How to date like a nerd

[PoliteNewb]

On Social constructs

Pretty much don't fucking exist.

...and dumbassery proven. Seriously, if you're going to claim all standards of female attractiveness are genetic, you're an imbecile. Standards of female attractiveness have not even been constant throughout western history, much less world history.

As has been pointed out, standards of female attractiveness are genetic.

This has not been proven at all. You have shown a study that claims that a particular waist-to-hip ratio (which because it's a ratio, encompasses a wide array of body weights, types, and sizes) is attractive to men. You have provided ZERO evidence that this is the sole criteria men use to choose partners, or even the most important criteria. You ignore the fact that there are TONS of other criteria on which men judge potential mates/sex partners. You basically say "WHR FINAL DESTINATION". Which is crap. I didn't shell out the money to read your study, but I'm certain its conclusion wasn't "WHR is the only thing that matters for female beauty".

In order to say that female attractiveness is a social construct, you're going to have to explain how it affects the blind, people who don't speak english or have any communication with western culture at all, etc etc

How about the fact that women considered "beautiful" today in western society would not have been considered "beautiful" 200 years ago? Or 500?
Why do you think social constructs don't affect the blind? They live in society like everyone else. And people who don't speak english or have communication with western culture are influenced by THEIR culture. And standards of beauty are NOT standard across cultures, and if you try to claim they are, I will laugh in your face.

On an hour

If you don't know how to spend an hour with a pretty woman who wants to fuck without talking to her, I don't know what to say.

I believe I said I can spend an hour with a pretty woman who wants to fuck:

If you are planning to spend more than 1 hour with a person, and you're going to be doing any talking in that hour other than "oh god don't stop", intelligence/personality are deal-breakers.

Which makes everything you just said a fucking non-sequitur.

On Personality during sex

Seriously? Outside of lust and ..appetites, when you're having sex you probably aren't going to be having a deep discussion about something. Maybe it is incredibly boring for you or you're asexual, in which case personality would be super fucking important.

Who said we'd be having a deep discussion? Does 'personality' to you automatically translate to 'discussion of serious issues'? Hate to break it to you, but the "playfulness" you go on about is part of someone's personality.

But yeah, I like talk during sex. Since human beings aren't telepathic, I like talking about what we're doing, and what we might try next. I like role-playing. I like dirty talk. I like endearments and compliments. All of these things require a brain.

On Genetic influence vs intellectual decisions

Are you a dualist? That's really the only way to explain a belief that the intellect operates completely outside the environment in which it evolved and doesn't take the instinct into account. A lot of our thinking is coming up with a justifaction after the fact. While saying that these genetic influences override the actual intellectual decisions would be retarded - the truth is that the intellectual decision is made up of those genetic influences.

That intellectual decision is ALSO made of numerous environmental influences, which you blithely disregard in favor of "INSTINCT!". I don't want to refight the nature v. nurture debate here, but I think you are oversimplifying the influence of genetics to a retarded degree.

Plus, I do posit and believe in the existence and importance of free will. While both genetics and environment are going to influence your decisions, I believe history has shown even people with similar genetics and environment are capable of making radically different decisions. How do you account for this?

On posting attacks

One of the posts on the front page is him responding to a female attacker. He does it all the time, and has multiple posts written up that talk about it. Did you just not do the research?

Since research in this case would mean reading his blog, no, I passed on that out of respect for my gag reflex.

As for proof that game doesn't work, I'd like to see people take a few average guys, measure their success with women. Give one group game teachings for a few month, give another group the opposite of game teachings, a third group some generic self improvement advice, and a control group nothing. If the people who were taught game didn't make a measurable improvement, then I'd accept that game doesn't work. If you want to do the experiment, feel free. From what we've seen in the wild non formally game works, but there hasn't been any serious study on it.

How do you measure "success with women"?
I would be curious about the results of such a study myself, though...I believe they'd be different than what you think. Maybe you should write Mythbusters.

On me being a sexist and misogynist

Believing that men and women are different is not sexist.

That depends on who you ask...I personally believe there are some differences between men and women. But being fundamentally different to the degree you posit is. Most differences between men and women are entirely social/cultural.

Believing that all women don't have male sexual characteristics isn't remotely sexist or misogynistic.

Claiming that certain things are "distinctly male" with no evidence (and often in the face of evidence to the contrary) is classic sexism.

A man totally devoted and in love with a woman is to be pitied, even if she returns the favour(which probably won't last for long) and a woman totally in love with a man who accepts that love is pretty lucky. Men and women are judged by different standards.

And here we have it. I say this statement is unabashedly sexist and misogynistic. You clearly don't think so. Other people can judge for themselves.

But if you REALLY believe that statement isn't misogynistic, I suggest you say it to every woman you meet, and see how well your game works.

On fantasies

If you didn't want to do something in any way then you would not fantasise about it, period. Taking a look at wikipedia..."A fantasy is a situation imagined by an individual or group that has no basis in reality but expresses certain desires or aims on the part of its creator.". So yes, you do want to experience at least a part of it. If what you fantasised about didn't have at its' core a desire based in reality then you either lacked the courage to admit that or were using language improperly.

(bolding mine)
Many things are attractive when they have no basis in reality. They become less so when reality is involved.
When you have a fantasy, you are attracted to or interested in something that does not exist. Translating a fantasy to reality involves adding all the parts that reality demands (but fantasy ignores)...which may in fact kill the fantasy or make it less desirable.

I never claimed that you didn't want to experience at least a part of it. You wanted to experience the fantasy...all of the good, none of the bad. Since this doesn't HAPPEN in real life, you want a fantasy that you do not want in reality, since reality would make it shitty.

On farting

I assume you've never seen any comedy ever - bodily functions are hilarious

I know my 8-year-old thinks they're hilarious. I don't see the appeal. This, incidentally, does not mean I've 'never seen any comedy ever'...this may astonish you, but there is a whole wealth of comedy that does not involve fart jokes.

None of which has much to do with the fact that farting on someone is a rude, disrespectful, and generally shitty thing to do.

On women not wanting to be swept off their feet

I don't know what women you're talking to, but most women who aren't in a relationship already would actually love to get picked up by a lothario and get into a loving relationship. Its' one of the most common subjects of romantic fantasy books...

Refer to my earlier note on fantasies and their translation to reality.

As to what kind of women I'm talking to, most are indepedent, self-confident women who tend to think 'falling in love' or servicing a man sexually are not their primary roles in life. They're a lot of fun to talk to.

On misogynistic douchebaggery

I'd say that Roissy and most practitioners of game have a great and enduring love for women. There's a reason they put a lot of effort into learning how to maximise their success with them after all.

I would say they have a deep and abiding contempt for women, based on how they treat them and what they believe about them. The reason they put so much effort into learning how to maximise their success is because they NEED to. Because they are fundamentally assholes, and if they acted like their natural asshole selves, they would never get laid. That, and/or because they feel the need to self-validate their worldview that women should be slavishly devoted to men, and men should dominate women.

[Kaelik]

Plus, I do posit and believe in the existence and importance of free will. While both genetics and environment are going to influence your decisions, I believe history has shown even people with similar genetics and environment are capable of making radically different decisions. How do you account for this?

Please shut up now.

[Maj]

I'd say that Roissy and most practitioners of game have a great and enduring love for women. There's a reason they put a lot of effort into learning how to maximise their success with them after all.

Power trip.

No matter what they say and how they define their marketability, Roissy and crew are the biggest losers of all. The definition of themselves not only pits them against the females of the world, but against a large portion of the male population as well. And people who follow paths like this don't feel good about themselves when they aren't preying on others. That's how you can tell they're the true losers.

[PoliteNewb]

Please shut up now.

Again with the sweet talk...aw Kaelik, I didn't know you cared.

[Datawolf]

I'd say that Roissy and most practitioners of game have a great and enduring love for women. There's a reason they put a lot of effort into learning how to maximise their success with them after all.

Power trip.

No matter what they say and how they define their marketability, Roissy and crew are the biggest losers of all. The definition of themselves not only pits them against the females of the world, but against a large portion of the male population as well. And people who follow paths like this don't feel good about themselves when they aren't preying on others. That's how you can tell they're the true losers.

Hilariously enough, Neil Strauss comes to a similar conclusion in The Game. Namely that learning and using game results in the uh... "gamer" (for lack of a better term) utterly dehumanizing the opposite sex because he begins to see them as little more than measuring rods for his success (i.e., the hotter they are and the more positive their response to his game, the better he is). He also comes to the conclusion that speed seduction, PUA, game or whatever the hell the kids are calling it nowadays is in the end all about a man validating himself to other men. Our society measures success in many different, equally shitty ways. One of the shitty ways in which men are judged is by their ability to "acquire", "please" and "dominate" women. I find this shit gravely offensive because it encourages men to be dickheads and women to be airheads.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Please shut up now.

Again with the sweet talk...aw Kaelik, I didn't know you cared.

When I bake breads with similar recipes and at similar temperatures, I sometimes end up with vastly different loafs. How can you explain this without acknowledging that bread has free will?

[PoliteNewb]

Please shut up now.

Again with the sweet talk...aw Kaelik, I didn't know you cared.

When I bake breads with similar recipes and at similar temperatures, I sometimes end up with vastly different loafs. How can you explain this without acknowledging that bread has free will?

Touche. I will admit that my belief in free will is exactly that (an unverifiable belief) and leave it out of future posts.

Still, this doesn't mean Vnon's "genetics = behavior" argument isn't unmitigated crap.

[Kaelik]

Touche. I will admit that my belief in free will is exactly that (an unverifiable belief) and leave it out of future posts.

Still, this doesn't mean Vnon's "genetics = behavior" argument isn't unmitigated crap.

His belief is wrong, but yours is hilariously phrased and wrong, and so makes him look better by comparison.

[Orion]

On Personality during sex

Seriously? Outside of lust and ..appetites, when you're having sex you probably aren't going to be having a deep discussion about something. Maybe it is incredibly boring for you or you're asexual, in which case personality would be super fucking important.

You should try it. I've converted people to atheism while having sex.

[Plebian]

You should try it. I've converted people to atheism while having sex.

that really, really makes it seem like you're so horrible that your partner can no longer believe in a merciful god after you finish up.

[Orion]

trust a 4E to think belief in God is comforting

[Plebian]

trust a 4E to think belief in God is comforting

hey it's not my fault if after being with you people don't even have the ability to conceive of a benevolent deity

[Orion]

Try to come up with at least 1 new insult per post. We hold our trolls to a high standard here.

[Plebian]

Try to come up with at least 1 new insult per post. We hold our trolls to a high standard here.

sorry, when you take the ridiculously overdone "lol god si bad no 1 cud liek him" stance of atheism I really don't see why I am the one that needs to be original

[Juton]

Wow, Plebian really sucks at trolling. PR and Tzor make it look so easy, maybe it is and Plebian is just retarded.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I don't know, he's getting responses out of you guys fairly easily. I'd say he's pretty decent at trolling.

Now, when I'm trolling, everyone pretty much ignores me. That's a sign one sucks at trolling (I am aware that my avatar makes this an ironic statement, no need to point it out).

I tend to get the most flames when I'm not trying to troll at all.

[Cynic]

Porn helped that, too, but unfortunately, I don't like real-life porn (Oh, god... their faces!). I prefer it drawn (The one exception being Pirates, which made up in hilarity what I don't generally like in porn).

So this article about Woman Porn totally got me thinking of the above quote.

[Maj]

That article sounds intriguing, but I have to admit that after visiting Anna Span's site, the previews leave my hope deflated. Erika Lust's site held more promise for me, but I think a significant part of the issue is bad acting.