Big D*ck Inferiority Complex

Off Topic
522

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
So you are telling me you have this great game that is going to get you this great quality woman to come and beg you to take her. But this “great game” you have just hasnt worked on this woman yet because all the women that this “game” has worked on so far havent been what your were expecting and have all been “opportunistic trash”. So your game keeps attracting women you dont want but you keep using the same game?? Solid plan bro.

EDIT: After finishing typing this, “Dont stop beleiving” by journey immediately started playing in my head.[/quote]

You have a point, but you are assuming that there are quality women out there.

If there are not, game, rock solid game can make getting your dick wet relative easy, but it wont conjure up what simply is not there.

523

You dont have to actually have that solid of game to get it in on some above average tail fairly regularly. My own game, before meeting my now wife, was only decent at best but I was never hurting. And there is quality out there but you have to be projecting the right attitude to attract it. For the most part, if you try to keep up the game face, most quality women will eventually get tired of you because they will start to think you don go any deeper than that.

524

I went to a get together not long ago, with some people I went to high school with, and it basically revolved around how the women were pissed that they no longer had guys chasing them the way they did in their 20’s.

These women, in their mid-30’s now, whining about how men are always after “those damn 20-somethings.” I had to get the fuck out of their in a hurry, I felt like I was surrounded by some old mother hubbards.

I have to admit, I am loving the societal trading places that happens with age. Gary Busey was right when he said, “why are women so uptight, they get half the money and keep all the pussy.”

525

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I have to admit, I am loving the societal trading places that happens with age. [/quote]

Yes.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

And, surprisingly enough, that is true.

Who knew?

526

I mean the Bible obviously did…

527

[quote]orion wrote:
I mean the Bible obviously did…[/quote]

Or we age better ?

528

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I mean the Bible obviously did…[/quote]

Or we age better ?[/quote]

Congratulations, I have no idea what you are talking about.

One would think that someone as cryptic as me would appreciate that and one would be right, still have no idea.

529

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think you conflate “nice” with “passive.” I agree that attraction (sexiness) is made up of qualities that are separate from niceness, or the lack of it. Foolish people mistake sexy for good, while wise people look for additional qualities in the people they find sexy/attractive, among them “nice.” I think Steel Nation is right when he says “He could be quite confident and dominant with her as well.” I don’t see sexual dominance from the outside, but I do see confidence and certainty about things outside of their romantic relationship. I also know that “pretty” was not what fully captivated him; he’s talked about finding out she read for pleasure philosophy books he’d assumed she’d read for a class. I guess that was what sealed it for him.
[/quote]

I think we agree. I don’t think I’m conflating “nice” with “passive;” that’s why I restated it as being a “decent human being.” If I had meant passive, I would’ve argued that passivity in men would negatively affect attraction.

A lot of men have been raised to think that being a good person is enough, and that women are going to respond to that. And you have all of these bitter, so-called “nice guys” who think that sex is the reward for being decent, all the while blind to their own misogyny and sense of entitlement. I don’t know if bitterness made their latent misogyny manifest, or if it is just sour grapes.

You also have men who have remained decent, but aren’t particularly attractive or interesting. And what does one say to a friend who is experiencing that? “You are such a good guy, you are definitely going to meet someone.” Someone should say: “You are boring. You need to do X, Y, and Z before you can really hope to attract a worthwhile partner.” [/quote]

Yes, exactly. “Nice guys finish last” does not strike me as being at all true. Nice guys should, barring bad luck, enjoy positive relationships with friends, coworkers, and romantic partners. Nice guys should sleep soundly at night, knowing that they have behaved ethically all day, done their best to get whatever done that they needed to, and not exploited anyone in any way.

I might label the group you discuss in your middle paragraph “passive-aggressive,” depending upon the degree to which they employ “nice” as a tool to manipulate their circumstances.

The third paragraph could either describe boring, or unintentionally sexually submissive (what the board likes to call “beta”) men. Which may be the same thing as far as romance and attraction are concerned, I don’t know. And I’m not sure how you advise someone.

Personalizing it to you, over the years now I have several times offered that I think you will ultimately win in this arena (romance, attraction). I think you assume that I mean because you’re nice, earnest, financially stable and going to be more so, etc. But that’s not it at all. I think you have a solid core of sexy (alpha). You have qualities I know will draw certain women. Those women just aren’t particularly thick on the ground. But then, neither are people like you.

However, I agree with your long-stated view that men who lack the benefit of externals that make for easy attraction have to work on their game (which basically means managing insecurities). The same goes for women.

530

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Emily, once again by traditional standards there are no quality women and you are too old to know what you are talking about.
[/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:

Na, thats not true, I never sought them out, they were just kind of … there…

They no longer are and good riddance, but I get a kick out of people telling me that those women were not “quality”.

Hell yes, they were, by any objective standard.

[/quote]

I am a little confused. You say the women you are seeing are quality but earlier you said that there were no quality women. Which is it? That would depend on your definition of quality. Do you mean quality by good looks and high social standing or quality in terms of personality and morals? It seems to me you need to figure out the traits that are the most important to you and seek those. It is a rather inflated view of ones self, and an unrealistic one at that, to think we will find the perfect woman. I would have liked to have had a girl that looked like Marissa Miller with Bill Gates money, loved giving bjs and let me have my way about everything but that wasnt gonna happen. And if it had I would have probably gotten bored with her because who wants to be with someone that never challenges them to be better than they are now.[/quote]

The confusion what constitues quality does not really rest in my mind.

It is just that people seem to have a certain picture in their minds whith what kind of woman I have made my experiences with which is almost inevitably wrong.

If there is someone who is not impressed by “pedigree” as you call it, it would be me, but the women trying to sell me that whole NAWALT claptrap certainly would be.

What THEY would uphold as women of quality, I know to be opportunistic trash.

I mean, you can NAWALT me all you want, but what if women of high standing, good manners, no financial worries ACTUALLY ARE LIKE THAT; what then?

Seriously, what then?
[/quote]

What if…let’s say…thirty-three percent of all high class women are assholes? What if another thirty-three percent are fine, a blend of good and bad? What if the remaining third are stellar people, who use their positions to do good things and who cherish their mates and family and friends?

What if this were true of less affluent women also?

What if one third of all teachers are inspired, one third are fine, and the last third are burnouts and idiots?

What if this were true of nurses as well?

What if some percentage of men, say a third or so, are disgusting, mean-spirited pigs but another percentage is made up of men a woman could conceivably hero-worship?

What if the world were a place where the good and the bad intermingle and one was charged with discerning the difference?

What then?

By the way, orion, reading reviews for the book you linked was interesting.

532

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I absolutley cannot believe that all women are that way. The prevalance of women that are that way is much higher in certain social circles sure. You saying you look in the most exclusive places probably means that you are encountering those women at a far higher rate than normal. If you cant find a woman in the circles that you are currently looking in then try somewhere else.

I had a guy that I worked with that has been married and divorced 4 times and he met each wife in a bar. An intelligent man, which you seem to be, should deduce that you cant keep doing the same thing and expect different results. If the store you are shopping in doesnt have what you want, look somewhere else.[/quote]

I think I already posted some of this, so what the hell.

My family is old, like really, really, old.

Some of the girls I am talking about had names that you would find in history books.

First class family, first class upbringing, quality.

Except, not so much.

If I were talking bar skanks, I would go for the NAWALT exit faster than you could say WTF!?![/quote]

Maybe THIS is the problem.

These women may be entitled little princesses.

Find yourself a good working class girl, Franz.[/quote]

I thought I was Hansel.

This is confusing…

533

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I absolutley cannot believe that all women are that way. The prevalance of women that are that way is much higher in certain social circles sure. You saying you look in the most exclusive places probably means that you are encountering those women at a far higher rate than normal. If you cant find a woman in the circles that you are currently looking in then try somewhere else.

I had a guy that I worked with that has been married and divorced 4 times and he met each wife in a bar. An intelligent man, which you seem to be, should deduce that you cant keep doing the same thing and expect different results. If the store you are shopping in doesnt have what you want, look somewhere else.[/quote]

I think I already posted some of this, so what the hell.

My family is old, like really, really, old.

Some of the girls I am talking about had names that you would find in history books.

First class family, first class upbringing, quality.

Except, not so much.

If I were talking bar skanks, I would go for the NAWALT exit faster than you could say WTF!?![/quote]

Maybe THIS is the problem.

These women may be entitled little princesses.

Find yourself a good working class girl, Franz.[/quote]

Pluuuuussss, you are telling me to exploit hypergamous impulses…

Playa!

536

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Yes, exactly. “Nice guys finish last” does not strike me as being at all true. Nice guys should, barring bad luck, enjoy positive relationships with friends, coworkers, and romantic partners. [/quote]

Nice guys should, to the extent that their other personal qualities support such relationships. But I think that is what you meant.

Both would be described as “beta.” Though you are correct that the first group exhibits passive-aggressive behavior. I’m not sure how you advise someone, either. It depends on what the real problem is, and one is unlikely to get at that information outside of a therapeutic context.

I hadn’t meant to bring myself into it. To the extent people give assurances, I assume that those assurances are essentially content-free. Usually, they amount to one of “I’m friends with this person and find their company pleasant or unobjectionable, therefore a single female would also find this to be the case, and happen to also be attracted” and “I’d really like this person to shut up about his love life, so let me throw him this bone.” Occasionally, it is based on perceived exemplary traits, often in isolation. That is, viewing an individual in isolation, it is usually easy to pick out a few good traits (tall, nice teeth, aesthetically pleasing body, intelligent, and so on). But that is a biased view, because we all compete in a dating market in which individuals are generally not evaluated in a vacuum. Instead, potential partners are compared against one another, and noteworthy characteristics are either unimpressive when compared with similar options, or are overwhelmed by deficiencies in other areas compared to the competition.

You and I may also have differing ideas as to what constitutes winning in the romance and attraction arena. I do appreciate the compliments.

537

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Yes, exactly. “Nice guys finish last” does not strike me as being at all true. Nice guys should, barring bad luck, enjoy positive relationships with friends, coworkers, and romantic partners. [/quote]

Nice guys should, to the extent that their other personal qualities support such relationships. But I think that is what you meant.

Both would be described as “beta.” Though you are correct that the first group exhibits passive-aggressive behavior. I’m not sure how you advise someone, either. It depends on what the real problem is, and one is unlikely to get at that information outside of a therapeutic context.

I hadn’t meant to bring myself into it. To the extent people give assurances, I assume that those assurances are essentially content-free. Usually, they amount to one of “I’m friends with this person and find their company pleasant or unobjectionable, therefore a single female would also find this to be the case, and happen to also be attracted” and “I’d really like this person to shut up about his love life, so let me throw him this bone.” Occasionally, it is based on perceived exemplary traits, often in isolation. That is, viewing an individual in isolation, it is usually easy to pick out a few good traits (tall, nice teeth, aesthetically pleasing body, intelligent, and so on). But that is a biased view, because we all compete in a dating market in which individuals are generally not evaluated in a vacuum. Instead, potential partners are compared against one another, and noteworthy characteristics are either unimpressive when compared with similar options, or are overwhelmed by deficiencies in other areas compared to the competition.

You and I may also have differing ideas as to what constitutes winning in the romance and attraction arena. I do appreciate the compliments. [/quote]

I honestly, truly believe that a therapeutic setting will do noone any good when it comes to this.

Without wanting to go off on a rant how most therapist are just honorary women with a degree, all you will find is more female narrative which is most definitely not helpful in this regard.

Now, while I would agree that a lot of PUA boot camps are hucksters, shysters and other forms of -sters, a good coach will find your sticking points, even if they are very deep within you and you will confront them.

Noone said that this was easy or painless.

On the other hand, involuntary celebacy or being the chump that is thankful for alpha leftovers is not easy or painless either, so you can pick your poison.

539

[quote]orion wrote:
I honestly, truly believe that a therapeutic setting will do noone any good when it comes to this.

Without wanting to go off on a rant how most therapist are just honorary women with a degree, all you will find is more female narrative which is most definitely not helpful in this regard.

Now, while I would agree that a lot of PUA boot camps are hucksters, shysters and other forms of -sters, a good coach will find your sticking points, even if they are very deep within you and you will confront them.

Noone said that this was easy or painless.

On the other hand, involuntary celebacy or being the chump that is thankful for alpha leftovers is not easy or painless either, so you can pick your poison. [/quote]

I was using “therapeutic context” in a loose sense. Most men would be loathe to reveal the insecurities or other issues that underlie problems with interpersonal interaction, even to close friends. My preference would probably be something like Cognitive Behavior Therapy; identify the negative thoughts or reactions, and address those directly. Though I do think formal talk therapy is useful and has a place, it is not known for being quick. CBT has a good track record for change within a reasonable timescale, while still providing the secret-keeping function of a therapist. I wouldn’t trust a “coach” with any more information than I would give a casual acquaintance.

540

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I honestly, truly believe that a therapeutic setting will do noone any good when it comes to this.

Without wanting to go off on a rant how most therapist are just honorary women with a degree, all you will find is more female narrative which is most definitely not helpful in this regard.

Now, while I would agree that a lot of PUA boot camps are hucksters, shysters and other forms of -sters, a good coach will find your sticking points, even if they are very deep within you and you will confront them.

Noone said that this was easy or painless.

On the other hand, involuntary celebacy or being the chump that is thankful for alpha leftovers is not easy or painless either, so you can pick your poison. [/quote]

I was using “therapeutic context” in a loose sense. Most men would be loathe to reveal the insecurities or other issues that underlie problems with interpersonal interaction, even to close friends. My preference would probably be something like Cognitive Behavior Therapy; identify the negative thoughts or reactions, and address those directly. Though I do think formal talk therapy is useful and has a place, it is not known for being quick. CBT has a good track record for change within a reasonable timescale, while still providing the secret-keeping function of a therapist. I wouldn’t trust a “coach” with any more information than I would give a casual acquaintance.[/quote]

Why not?

They have heard it all and they probably could not care less.

And, without doing that work you will always be a clown doing carnie tricks when it comes to game, you cannot simply do, you have to be.

541

[quote]orion wrote:
Why not?

They have heard it all and they probably could not care less.

And, without doing that work you will always be a clown doing carnie tricks when it comes to game, you cannot simply do, you have to be.[/quote]

By the time we get to your third paragraph, we’re talking about different things. I have no problem with the idea of addressing outer game, and some non-specific inner game problems, with a coach. But I would not trust very personal issues with such a person. I don’t care if they’ve heard it all. Licensed therapists are ethically and legally bound to confidentiality, and that is one of the supreme triumphs of talk therapy since Freud essentially invented it. I am, in many ways, a private person; I would want to make sure that privacy remained intact.

At any rate, none of this applies to me, personally. So, with those caveats understood, each person can make his own choice based upon the evidence available.

542

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Yes, exactly. “Nice guys finish last” does not strike me as being at all true. Nice guys should, barring bad luck, enjoy positive relationships with friends, coworkers, and romantic partners. [/quote]

Nice guys should, to the extent that their other personal qualities support such relationships. But I think that is what you meant.

Both would be described as “beta.” Though you are correct that the first group exhibits passive-aggressive behavior. I’m not sure how you advise someone, either. It depends on what the real problem is, and one is unlikely to get at that information outside of a therapeutic context.

I hadn’t meant to bring myself into it. To the extent people give assurances, I assume that those assurances are essentially content-free. Usually, they amount to one of “I’m friends with this person and find their company pleasant or unobjectionable, therefore a single female would also find this to be the case, and happen to also be attracted” and “I’d really like this person to shut up about his love life, so let me throw him this bone.” Occasionally, it is based on perceived exemplary traits, often in isolation. That is, viewing an individual in isolation, it is usually easy to pick out a few good traits (tall, nice teeth, aesthetically pleasing body, intelligent, and so on). But that is a biased view, because we all compete in a dating market in which individuals are generally not evaluated in a vacuum. Instead, potential partners are compared against one another, and noteworthy characteristics are either unimpressive when compared with similar options, or are overwhelmed by deficiencies in other areas compared to the competition.

You and I may also have differing ideas as to what constitutes winning in the romance and attraction arena. I do appreciate the compliments. [/quote]

I know you didn’t mean to bring yourself into it, that was me. I’m sorry to impose.

My only point is (continues to be) that you dismiss elements that I know are extremely important to many women. Yes, they do not exist in a vacuum, and yes, looks matter. But looks/physique are not the whole story by any means, and women regularly trade down in looks to get superior internal qualities in men (intelligence, strength of character). They also regularly trade down in looks to gain financially superior men, but those are not the women I’m talking about. Those women tolerate the less optimal qualities. I’m talking about desire and attraction that are real and not grounded primarily in externals. The externals are seen through a lense of sexual desire once interest is sparked. I have noticed that even as a female, I seem to be able to interest a slightly higher quality of male when I am in a small group setting and feeling relaxed (I can be entertaining). Even the notoriously visual male animal is impacted by personality.

I know better than to view traits in isolation, and am not making that mistake. I have been goofing around online for most of my adult life and have had a great deal of online-to-real-life crossover, so have some familiarity with what can and cannot be discerned via this medium. Which isn’t to say I’m right, I may or may not be, but I’m not naive and I am never knowingly dishonest in order to cheer someone.

I agree that CBT can be helpful for people wanting to make change and have seen it benefit both men and women.

I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.