions we can take to get the fairly predictable result of having a woman. With this many are satisfied but to me this is a hollow victory at best. Besides it's not guaranteed to work 100% of the time and just as Murphy's law predicts it never works on THAT girl we really want.

The Cause Behind Cause

A few people: bored, curious, unsuccessful, or disillusioned with their massive success with women delved to find the causes behind why game and pickup works. Evolutionary biology was scoured mercilessly for the answers. It is to ensure the strongest genes get passed on for each generation, it's to truly infer the reproductive value of a man, it's to ensure your sperm is passed on and your opponent's isn't (killer sperm theory), it's the reason many daughters have the shape of their dad's face to accurately assess paternity... From their findings all of game hoped to replicate the traits and actions of the so called 'alpha' male - the one all females were attracted to. By replicating the 'alpha' male one would unlock all keys and mysteries to women forevermore. Thus the new gold rush started while everyone tried to deconstruct the Alpha and rebuild him from scratch. But there was something missing and Pook (his consciousness raising book here) was the first one to bring that concept to light. Why do we try to reinvent the wheel and replicate an Alpha male rather than finding out the core traits that define Alpha males and adopt those (thus becoming Alpha ourselves)? Besides it was obvious by now that it was too mentally taxing to remember to tuck in your gut and project your voice and not lean in at more than certain degrees of angles (while having to memorize your set of 14 stories) when talking to a woman you are interested in. The key was sheer masculinity. Everything made sense now except...

Only for the lucky ones

Masculinity is a great thing if you're one of those highly polarized manly-men. If you're not though how do you unify your biological desires with the core of your being? The game is setup for only certain types of people to win. As Sun Tzu stated in his art of war most battles are won before they are even fought. With that nerds fight the uphill battle all the way through just to lose in the end. We now know the exact formula to get women as a nerd - sell your soul, change yourself, and be everything you are not!

The reprucussions

My research of game and the tenets behind it helped me unlock the holy grail of pickup - masculinity (see Pook's book for *elaborate( details). Is this the end though? This can't possibly be the end in my mind because if it is then it infers that nerds are biologically faulty - a disease if you will. I won't deny and say this cannot be true - it may in fact be the truth - but if so this has heavy reprucussions on all of our lives. It implies there is only one true path to victory and that alphas should rule the world forevermore as many on other pickup sites strongly espouse. Honestly I wouldn't want to live in a world though where everyone is constantly trying to one up one another and focuses only on the animalistic portions of the human existence.

Genders are shifting rapidly as well - basically men are becoming more like women and women are becoming more like men. If love and sexuality are indeed solely tied to biological polarity of genders then love and sexuality are not sacred but a farce!  This is because if love/sex depend on biological polarity, and genders become less polar and more unified as they become more alike, then love/sex become obsolete. Thus pickup is a waste of time as you are hedging your bets on a quickly deprecating concept. Love and sex are nothing but biological animal urges and command no respect in the realm of soul. This doesn't feel right either.

Maybe there is the 3rd way - can we just be ourselves the way we are (even if everything we are is unattractive to women) and still get the girl?


The Premise

The grand fantasy of pickup is one in which any man can have any girl they desire (usually coupled with not having to put in the work to be 'a better person' or change ourselves). 'She'll like me for who I am' is the rallying cry for many men everywhere who are waiting for that special someone (usually a fantasy that cannot fit a real life ideal). The mainstream pickup community believes that the right to 'be yourself' is a myth though. For example David Deangelo espouses, if I interpreted correctly, that you must first earn the right to 'be yourself' by fulfilling some expected prerequisites of manliness set by society. Pook also stated in his book that 'being yourself' was just a mask to hide and justify mediocrity. One entire chapter in the book of Pook is actually dedicated solely to how women and men treated him differently as he went from a skinny person to a muscular adonis. Those statements are easily verifiable and the logic of them cannot be denied but if mediocrity were so bad then why do many people stick with it? No one consciously desires to be mediocre (assumption there). If one is getting their hand burned they do not keep it on the stove. I argue they must be happy in one form or another as people who are unhappy usually take action to remedy their ills. America in general (being a quick fix pharmaceutical culture) views pickup as the new 'drug' of sorts to cure their ills with women. No longer do I have to put in the work to exercise, culture, improve myself etc... I can just learn a bunch of quicky pickup lines and stories in my spare time and seduce any woman I want! I read an ebook and in 5 minutes I go for average joe to Don Juan. This works alright if you're only looking for animalistic satisfaction but one can only keep the Wizard of Oz projected for so long if you're looking for a real relationship. Besides if one is only into the physical aspect of sex there are businesses that cater to that and women who are likewise only looking into the same carnal things. I aim to aim higher with this. Here is the grand question:

Is pickup alone enough to attract 'the one'? (in detail: Can pickup alone be used by a man to sink hooks into a woman - similarly to how a woman sink hooks into a man? [Once the hooks are sunk then it seems like a lot of the superficiality of a relationship seems to vanish into thin air like obsession with looks, status, finances, etc... to be transmuted to this mystical concept of love])

ps: One of the most effective draws I've seen to lure people into pickup are testimonials in which overweight, old, unattractive, and everyday indecisive men who are horrible with women start landing numbers and dates with women way out of their leagues. Is this realistic in practice or is it just marketing? I want to believe this is possible but please convince me otherwise. Everyone else has failed thus far.



Why me? Why us? Why Tynan Community Forums?

In the entirety of the internet there are probably better places to post this 'state of the nation' rather than Tynan's community forums. So why did I pick you guys to unload this monstrosity? It is because I believe in this community and what they stand for. To take the dust of life and shape it into manifest reality takes a certain type of person. A certain type of clarity and purity. A certain type that can think outside the box and judge more clearly than one clouded by their own fears and insecurities. The shephard does not ask the sheep for answers. Einstein nailed it when he said, " No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." Anywhere else this may devolve into a flame and troll fest and I it may happen here. I may feel guilt everlasting for bringing the tides of darkness to these shores. It may be the end for me personally but I've hung around here long enough to think those maligned types of people just can't stand in the presence of the ones around here. It is as Steve Pavlina stated before - being around highly conscious reminds mediocre people how much of their soul they've given up - and they can't stand to face the truth.


Update 9/6/12 - Why I stopped caring about women (The Red Pill)

Months

ago I posted this to try and figure out essentially if non-physical non-sexual attributes alone can make a woman sexually attracted to you. They cannot. My first milestone of clarity came after posting a response to Prestojx in

http://tynan.com/thirty

regarding his experiences with women, marriage, and life in general. He claims there is no happiness in marriage and women we pine for eventually become 'reality' and our exalted image of them is broken. From there I realized that my big mistake was not realizing I was a sexual being since I wanted a sexual relationship with a woman (but didn't realize it as sexual back then). I realized this because when I wanted to move from friendship to more than friends I got rejected and in turn burnt the bridge completely. Given the only thing that has changed was my moving of context from a non-sexual one (friends) to sexual (more than friends) I realized the main determinant of my falling in/out of love was purely sex.

She always told me nothing changed about her during that time - it was me who changed - and only recently have I realized she was right. Thus the big mistake a lot of men make in regards to women is the failure to understand that both men and women have both a normal and sexual aspect. For myself and I assume for a lot of men in the past there is no concept of seperation between the 'self' and the 'sexual self' - thus if one gets rejected sexually - it becomes a personal rejection as well. Women are much more in-tune subconsciously of their dual-faceted nature of having both a normal and sexual aspect - thus they have clearly defined seperations between men they want to have as friends and men they want to have sex with. This is why women are confusing to many men - why they seem to want the nice guy but have sex with the jerk. Every woman is essentially 2 beings with distinct needs - one with needs of normal friendship / companionship and one with needs of raw passionate sex. To get the best of both worlds you need to please both aspects of the female dichotomy - be a great guy AND be a sexy guy. Thus we explain the women's love for the 'bad boy with a heart' as Pook describes. This man satisfies both natures of the female.

This also explains why moving from a friendship context to a sexual context as Tynan describes is the best way to get out of friendzone. It is because we are satisfying BOTH natures of the female now - not just one.



Going back to men - there is an almost puritan denial in America of the aspect of male sexuality. Google it up (male sexuality, what makes a man sexy, etc...) and you'll find total and utter crap. Male sexuality has been suppressed and thus men growing up have no notion of their normal and sexual selves. They only see a normal self and thus when they become sexually attracted to a woman this becomes falsely labelled as 'love'. Men are not really in love with this woman though - they are in 'sex' with her - meaning they are SOLELY sexually attracted to her but cannot realize this because their normal and sexual selves are intertwined into just the normal self. Because of this lack of separation and no concept of our sexual nature we have this thing called Pickup and these long winded philosophical posts such as this one. We try being nice to the woman, we try using pickup lines and stories and techniques, we try alpha this alpha that, and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't so it gets packed into lay reports which are like scientific observations for other fellow pickup scientist to pick apart and try to find what works. The main ingredient they are trying to distill is sexuality - the seperation of the normal and sexual selves. The techniques that work are the aspects of solely the sexual nature of man. Once we men realize that we too both have a normal self (that as we see ourselves now) and a sexual self (that part of us which likes others solely because of how they look) can we shatter the illusions that we need women in our lives.



In all practicality then what does this imply? For men to get the women you need to be sexy, and the answer was under our noses (literally) the entire time. We have cliches like 'men like looks women like personalities' - they are half truths. What makes a man sexy is the EXACT SAME THING that makes a woman sexy - looks. Looks looks looks looks looks. Physical looks - such as muscles et al. How did I derive this? Last I thought 'masculinity' was the key aspect that made a man sexy but one very special exception destroyed that theory. Homosexual men. Women fall in love with their homosexual male friends all the time. The thing is - homosexual men are rarely the pinnacles of masculinity - if not the opposite. Thus it can't be solely masculinity which wins the hearts of women as women are passing by their straight friends to fall in love with their homosexual ones all the time. So what aspect then is shared by masculine men and homosexual men? Looks. Both the outdoorsman bad boy type and the homosexual place looks at their prime and work out a lot to maintain a certain look. Thus these two have a sexual component to them - one in which the typical man is not even aware of existing. Thus women gravitate towards who is sexiest. Given the choice between a homosexual sexy man and a masculine sexy man I dare say the masculine will win out - but why?



Earlier on I said 'men like looks women like personalities' as half truth - we went over why it was half false earlier and now we will go over why it is half true. The main purpose of sexuality and sex is reproduction so it goes to show that the sexual drive will be strongest with those you can reproduce with. Reproduction requires a union of opposite physical sexes thus the more polarized (meaning the more manly/feminine) a person is the stronger the drive will be to mate with them. Thus women, given a choice between 2 equally sexy men, will pick the one with the more masculine personality as that component increases his manliness - his polarity of being opposite to her - making him more desirable to have sex with. Thus we now see personality DOES come into play in attraction - but ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE SATISFIED THE SEXUAL ASPECT. Being sexual is the ice cream and having a great personality is the cherry on top. Just as men will go out with sexy women of questionable personality (commonly termed bitches) women will go out with sexy men of questionable personality (commonly termed jerks). For the math inclined attractiveness to the opposite sex can be defined by this formula:



S = sexiness


P = personality



Attraction = S*(S+P)



If you make S=0 no amount of P will spark any attraction


If you make S > 0 then any amount of P > 0 may spark attraction (though higher levels of P will have multiplicative effects on your success!)



If you're a man and you have no concept of your sexual aspect then your S is most likely 0. This is how many men delude themselves and without regards for their sexiness go into pickup trying to maximize their personalities (P) with dominance and stories and still end up empty handed. Sure you'll hear stories about it working every once in a while but how successful are they? The pickup community has no notion of the Sexual (S) aspect of pickup so they cannot seperate whether the guy was even mildly attractive or not when he successfully closed. My guess is a lot of closes are due to them having at least some aspect of S. If they want to prove me wrong I want to see common documented repeated consistent occurrences of grossly obese men scoring left and right with their personalities alone. I tried this approach first hand - I had an (S) hovering around 0 due to just not working out or giving regards to looks and tried to maximize (P) and got absolutely nowhere. It's all looks - go to the gym - get a nice body - a sexual body - and your success will skyrocket.



Now we go full circle - can nerds get the girl? Yes - if they are sexy. No - if they are not. So simple life is and yet without knowledge of the truth how complicated it can become.



With this realization I hope the entirety of the pickup universe implodes on itself and gets sucked back into the black hole from whence it came. With pining over the opposite sex out of the way we can finally use our energies to tackle the things that truly matter. Also, in what could be my biggest admonishment yet, those who pine profusely over the opposite sex and speak endlessly of love/romance I think of you as less than human - because - romantic love doesn't exist - only sex. Thus what you pine for is not the higher state of consciousness termed 'love' but the basal human emotion of 'sex'. Like those obsessed with things of little grand importance in the human spectrum the obsession with sex is on the same level with addiction to food, alcohol, drugs, etc... If my admonishment sounds unduly harsh it is only because I've been there for a long time and I am only admonishing myself. Myself - for being so stupid and naive all these years...



Closing note: I don't really wish the end of pickup, it has its uses, especially in maximizing personality. My only wish was they warned everyone before reading any of the material that you had to work on your looks first. There are warnings but they are usually 1 or 2 liners in passing (oh yeah you gotta work on your looks, go to the gym, don't be fat etc...). The emphasis of looking good and healthy should be of prime concern and make up a good 50% of the material before the endless pages of stories and mental exercises. Maybe if we just prepended a workout book with an additionally prepended few chapters such as this of why looks are important to any pickup book we'd be good to go :D.



Afterthoughts: The energetic importance of sex



Sex has the power to change. Napoleon Hill speaks highly of the sexual energy in 'Think and Grow Rich'. In retrospect what I said about sex earlier referred to the basal use of sex just for pleasure. I agree with Napoleon Hill though on the grounds that sexual energy transmuted - sexual energy used not solely for temporary pleasure but to power one's everyday actions is a power we should hold much reverence for.

Subscribe to Tynan

Do Something

Get new posts sent to you. If you change your mind later, unsubscribe with one click.

You're a member of this community! Use the buttons on the right to vote on this post or share it with others. Or leave a reply below.

Share

Vote

No bio set
Guest
Vote
Advanced options  
tynan.com/
No bio set
Alan Howard
0
Vote

while I enjoyed this article, I think 'sexy' can also be part of 'personality'. A man's personality can be sexy to a woman if he's not like the rest of the unsexy men. But confidence and humour play a big part of that. Insecurity about your appearance leads to lack of confidence and humour, because being funny with women would draw attention to yourself. Hell no! But if you can get over that and be confident and funny, you'll be sexy too.

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

I agree to a point. Looking introspectively I think I'd make a bad salesman (or maybe a really good one) because I have a hard time upselling things I don't personally believe in. I can have personality this and that all I want with topics not relating to physicality but once the dial moves over to that topic then the insecurities would kick in. In that aspect I would lack in both personality and physical looks as deep down inside I know if I tried to fake it I'd be making a promise on something that I couldn't eventually deliver.

So yeah been doing things to change the body lately and attack some long standing insecurities hidden under the rug for possibly decades. That is game for me right there in a nutshell. Some of my beliefs may be false limiting beliefs but they are limiting regardless to the degree I believe in them. Sure I know logically I don't need to have a body even close to anything a little above average but in my mind right now from all the information I've collected thru my senses my physicality may rank on the outlier bottom rungs of human statistical deviance. When you're an outlier all the rules change as rules that apply no longer apply to you. I've never seen myself as an outlier before - I thought i was like everyone else and thus tried what everyone else did and couldn't really get past certain points. Only by really digging down deep into the junkpile did I realize I was below the mark I originally thought I was at. The only thing that could break these limiting beliefs now is attacking them head on by being everything I thought was unavailable to me.
Music nerd, future rockstar composer.
DudeWithViolin
0
Vote

You run into just the same fallacies as any pickup book, and this long (LONG) post is even more dogmatic than most pickup resources I've read.

You beat around the bush for hundreds of words until you come to the conclusion that you need to see yourself as a sexual being and look good - no shit, Sherlock.

Now go read Mystery and David deAngelo so you know what to do with yourself now that you're a sexualized hunk, and don't hate on other people's work.

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

I've just about read them all and then some and my piece was an attempt at filling in an important gap that all of the existing works don't cover. Pook's work came the closest as his accounts of female reactions in response to his bodybuilding are approx the 3rd chapter of the book. Back when I wrote this I may have been in a zealous mood but I never intended to bash the other works. If anything it was just my disappointment over how so many comprehensive works have not covered the 'physical/sexual' aspect in more than just passing. If I recall correctly in Mystery's work his passing mention of the sexual aspect was "work out and gain some muscle" both in his book and as paraphrased in "The Game" as advice to Neil. David DeAngelo also dives into this in more practical detail with suggestions like shaving your armpits and body lotions and such but otherwise the focus of the book like Mystery's lies under the assumption that the 'looks' pre-requisite is satisfied and dives into the social aspects. The other works only dedicate a few lines of at most a chapter in covering this aspect which is a shame imo because it is a very important pre-requisite to maximize success of future interactions.



Way back Tynan or someone else posted pics of the PUA's themselves along with Project Hollywood. Mystery is tall white and caucasian which is a subtle advantage which may not have been recognized as the work was written from his point of view. Twenty-six was not as tall but still had a decent figure if on the thin side like Mystery. Neil looked a bit old and weathered before he changed his style and despite being short his bodily dimensions weren't too off the mark in terms of bodily fat. David DeAngelo is the same way - a tad short and skinny but nothing out of the ordinary with that physical type. Given all of these people were in so called 'normal ranges' of physicality maybe it didn't occur to them that the physical aspect was important. I wager to think Pook was short and scrawny from his works as he places a much more observable emphasis on 'looks' in his book while recommending Antony Ellis' program which was geared towards hardgainers. As much as we like to paint our world idealistically looks are still a very big determinant in human judging. How someone looks initially is the initial 'base score' they have and as life is not perfectly balanced by it's current nature some people will need to overcome larger handicaps than others because of factors beyond their control.



As for needing months/years and an essay to figure out the obvious I guess when you're a natural or in tune with 'the way things are' such truths are obvious. I dare say a lot of men in this age though are totally lost to their natures and thus we even have such a thing as an industry devoted to how to attract women - and business is booming. All of the works so far mentioned have also come to this conclusion. There is a lot of misguided advice out there and only by sifting thru it manually can we hope to glean out the truth. This is why I tend to write long posts as well - I want to create a backtrace of every mental process that goes into creating a thought so that if the thought is wrong the relevant logical fallacies can be rooted out and the thought reformed to truth. Hitler thought what he did was right. Pol Pot thought what he did was right. History abounds with dictators who have done atrocious acts in the name of truth and justice. Only by laying it all on the table can we see where the cracks lie before the entire house collapses.



The language was a bit pushy I admit but I don't claim this as dogma and the be-all-end-all to pickup but I think it is very close. Physical looks are a very fickle and relative gauge from one person to another. I remember when everyone was all hung up on Halle Berry and then years later Jessica Alba. Tbh if they had a crush on me I'd probably friendzone them both. They have the look, they have the fame, they have everything most guys want but it just doesn't hit the right spots for me. Thus even perfect looks and perfect game and perfect etc... is no guarantee of anything in life. Statistically chances go up but since the standard rank of 'measure' is 'that one special girl' there can be no guarantees about anything as in individual cases nothing is guaranteed.

Why go thru the trouble then of caring? I think solving this will fix an underlying societal issue - why don't we like each other? Why are there so many divorces? Most children (if not all) prefer having both parents growing up - especially when younger. If we can figure out what attracts us to one another and what cements that bond maybe we can recover our communities and have parents who will actually take care of their children instead of falling into one night stands and then throwing them to the curb - raising entire generations of lost and uncared for children.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

I remember when everyone was all hung up on Halle Berry and then years later Jessica Alba. Tbh if they had a crush on me I'd probably friendzone them both. 

The whole idea of falling in love with celebrities that you have never meet is a bit strange. To do that I think you need to fantasy a lot about them.

I don't think that the fact that you don't fall in love with her based on the public information about her means, that you wouldn't if you would meet her in person and she would try to seduce you. 

Statistically chances go up but since the standard rank of 'measure' is 'that one special girl' there can be no guarantees about anything as in individual cases nothing is guaranteed.

I don't think that there only "one special girl" that would make the perfect partner for every guy. For an evolutionary standpoint that idea doesn't make that much sense. Arranged marriages in India between people that didn't directly choose each other work pretty well. There are 500 people towns where guys still find a girl that complements them. In big modern cities there are plenty of potential mates that fill all necessary criteria. 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote
I don't think that the fact that you don't fall in love with her based on the public information about her means, that you wouldn't if you would meet her in person and she would try to seduce you.

That was all a very shallow assessment based on looks alone. If we were at a party and I saw women that looked like them it wouldn't be instant hard on territory for me. Funny though as my tastes shift frequently. I like to think that if you spend enough time with someone you can fall in love with them regardless of how they look (happens more to men than women). This goes nicely with the next point I wanted to address.

I don't think that there only "one special girl" that would make the perfect partner for every guy. For an evolutionary standpoint that idea doesn't make that much sense. Arranged marriages in India between people that didn't directly choose each other work pretty well. There are 500 people towns where guys still find a girl that complements them. In big modern cities there are plenty of potential mates that fill all necessary criteria.

Pook covers this in his chapter about marriage and cites Jewish arranged marriages as an example too. Two people who never met become partners for life and many end up being happy with each other. Maybe this is just an artifact of American culture I don't know but we tend to get caught up with specific women. As I learned to expand my options and de-pedastilize women though (along with self development) I realized that I don't need to have things exactly my way all the time. As time goes on I know my horizons have opened up from being real picky before. Partnership is not an immediate goal of mine at the moment so I still 'shoot for the moon' as I don't care about winning so if I do win I want to score big. Such a perspective change back from when I wrote this and was caught up with another girl I wish was my girlfriend.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote
If we were at a party and I saw women that looked like them it wouldn't be instant hard on territory for me. Funny though as my tastes shift frequently. I like to think that if you spend enough time with someone you can fall in love with them regardless of how they look (happens more to men than women).

I think you are making a mistake when you equal arousal with love. I can like the personality of a woman and be aroused while dancing closely with her without having an intention to make her my girlfriend. 

To fall in love you actually have to spent time imaging having a relationship and/or have sex. If I don't see practical potential I personally won't fall in love. I can dance five or ten minutes very intimately with a girl I never meet before and then move on. We can both feel arousal but focus on the dance. 

Partnership is not an immediate goal of mine at the moment so I still 'shoot for the moon' as I don't care about winning so if I do win I want to score big. 

Do you expect that you marry the first girl that you make your girlfriend? By the way, you speak a bunch about Karma. What paradigm do you follow concretely? Hinduism? 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

I think you are making a mistake when you equal arousal with love.

I used to do this but I don't anymore (especially ever since this post). The comment I made above actually supported your stance. I now believe that if you spend enough time with someone/something you tend to get attached regardless of looks. This is also supported by our shared belief on arranged marriages in which 2 people who did not choose each other willingly find a way to get along.

Do you expect that you marry the first girl that you make your girlfriend? By the way, you speak a bunch about Karma. What paradigm do you follow concretely? Hinduism?

I don't expect to marry but I may since I do a lot of pre-screening in the first place so whoever I end up with will usually be a good match. Even if I do marry though I will want to ride the relationship far out beyond the 2 year honeymoon period (5+ years) just to really make sure we don't end up hating each other once the chemicals fade and I have to give away half my stuff in divorce court.

In regards to karma I don't really have a religious notion for it. It is more my way of saying "attachments and consequences of action" all in one word. Sex is a very sacred and personal thing to most people and when you have sex with someone it creates an attachment to that person more than any other action. Sure if I had tons of sex all the time I may be able to detatch emotionally but I don't want that to happen. I think sex is sacred because it is the only act that creates human life long before we got good with test tubes. Napoleon Hill also ascribes sexual energy to creation of not just human life but the creation of desire - the source of action.

So karma for me is the attachment notion as I described above and also the consequenece of action. If I have sex with someone and do a one night stand and disappear the next day I will possibly create a lot of hurt in the person. That may result in her not trusting men or hating men and having bad relationships in the future etc.... In a way I am the one responsible for all of that happening and because of that I believe I will have to be on the other side of the experience in the future. I guess this is the Hindu belief is it not? Killers experience being killed (in later lives possibly) and such. I believe (without logical proof but it makes sense) that all karma is reflective only because you don't fully experience something until you've come at it from both sides. Back when I was into casinos I played in them a ton and then I made my own casino for fun for family/friends just to be on the other side. From that experience I learned what scares casinos the most - aggressive parlay betting. I would have never learned that from being just a gambler without coming at it from the other side.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote
I now believe that if you spend enough time with someone/something you tend to get attached regardless of looks. 
I don't think it's just about spending time with someone. It's about the story you tell yourself about the time you spend together.

Even if I spent a lot of time together with my sister, I won't fall in love with her. Her being pretty doesn't change something about it. Even without the MHC-complex thing, there's a strong cultural idea against considering your siblings as relationship partners. 

Human are more complex than a simple formula.

Napoleon Hill also ascribes sexual energy to creation of not just human life but the creation of desire - the source of action.
Napoleon Hill is a child of his time. A very puritan time. If you look at recent research I don't think that you can uphold Napoleon's argument. 

In regards to karma I don't really have a religious notion for it. It is more my way of saying "attachments and consequences of action" all in one word. 

Well, you do seem to have some conception of past lives and reincarnation. From where did you get yours? Reading? You don't seem like the guy who does past-life regressions for fun.

Should this be a topic, that better to discuss in private I have no problem with taking this discussion to another channel. 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Hey man sorry about delay been busy lately anyway -

On spending time with people - yeah you won't necessarily fall in love with a woman spending time with her but it's much more likely than not. I always think of the weird adversary effect for lack of a better word. You ever met someone who is just totally opposite yourself and pisses you off in every way and you have to deal with them? Somehow if you spend enough time with this person you start to respect/like them for some weird psychological reason. Like you find things you two have in common or you start seeing a common thread that unifies you both and makes you realize you are not so different after all (and in fact may be the SAME). I don't know if this is a coping mechanism or some sort of entropic 'bonding' with a person even if you spend time disliking each other. Usually the bond that forms when you spend time with someone/something is a true love transcendental bond over shallow lust/sexual desire.


On Napoleon Hill - He is from a different time yes and if sexuality was suppressed he would overemphasize it's value I agree. On that note though I'm not sure if it is Napoleon Hill or Dale Carnegie but someone in one of their e-books saw the destruction of sexuality coming from a century away. In one of the ebooks there is mention of how women 'have to wear more revealing outfits' to make themselves 'more attractive and pleasing to men' because 'of a lack of feminine qualities to attract men'. These aren't exact quotes by far but paraphrases of what I remember reading in either Napoleon's or Dale's or some other work from a century back. Pook in his book only makes the connection in the present thru observation of nature itself - that sexuality is being destroyed and thus the only thing that is 'sexual' now is the actual act of having sex.


More regarding the above w/ Napleon Hill/sexuality - The sexuality point is important because I think it is the root cause of a lot of our partnership problems today - we are just not attracted to each other. Our media and social indoctrination in America teaches women to be strong, self sufficient, and outspoken while teaching men to be ashamed of their brutishness and directness. Our movies and TV shows are filled with this in America - you can't deny the truth. Self assured confident desirable in every way girl with a bumbling incompetency of a man who tries to win her over with his shows of affection (Michael Cera movie, Chuck TV series, Princess Bride movie just to name a few of hundreds)  Before I am misunderstood I believe there is NOTHING wrong with females being empowered and I am all for empowerment. What we need to realize though is our biologies are stuck with ten-hundred-thousand+ year old programming and in most cases men are sexually attracted to feminine essences and women are sexually attracted to male essences. Thus when our society moves towards a gender non-polarized state with strong women and weak men should we be surprised when we can't get it up anymore? A lot of the RooshV/heartiste/returnofkings stuff cover this material and I think there is truth to it regardless of how 'oppressive to women' it sounds. Once again I am all for female empowerment in every realm and equality for females and all. In the bedroom though equality doesn't make for good lovemaking. Maybe we need to as Pook says square the circle once again and be an egalitarian society in all aspects except the bedroom where we take on the roles that will satisfy us sexually. The roles aren't even gender specific anymore - they are more dominant/submissive - one on top and one on the bottom. It is that polarity - that seperation - that distinction - the attraction of opposites - that seems to be the entire brunt of sexuality (the sexual force - electricity) itself. Dominant women are attracted sexually to submissive men. It's not just gender specific anymore but sexually we all seem to have either an up/down/switch role that brings us the most satisfaction. This difference in our roles - this polarity - is essential.

With the above I think we've really dug our own graves here in American culture. When a woman acts womanly and seductive/flirty/sexy we label her a 'slut' and frown upon her. When a man acts dominant and strong/powerful we label him a 'jerk' and frown upon him. Yet it is these two polarities that sexually we are most attracted to. I've spent a ton of time finding the connection between the bodies and our souls - they are inseperable it seems and until the soul takes over thru personal development we are at the mercy of our bodies. The spirit IS willing but the flesh is weak and since they are conjoined we must address both aspects. Sexuality is both a mental aspect and a physical one as we must satisfy the paradox of our body/soul embodiment.

One more observation to really stake the heart once again. I used to go to Las Vegas a ton on long roadtrips and that place attracts a huge international crowd being a world destination and all. Most time I see foreigners in a family the gender polarities are readily evident. The women are very womanly looking and feminine while the men look like total beasts with their stong stout builds and carry. This is a statistical observation - in most cases this is what I see. Looking at this from the same scope at ourselves we see overweight entitled women in America along with scrawny weakling incompetent defeated men. Both genders are guilty of failure here. We both expect everything and offer nothing in return. This is what I mean when I relay Pook's observation that sexuality is no longer present in America except in the act of sex. Looking at American men and women there is nothing to arouse us in general when we compare ourselves to foreigners. When you look at foreigners it is obvious who is male and who is female. And being female is not the 'weaker' aspect. We are yin and yang as the asians put it best - we NEED each other to completion - ONE IS NOT BETTER THAN THE OTHER. There hopefully I really drove it home lol.


On karma - http://www.michaelteachings.com/ is a good sum up of what I've come to believe in thru poking at our world. I don't like using the term 'new age' since it has so many negative connotations now and a lot of fakes looking to shill the younger more naive of us. I take things in as I see them and then wonder if we can do better. Given that one of the key fundamentals for me is the belief in belief itself - that thru our sheer mental state alone we can effect changes thru our physical world. I take a Pascal's Wager on this as it takes very little effort to form a thought or intent but if the so called 'law of attraction' (another negative connotation) as they put it turns out to be true then the possible rewards are infinite. You can call it 'manifesting your beliefs' or you can call it 'statistical observation bias' but the former is more empowering and if the latter is true you didn't really lose much to begin with.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

I'm not American but German and live in the beautiful cosmopolitcan city called Berlin. 

I understand that the US has a lot of diversity. You have fat people who live in the Bible belt who don't believe in evolution.

On the other hand you also have things like Burning Man. You don't have to live in "mainstream culture".

Two decades ago an book review in a major mainstream publication made a book. The same isn't true anymore. Mainstream media is a lot weeker than it was two decades ago.

Today the person who can sell the most books is Oprah. Oprah doesn't represent a consensus position. Her relationship with her audience is a different one from the relationship that a New York Times book reviewer has with his audience. 

It's more and more possible to live in your own cultural world without much interference from the mainstream culture.

It's okay for different people to have different values. You don't have to wait for the mainstream to change, you can just go and live your value and find other people who share them. 

The idea of a mainstream culture is a 20st century idea. It's significance wanes with every day. It doesn't make sense to blame mainstream culture anymore. 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Yeah it's true especially with all our electronics now we practically are a psychic society whereas anyone can contact anyone whenever they feel like. "Going with the mainstream flow" is not justifiable anymore when options are available to find/connect to kindred souls with the push of a couple buttons.

I guess it's just a question of effort vs reward. Mainstream is called just that for a reason - it is the main stream in a river and thus has the most flow and power compared to all other resulting branches. It is a lot easier to get what you want when you are 'in sync' with the flow over trying to fight the current each and every step of the way. Despite that I agree with you - the self is worth fighting for - but not to such a blind devotion as I had a year back when writing the original article.

Anyway since making the original post I've conceded a lot of my stubborn positions regarding things I should be doing like exercising and eating a better diet. Doing exercise 2x a week now trying to make it 3 while doing Dr. Rosedale/bulletproof diet. Energy levels are up, T flowing once again, good feelings are back, it's like a reversal of time! I no longer attach myself to being a 'nerd' and I strive to take more risks and be more open minded regarding other people and their points of view. I will maybe one day ride down the 'mainstream' again but on a raft of my own making :D.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

Online connection are useful but don't underestimate the importance of finding people who shares your views that you can meet face to face. Humans are social creatures and we strive of interacting with people who understand us. It's worthwhile to live in a city where there are people who at least share some of your views and aren't lost in the mainstream. 

Don't underestimate the effort required to fit into mainstream society. I don't think the mainstream really flows much anymore. It's more like a still sea than a river. 

You don't want to follow the mainstream thought and up with a midlife crisis in your thirties because you find your life meaningless. 

Congratualtion to getting back on track :)

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Haha this topic has spiraled so out of control I don't know where it begins or ends or what it was all about anymore. This may well be one of the most polarizing topics of our age as I've seen that vote ticker dance between 1 and -1 for months now.

Some people may ask if this was all a troll. At one point this was a huge issue in my life and I wrote this all down to be used as a sort of litmus test to see if my mind was going down the right path or not. Apparently the reception has been more negative and positive and I really don't know if it's due to the controversial subject matter and poking at sacred cows or if I was indeed leaning towards insanity. It would help if the other +1's or -1's would chime in and stir the pot so to speak :D. Our opinions vary and are shaped thru personal experience. Philosophies might very well be as unique as we are and all this a pointless exercise in the end.

My intent was to get a sampling of the opinions out there and from that external non-ego attached vantage point get a bigger view of the situation. Regardless of how it turned out I was able to solve my original problem thanks to everyone chiming in (especially Christian).

In summary at one point I thought being 'myself' was king. What we consider to be the self though is changeable once you really look into what holds it together (limiting beliefs/fears/inexperience etc). We are not doomed by our initial roll in life and changing may be a lot easier than I thought it'd be (especially once I gained momentum).

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Double post here - delete me!

Polyglot, traveler, and philomath running a blog on language learning, motivation, and learning hacks. Always looking to meet new people as passionate about life as I am!
Lingholic
0
Vote
"Also, in what could be my biggest admonishment yet, those who pine profusely over the opposite sex and speak endlessly of love/romance I think of you as less than human - because - romantic love doesn't exist - only sex. Thus what you pine for is not the higher state of consciousness termed 'love' but the basal human emotion of 'sex'."

Could you expand on that? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "romantic love doesn't exist--only sex." From my personal experience, romantic love does exist.
Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Sure thing,

As a linguist you probably understand well more than I ever will regarding how some words are 'overloaded' to encompass many different concepts in one word. 'Love' is probably one of the worst of these as there are innumerable different types of love that are all distinct from each other. What I term 'Romantic Love' focuses solely on the love that is 'unjustifiable infatuation/obsession with another person' or 'attraction/obsession/elevation of another person without any real merit or basis besides their sexual attraction to them' (best way I can put it). Even in 'Romantic Love' there are probably some good aspects of it if subdivided further but taken as a whole it seems more like sensation/addiction chasing behavior if anything.

Take Taylor Swift for instance. I'd hate to single out people like that but she's a good epitome of this 'Romantic Love' or maybe I should term it 'Shallow Love'. She gets with someone new then breaks up with them 2 weeks/2 months later then uses it as fodder for her songs. I am almost sure she does this on purpose to fuel albums but if we take away the songwriting aspect of it and look at just the relationship aspect she lives in a sort of 'Romantic Love/Shallow Love' existence. Can you really say you 'love' a person after knowing them for a mere few weeks/months then break up? People who have been married for decades still sometimes find 'things about the other' they never knew. Can you really figure out a person in that short amount of time to justify first being infatuated with them then using it as the same basis to later dump them? Personally I think it's madness; an aberration to the basal human need for love and acceptance (as all humans at their core want this). Are we not abusing the other when we infatuate over them on a very limited basis? Usually when someone falls in 'Romantic Love' it is a sort of quick and dirty evaluation and assessment of a person - they look good - they like some of the things I like - hence I fall in love <3. Is it really fair to another though to valuate them on such limited circumstances (halo effect is similar to this - attractive people thought to be better overall people)? We do the inverse all the time with the halo effect all the time - unattractive people are biased to be worse people on the basis of looks alone.

When I say 'Romantic love doesn't exist' I guess what I mean to say is 'Romantic love is not on the level of a true love'. Everybody probably knows a person or three or seems to get with someone new every month.  ..... Oh yeah I've fallen in LOVE with her  (month later) .....I don't like her anymore. I've fallen in LOVE with someone else!  etc...  Did you really LOVE her in the first place? If you truly 'love' someone in the truest sense of the world it is VERY hard to just get rid of them with a flick of the wrist. The attachment bonds that form with true love aren't prone to severing and if they are there is usually a huge karmic backlash for both parties involved. It seems all of those who seem to slip into and out of infatuation/addictions with someone of the opposite sex just to discard them when something new comes up are not living lives of love. They are just going down the path of addiction/sensation/suffering. I made this mistake for most of my life and thus I have a hard time tolerating when others do it only because I know of the consequences and neurosis it causes. I thought I fell in love with so many women in my life but when looks shift I find myself chasing something else - embarassing - an insult to them for my inability to value them as human beings and an insult to myself as for someone who thinks they are conscious they are in fact shallow.

---

PS: Romanticism seems very parallel to the pickup artist concept of 'Neediness'. When a guy is needy he tends to overvalue all the girls he meets. As soon as this 'fantasy' is broken though the relationship usually ends. Needy guys tend to be romantics only in that due to the scarcity of possible women in their lives any one that comes along is unduly inflated/biased towards divinity and not seen 'as is'. Every meal looks delicious when you're hungry...

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

As far as your update goes:

Love is an emotion that you can feel in your heart. Desire for sex is usually associete with other parts of the body. Nobody dies to rescue another person because they feel sexually attracted to that person. On the other hand some humans do die for other people because they love them. 

It's a mistake to assume that making a woman feel attracted is the same thing as getting laid. I heared a good example from a PUA trainer called Adam Lyons. He had a student that had no problem getting make outs with 4 woman a night but who didn't get laid in one and a half years. Even through he did manage to attract woman enough to be willing to kiss him, he didn't get laid.

The human mating process is complex and guys who aren't present to the emotions in it can still mess up the process even when the woman is initially  attracted to them due to good looks.

Another issue with the pickup literature is that they paint a distorted picture of success. 77% of Brits reported for a poll of The Observer that they have sex one or more per month. 71% are happy with their sex life.  If you are a loney nerd and want sex your goal probably shouldn't be the PUA lifestyle but just being a normal man because normal man do get frequent sex.

A lot of PUA material is about looking down on the average man, when that's not productive if you goal is just to get into a normal relationship with a girl that includes sex. The normal human mating process relies on hard wired emotions. A lot of nerds don't follow their natural instincts and therefore mess up the normal mating process. 

You need neither crazy looks nor crazy social skills to get laid. That said, I would expect someone with a high skill in social engineering to get laid regardless of his look. Derren Brown got someone without criminal background to rob a money transport in "The Heist". In contrast to such stunts, getting a woman to have sex is a much easier goal even if you are obese.

I don't have the skills to do crazy social engineering stunts, but I know someone who pulled stunts that most people would consider impossible. I had days where I was in the state where I could do impressive stuff myself. 

Take Richard Bandler. The guy is overweight and I doubt most would consider him to look sexy. I doubt that he has trouble getting laid. Don't underrate what people with highly developed social skills can do. 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Hey again,

I'll cover these in more detail possibly but I don't have much time at the moment. I'll just skim over your points real quickly. Let me know if something is unclear and I'll expand further.

On love - I revised the intro of my post to reflect that 'most' love instead of 'all' love may be just masked sexual attraction. There is such a thing as true love but I think in budding relationships most people mistake the feeling of 'falling in love' with someone with 'sexual attraction'. True love I think has to be cultivated, a product of effort in most cases and a result of a relationship with someone over time. True love is independent of the sexual component - it stands all by itself. 'Sexual love' though is a feeling of infatuation for someone you just met and usually doesn't require any effort on anyone's part - it just happens. I need to clarify this further. My work just bashes on 'sexual love' and how it's advertised as 'true love' when in fact it is nothing but sensationalized lust.

On Adam Lyons - Maybe this is just a personal view apart from the general PUA community but success to me isn't about necessarily getting laid. In the Book of Pook there is a section regarding 'what defines a man'. Pook bashes the belief that 'sex with a woman' is the only thing that defines a man - as if there were no other virtues that define the male sexuality anymore besides how many women you've bedded. The fact that he was able to get women to make out with him consistently (a sexual context act) makes him a success in my book.

My goal is to have women feel sexually attracted to me so we have a basis for a full relationship (sexual and non-sexual bond). I could care less if I get laid and in fact I don't want to at this point as it brings about the risk of STD's/Pregnancy/Karma of sex and the attachments it develops etc... Sexuality is often misconstrued in American society as being only sex. Sexuality is more than just the act of sex - it is the polarity between the two genders - the active and passive. Sex is present in dance - in art - in beauty - that which inspires and arouses. It is the tension and buildup between two people attracted to each other and the ensuing drama that unfolds - not just the act of intercourse. Pook also makes this point in his book that there no longer exists sexuality in the modern world - only the physical act of sex. A fascinating read really.

On mating and sex and instinct - I agree that many nerds run counter to their natural instincts. I think this is a big issue in American society due to the fact that male sexuality is suppressed in a subtle way. We are given many conflicting paradigms and concepts of what women want while being masked from the truth of what women really react to. Start a conversation about 'male sexuality' with any of your male friends and see the awkwardness that starts springing up. What makes a man sexy? What makes a man attractive? Only by flushing away all of society's influences and deriving from scratch do we find our true natures again. The male nature is often deemed brutish, insensitive, creator of tyranny and thus we hide in shame and become nice/passive in our stances but it is these same aspects that are core to our sexuality.

On Darren Brown / Richard Bandler and social skills - Social skills can definitely tip the favor. I have to ask though is this more the rule or rather the exception? Darren Brown and social skills/NLP to induce people to do things isn't really my territory so I can't really say much on it. Richard Bandler - I googled him up - tbh imo he looks like the guy that will cut you up and put your body parts in a cooler and bury it in his yard. Since I can't comment directly on social skills I will comment on the inverse situation in which I have experienced. If a guy with no social skills but attractive physically gets the attention of a woman and fails the social interaction the woman is indeed turned off. Regardless though she will comment on how 'men are freaks' or 'why so many good men can't keep a convo..' etc... Even though the guy fails she thought positively of the guy coming in and that is important leverage. If a woman doesn't consider you as 'possible sexual material' coming in she will only see you in the frame of friendship/comfort which ruins your chances in the long term of expanding beyond friends. A lot of pickup/developmental people have covered the importance of sexual frame coming into an interaction and/or switching to one.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

Expectional social skills are the expection. But it sometimes astonishing to see the effect. One situation with a guy who's relatively tall, rather underweight and no strongly developed muscles. The enviroment is a personal development seminar and no bar. Nobody has drunk any alcohol. During one conversation he says an attractive girl.

Guy: You are tense.

Girl: I'm not tense.

Guy: You need multiple orgasm to relax.

Girl (seriously): Today evening or tomorrow?

When it comes to having a sexual vibe with a woman during dancing I don't think that good looks are central. Take Jorge Elizondo. He's obese. Here a video of him dancing. I think it's reasonable to classify that kind of dancing as sexual. If Jorge goes to a Bachata dancing event he can dance that kind of sexual dance with nearly any girl. Some girls will even ask him. 

I know a bunch of woman with whom I have strong sexual vibe when I dance with them but who still classify me as friend and who don't want more than friendship. Having a romantic relationship with another person is a bigger thing then just spending some time together in a aroused state while dancing. It's a different kind of commitment.

If you want to have a one night stand with a girl it's important to start by having a sexual frame. If I look at the majority of the population I doubt that they got into the relationship in which they are at the moment by starting with a sexual frame. 

I could care less if I get laid and in fact I don't want to at this point as it brings about the risk of STD's/Pregnancy/Karma of sex and the attachments it develops etc... 

Your intellectual fear of developing attachment is stronger than your biological urge to have sex. Maybe your central problem isn't that you lack looks but that you are afraid of developing attachment to a girl and therefore self sabotage any interaction that might go there? 

I don't want to discourage you from working on your looks. Looks do help and will increase your chances. Before you however work through your fear of having sex, it will be hard for you to step into a sexual frame and stay there.

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Jorge is a beast. I think the social skills do work but the effort necessary to get the results are less efficient than optimizing your looks first as personality seems to act as a secondary aspect of sexuality. I looked decent when I was younger despite being skinny-fat but I was neurotic and had a sort of here today/gone tommorow personality. Women gave me much more attention back then despite the neuroses. When I started gaining weight and stopped working out all of the attention seemed to magically evaporate. Women would no longer look at me with that special sparkle in their eye - it'd be a more neutral non-sexualized business-like interaction. Real relationships take work - yes - but you need pre-requisite looks to get to that stage in the first place.



If you want to have a one night stand with a girl it's important to start by having a sexual frame. If I look at the majority of the population I doubt that they got into the relationship in which they are at the moment by starting with a sexual frame.

I am not sure if I completely agree with that one. The sexual frame may be unimportant in the long run but in the initial 'first impression' phase I think it is crucial. Would mom and dad would have noticed each other if one was not attracted to the other? Once two people can attract each other enough to get to know each other then the initial sexual frame can indeed be discarded but before then it is integral. Proof of this is in 'let's just be friends' when you try to push a relationship from friendship to more-than-friends. You've maximized being together to it's core yet you two are still not in a relationship - what is missing? I wager it's Sexuality that is the so called 'spark'.



On fear of attachment and sex - Yes that is a big issue for me - not as big as years ago but still present. The whole purpose of sex and pleasure on Earth is to coerce humanity into continuing the ULTIMATE game - reproduction and the creation of bodies so that other souls can play the game as well. In that sense I feel like I'm being used by nature thru my sexuality. As Pook described in his book though happiness is living well within the bounds of nature and not transcending it. Thus I still care about women but not to the point in which it creates negative feelings in me. I've been diagnosed with low T as well and one would think being free from the sexual aspect 'like a child again' would be paradise. Happiness is not transcending nature but living within it's bounds. I had headaches and fatigue and a general feeling of dread/death until I started taking care of that. The low T may have manifested from psychological works such as this one and thus I have conceded my 'keep myself the way I am' stance and started playing the game according to nature's dictates. And surprisingly I am happier in the end for it. Tynan covers this in his post today '

Not that kind of person

' where we limit ourselves thru psychological barriers due to experience when in fact there are no such barriers except the ones we impose on ourselves.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

The whole purpose of sex and pleasure on Earth is to coerce humanity into continuing the ULTIMATE game - reproduction and the creation of bodies so that other souls can play the game as well. In that sense I feel like I'm being used by nature thru my sexuality. 

You poor victim ;)

When I started gaining weight and stopped working out all of the attention seemed to magically evaporate. 

That weight gain probably wasn't random. It probably had a cause. If someone gets fad because he's lazy, his lazyness might also hurt his chances with woman. 

I've been diagnosed with low T as well and one would think being free from the sexual aspect 'like a child again' would be paradise.

Yes low testosterone is indeed a serious issue that makes it harder for you to interact sexualy with girls. It probably also messes with other issues in your life. 

PS: You can format the quotes nicely by pressing *TAB* (and Shift+Tab to dequote). It would be good to also have a button.

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Thanks for the quote tip. I know that whole notion of being a victim of nature sounds ridiculous but I guess it's one of those things you can only really understand by dipping into low-T territory. When you were a kid girls had cooties. When you grow up and have raging T women became the be-all-end-all greatest thing ever. When you grow older and the T disappears you kind of awaken from your self created illusion and wipe your eyes while looking out into the world and going, "what was so great about that?"



It is funny and truly wondrous how much our perceptions can bias the desirability of anything. I think this is once again testament to the power of the human will - that we 'create and assign' value to things solely thru how much we desire them alone and not according to their real world rarity or value. Perceived value takes first place over real value - perception is reality. In my earlier escapades I used to enjoy going to Nevada a whole lot. I thought that place was paradise for game related things (vegas specifically). After that wore off though I see the place for how it really is - run down, dying economically (dbl digit unemployment), thousands making an exodus from the state as I now see tons of Nevada plates in California etc (the 2 states are adjacent)... Women are the same way. I once thought them divine - now they're just people like the rest of us with different plumbing and hormones underneath. Even that line is blurring as people manifest their true natures - we have feminine men and masculine women abound. Now we are just what we are.



That weight gain probably wasn't random. It probably had a cause. If someone gets fad because he's lazy, his lazyness might also hurt his chances with woman.

Once again you're right - it did have an implicit cause which maybe amounted to 20% of why I decided to let go. I was sick of women being attracted to me for no good reason other than my looks. Feel the burn of irony as I realize that sexuality is mainly predicated on looks alone lol. Thus I have truly come full circle with this. It just annoyed me how women would develop all sorts of interest and attachment to me after knowing me for about 2 minutes. As I mentioned earlier in a reply to another post - do you really KNOW someone in 2 minutes? Do you really capture the depth and breadth of someone in it's full manifestation in that short of a time? All of the women I've fallen for are distant - I guess I misconstrue that initial lack of interest as a sort of intellectually driven 'discretion' that is congruent with how I see the world as well. I personally am paranoid of people on the internet until I meet them in person. People who just dive in head first - impulsives - I admire their bullheadedness but I don't like the approach personally as it seems more fear or doubt driven (I can't face the situation as is or think about it so I'll just dive head first and...).



So yeah I got lazy. I also thought the body had a sort of homeostasis that was developed from thousands of years of evolution. Evolution is like a computer - ruthlessly efficient but dumb with no underlying conscience. It will take another tens of thousands of years to program evolution to not decay our bodies while sitting in offices and eating carb based diets. Unfortunately for us we'll long be gone by then so we gotta play the hand that is given.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote
I know that whole notion of being a victim of nature sounds ridiculous but I guess it's one of those things you can only really understand by dipping into low-T territory.

My intent isn't to try to understand it. My intent is to try to get you to understand that it's ridiculous. It's especially ridiculous to have those thoughts back in your head and then rationalize that woman aren't attracted to you because you don't look good enough.

It just annoyed me how women would develop all sorts of interest and attachment to me after knowing me for about 2 minutes. 

Yes, how dare women by interested with you? Especially since you don't to develop any attachement for them and don't want any sex with them.

All of the women I've fallen for are distant

So you decided to fall for woman that are distant to you, to reduce the chance that you will have to have sex?

I can't face the situation as is or think about it so I'll just dive head first and.

What is the difference between facing a situation and diving into it?

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
-1
Vote

Hey again,

I'll cover these in more detail possibly but I don't have much time at the moment. I'll just skim over your points real quickly. Let me know if something is unclear and I'll expand further.

On love - I revised the intro of my post to reflect that 'most' love instead of 'all' love may be just masked sexual attraction. There is such a thing as true love but I think in budding relationships most people mistake the feeling of 'falling in love' with someone with 'sexual attraction'. True love I think has to be cultivated, a product of effort in most cases and a result of a relationship with someone over time. True love is independent of the sexual component - it stands all by itself. 'Sexual love' though is a feeling of infatuation for someone you just met and usually doesn't require any effort on anyone's part - it just happens. I need to clarify this further. My work just bashes on 'sexual love' and how it's advertised as 'true love' when in fact it is nothing but sensationalized lust.

On Adam Lyons - Maybe this is just a personal view apart from the general PUA community but success to me isn't about necessarily getting laid. In the Book of Pook there is a section regarding 'what defines a man'. Pook bashes the belief that 'sex with a woman' is the only thing that defines a man - as if there were no other virtues that define the male sexuality anymore besides how many women you've bedded. The fact that he was able to get women to make out with him consistently (a sexual context act) makes him a success in my book.

My goal is to have women feel sexually attracted to me so we have a basis for a full relationship (sexual and non-sexual bond). I could care less if I get laid and in fact I don't want to at this point as it brings about the risk of STD's/Pregnancy/Karma of sex and the attachments it develops etc... Sexuality is often misconstrued in American society as being only sex. Sexuality is more than just the act of sex - it is the polarity between the two genders - the active and passive. Sex is present in dance - in art - in beauty - that which inspires and arouses. It is the tension and buildup between two people attracted to each other and the ensuing drama that unfolds - not just the act of intercourse. Pook also makes this point in his book that there no longer exists sexuality in the modern world - only the physical act of sex. A fascinating read really.

On mating and sex and instinct - I agree that many nerds run counter to their natural instincts. I think this is a big issue in American society due to the fact that male sexuality is suppressed in a subtle way. We are given many conflicting paradigms and concepts of what women want while being masked from the truth of what women really react to. Start a conversation about 'male sexuality' with any of your male friends and see the awkwardness that starts springing up. What makes a man sexy? What makes a man attractive? Only by flushing away all of society's influences and deriving from scratch do we find our true natures again. The male nature is often deemed brutish, insensitive, creator of tyranny and thus we hide in shame and become nice/passive in our stances but it is these same aspects that are core to our sexuality.

On Darren Brown / Richard Bandler and social skills - Social skills can definitely tip the favor. I have to ask though is this more the rule or rather the exception? Darren Brown and social skills/NLP to induce people to do things isn't really my territory so I can't really say much on it. Richard Bandler - I googled him up - tbh imo he looks like the guy that will cut you up and put your body parts in a cooler and bury it in his yard. Since I can't comment directly on social skills I will comment on the inverse situation in which I have experienced. If a guy with no social skills but attractive physically gets the attention of a woman and fails the social interaction the woman is indeed turned off. Regardless though she will comment on how 'men are freaks' or 'why so many good men can't keep a convo..' etc... Even though the guy fails she thought positively of the guy coming in and that is important leverage. If a woman doesn't consider you as 'possible sexual material' coming in she will only see you in the frame of friendship/comfort which ruins your chances in the long term of expanding beyond friends. A lot of pickup/developmental people have covered the importance of sexual frame coming into an interaction and/or switching to one.

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Bumpity bump bump, it's September 2012 and I no longer think about women because I've realized the truth! See the newly appended section entitled: Update 9/6/12 - Why I stopped caring about women (The Red Pill) above

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

Most of pick up artistery is about inventing theories that make it less painful to get rejected. The talk about killer sperm theory allows the PUA to feel like he's playing a game. He's playing a role and if he fails he lost a game. He can play the same game with another girl. 


If you want to have success while being yourself you have to drop those emotion shields. You have to be present instead of hiding behind routines and theories. 

At the start it's painful to drop your shields. You have to live with the pain. Guy's run away and don't go inside the interaction that has a chance to hurt.
If you are simply present and pain it processes itself. If the pain doesn't result in you getting tense your body learns that the pain isn't important.

If you start resting the pain and the emotions you get problems. 

Sometimes pain can reach a level where it burns you out completely. Then you need to take a few hours to meditate. Stay with it and it processes itself out. 

"All of us want to keep certain aspects of ourselves 'grounded' while tuning the rest to make us more attractive. As man is infinite we now dare ask - can we keep all of our selves and get the girl?"
No. If you live and are present your experience will change you. The only way you stay the same is to refuse to be present. 
You don't have to forcefully change yourself by adopting certain personality traits. You still have to be open to change. 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Hey Christian,

Thank you for your words. One of the things that really hit me from your response was, "No. If you live and are present your experience will change you. The only way you stay the same is to refuse to be present." Could you elaborate on that if you don't mind? I think I'm getting the gist of it but I"m not sure if the full impact has hit me quite yet.

It seems like what you're trying to convey is that people are ever changing and dynamic beings and by stubbornly clinging to ego constructs such as, "I am an introvert, I am not a physical person, I am not what women want, etc..." that we are only doing a disservice to ourselves as these thought blockages don't define us. Maybe I'm waiting for an experience, in all my hopes positive, that once again shifts my outlook and changes me fundamentally as a person. It happened once after a girl I was into rejected me so I'm hoping for a repeat performance. I agree that it would be a shame if people were the same all their lives. In my own life I strive to improve as well given that I'm constantly reading up on this site and other such similar sites. I guess my concern comes from the amount of gains I can get over working on certain aspects of myself over others.

We all have our weak points. Given that is it worth putting conscious effort into improving these for the little gains we get? Time is a finite resource and by working on the things which I am strong at I have the potential to become a prodigy in certain areas. I could spend that same time working out and stuff but I'd only end up spending a lot of effort to mainly reach mediorcre/average while being the same everywhere else. At that point I"d feel like I've lost my competitive advantage as I would not be distinguishable from everyone else. Economics are based on trade and specialization to hone in a competitive advantage/monopoly over others over limited resources - are we the same way regarding women?

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

"I strive to improve" - That's exerting effort just like "I want to stay the same" is exerting effort. It costs energy. It's better to say: "I'm changing. In a year I will be a different person. I'm curious about how I'm changing through the experiences I'm having".

Imaging a girl. There are two guys: One is anxious about whether he can keep his nerd identity. The other guy is curious about how life changes him.

If you were the girl which guy would you pick?

" Maybe I'm waiting for an experience, in all my hopes positive, that once again shifts my outlook and changes me fundamentally as a person."
You can only have that experience, if you are open for it. 

"It happened once after a girl I was into rejected me so I'm hoping for a repeat performance. "
So you are saying: "The last time I fundamentally changed was very painful". As a result you aren't very open to experiencing something that changes your identity. Your unconscious wants to protect you. It makes it hard for you to build an emotional connection to a girl. 

There are ways to make a girl fall in love with you without having an emotional connection to the girl, 
but that's hard. Some PUA's have success with it. They get the girl.
They feel that their still something lacking in their life. If they are good they discover a way to work through their emotional issues. If you need an example, think Tucker Max. 

You aren't at that place. From the way you write, I get the impression that you protect yourself with intellectual labels. Instead of thinking about building a competitive advantage, go out and
experience life for what it has to offer to you right now. 

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

Thanks for responding once again. I re-read your older post after reading your new response and it all made sense to me all of a sudden. All of pickup in essence is the avoidance of pain! By utilizing pickup and routines and such we hope to shield our vulnerable selves from the pain of rejection. I think I understand what you are advocating now - that we just tear down the 'false pickup barriers' we put up completely and go for human to human interaction. Sure - without game we may get rejected - rejected in the worst way possible - but it's high time I man up and take the hit. I guess it helps to understand the frame I'm coming from as well. I'd like a life partner - not notches on a bedpost for my ego's satisfaction. Thus putting up false advertising only goes to my detirement as it may force matches which should not have happened in the first place. Given that maybe I should just abandon the 'false front' aspects of pickup, take the rejection, and be fully PRESENT in it. I think I understand now - by being present in the pain as you said... "If you live and are present your experience will change you." By getting rejected and accepting the rejection instead of curling up into a shell defensively every time maybe the experience of pain - once accepted and resolved fully in the psych - will bring me to the next level of conscousness I am looking for.

Your words hit hard and I've been waiting for someone to come into my twisted little world and give me a good beatdown on my level of mental gymnastics :p. Your advice and insights are forever appreciated. I like being able to see myself from the eyes of others since we all have our blind spots which are obvious to those placed at the right angles. I never saw myself as a protective person (too deep below consciousness) but lately I've been accepting this aspect of myself. I took a good look at my post again and saw someone on the level of helplessness on these aspects. I googled up sites regarding addiction and admitted to myself I may be addicted to my own feeling of helplessnses. They mentioned the inner turmoil that unresolved feelings may bring and I may have found the cause of my dilemma. I realized I only hold on so hard to my identity because it would be too PAINFUL to change it at this point. To be opposite of who I am. Maybe it is high time I just take the hit no matter how painful at this point and attack the things I fear most. I thought I hit the level of courage once before but I didn't take all of me with it. Just the iceberg that sticks above water - time to bring the rest to bear.

No bio set
Christian
0
Vote

Yes, you got it.

Fighting the good fight - to make the body congruent with the soul... Old blog http://3rddimension.wordpress.com New blog http://sett.com/thetinyoctopus/
War in Heaven
0
Vote

The Premise used to be a seperate section here but since we have an edit posts function now I've moved it to the main post.

hide

Read Next

Understanding Pickup

Mystery's show on VH1, The Pickup Artist, has gotten a lot of mainstream attention. As a result there are scores of people in that audience trying to wrap their minds around this whole "pick up thing".

I've read a few message boards where people are discussing the show, and almost universally trying to discredit the pick up. Why are people so against pickup? First instinct might be to assume that girls would be against it, but that guys would all be excited about it. Think about it - it promises to fulfill the #1 goal for nearly every man on the planet.

Here's what I think is happening.

A Frame-by-Frame Rebuttal to XKCD's Pickup Artist Comic

The only web comic I read is XKCD. It's smart, funny, and often times educational. I'm a fan. The latest comic is a criticism of pickup. There ARE certainly valid criticisms of pickup, but Randall took a cheap and inaccurate shot at it.  I've shrunken it below, but you can see the original here.

I'm one of the main characters of The Game, have been going out every night since February first (except the last week, where I got caught up on some work), and am friends with most of guys who contributed substantially to the pickup community. In other words, I know what I'm talking about.

All of those guys are either too busy to defend pickup, or just sick of having to do it yet again. But hey, it's Thursday night and I haven't written a blog post this week, so I'll take a crack at it.