Read your piece here by referral from astral codex. There's a study making the rounds on twitter that suggests high IQ men get laid (a lot) less than average men, and true or not it tracks with this topic. I'm assuming that conducting research online, or reading books about problems you're having, self selects for above average smartness - so basically the entire PUA community and followers.
It seems these kind of men think about women as a complex problem to be solved, requiring drastic changes in thought process and behavior to to get to what most people think of as an average dating life. Even you, (and me because I agree) looking back at the PUA philosophy with ten years of separation and a critical eye, and having found romantic success, still agree that yeah, women are completely different from men and must be treated in different, oddly specific ways that I personally find off putting in order to have any success. I don't think most guys have to think through this process at all.
I enjoyed this series, thanks very much. I followed pickup culture from 2007 through to today's "manosphere" and I feel each phase struck a different balance between pros and cons, but nothing as of yet has really been a holistic and genuinely healthy/empowering movement for men.
Pickup had the huge flaw that although it presented a "fake it while you make it" attitude, it offered no tools to actually "make it". You learn how to trigger attraction, but the woman is attracted to the facade, not to you. Achieving success is often accompanied by an existential crisis that you aren't enough for women after all.
Red Pill kind of addresses this by focusing on legitimate lifestyle goals, namely money and muscles. But at the same time it reduces everything to one-dimensional takes with aphorisms like "AWALT" (All Women Are Like That) and "there are no unicorns". Red Pill it seems fulfils its own prophesies by teaching men how to attract exactly those women whose interest runs only as far as one's alpha frame, and proclaiming that's all there is and all one can expect - so just be content with your revolving door harem.
I think it's not surprising a more holistic ideology hasn't taken hold. All you have is MGTOW and a culture of lament - that it isn't worth it. People feel like the deck is becoming more and more stacked against them, that women are becoming more and more out of reach. And to my eye it seems true - the barrier of entry seems to be ever rising, and with it men's dissatisfaction with their body image, frustration with lack of economic opportunity, so-called "deaths of despair", etc.
I'd like to see a philosophy that promotes self-improvement as its own reward, but that's a hard sell. People will ask: what's the point? "At least toxic masculinity and fast cars will get me laid."
Thanks. When it comes to fulfillment in life, leftists and hedonists say it's about maximum sexual liberation, rightists and trads say it's about marriage and children, and cynics and evo psychs say it's about sex and status. Basically everyone, except maybe the MGTOW guys and ultra-radical feminists, says it has to do something with some sort of sexual relationships with the opposite sex. I'm currently in the evo psych camp, and find it weird how it's obvious how self-improvement can be used to get status, but except pickup guys and maybe some Redpillers, is hardly ever used to get sex.
As I wrote in the first post in the series, I don't believe in "self-improvement as it's own reward" - I think the only way one can effectively motivate him/herself to commit and put serious effort into self-improvement is when it's connected to one of the basic human needs evolutionary needs like sex and status (historically, self-improvement might have been relevant for fulfilling more basic needs like food and shelter, but these are easily available, at least in developed Western countries).
I suspect part of the problem is that men and women really are drifting apart. Social media and associated polarisation is driving a wedge between the sexes. Part of the reason why women's standards seem so high nowadays is because a surprising proportion of young women are content to check out of relationships altogether nowadays.
This was a walk down memory lane. I was really into PUA around 2010-2013 and personally got a lot out of it. When the Red Pill launched on Reddit is when I realized it had gone off the deep end.
Also, one of the other decent people to come out PUA is Mark Manson, who wrote "The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck." Years before that he wrote a good pickup book called "Models" that stands the test of time because it rejects the Dark Triad approach.
FYI Neil Strauss is still writing and doing interesting projects. He just finished a podcast series called "To Die For."
Read your piece here by referral from astral codex. There's a study making the rounds on twitter that suggests high IQ men get laid (a lot) less than average men, and true or not it tracks with this topic. I'm assuming that conducting research online, or reading books about problems you're having, self selects for above average smartness - so basically the entire PUA community and followers.
It seems these kind of men think about women as a complex problem to be solved, requiring drastic changes in thought process and behavior to to get to what most people think of as an average dating life. Even you, (and me because I agree) looking back at the PUA philosophy with ten years of separation and a critical eye, and having found romantic success, still agree that yeah, women are completely different from men and must be treated in different, oddly specific ways that I personally find off putting in order to have any success. I don't think most guys have to think through this process at all.
I enjoyed this series, thanks very much. I followed pickup culture from 2007 through to today's "manosphere" and I feel each phase struck a different balance between pros and cons, but nothing as of yet has really been a holistic and genuinely healthy/empowering movement for men.
Pickup had the huge flaw that although it presented a "fake it while you make it" attitude, it offered no tools to actually "make it". You learn how to trigger attraction, but the woman is attracted to the facade, not to you. Achieving success is often accompanied by an existential crisis that you aren't enough for women after all.
Red Pill kind of addresses this by focusing on legitimate lifestyle goals, namely money and muscles. But at the same time it reduces everything to one-dimensional takes with aphorisms like "AWALT" (All Women Are Like That) and "there are no unicorns". Red Pill it seems fulfils its own prophesies by teaching men how to attract exactly those women whose interest runs only as far as one's alpha frame, and proclaiming that's all there is and all one can expect - so just be content with your revolving door harem.
I think it's not surprising a more holistic ideology hasn't taken hold. All you have is MGTOW and a culture of lament - that it isn't worth it. People feel like the deck is becoming more and more stacked against them, that women are becoming more and more out of reach. And to my eye it seems true - the barrier of entry seems to be ever rising, and with it men's dissatisfaction with their body image, frustration with lack of economic opportunity, so-called "deaths of despair", etc.
I'd like to see a philosophy that promotes self-improvement as its own reward, but that's a hard sell. People will ask: what's the point? "At least toxic masculinity and fast cars will get me laid."
Thanks. When it comes to fulfillment in life, leftists and hedonists say it's about maximum sexual liberation, rightists and trads say it's about marriage and children, and cynics and evo psychs say it's about sex and status. Basically everyone, except maybe the MGTOW guys and ultra-radical feminists, says it has to do something with some sort of sexual relationships with the opposite sex. I'm currently in the evo psych camp, and find it weird how it's obvious how self-improvement can be used to get status, but except pickup guys and maybe some Redpillers, is hardly ever used to get sex.
As I wrote in the first post in the series, I don't believe in "self-improvement as it's own reward" - I think the only way one can effectively motivate him/herself to commit and put serious effort into self-improvement is when it's connected to one of the basic human needs evolutionary needs like sex and status (historically, self-improvement might have been relevant for fulfilling more basic needs like food and shelter, but these are easily available, at least in developed Western countries).
I suspect part of the problem is that men and women really are drifting apart. Social media and associated polarisation is driving a wedge between the sexes. Part of the reason why women's standards seem so high nowadays is because a surprising proportion of young women are content to check out of relationships altogether nowadays.
This was a walk down memory lane. I was really into PUA around 2010-2013 and personally got a lot out of it. When the Red Pill launched on Reddit is when I realized it had gone off the deep end.
Also, one of the other decent people to come out PUA is Mark Manson, who wrote "The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck." Years before that he wrote a good pickup book called "Models" that stands the test of time because it rejects the Dark Triad approach.
FYI Neil Strauss is still writing and doing interesting projects. He just finished a podcast series called "To Die For."