I can attest to this. I remember these two girls who liked me back because I was being my authentic self and being humorous in my own way, just having fun on dates. It didn't feel like I was trying to win them over by doing dating "techniques" which makes you be all in your head when talking to other people, specially girls. Recently I met another girl in the gym and during that time I was watching PUA stuff and I decided to test it out on this girl, she was gorgeous. Unfortunately, she ended up ghosting me and I think it's because she felt I was playing games and wasn't being my genuine self and doing those techniques made me awkward cuz it wasn't me, it was an act. Thanks for making this video because it's true. It's way better to just socialize without using any system/techniques like these pua do. We learn through interacting with other people and it carries over to talking to girls without being all nervous and awkward. Also, having a purpose helps with your identity which then improves self-esteem and confidence, thus improving your social interactions
There is a general atmosphere of demoralzation for young men these days. There were forms of it in the past but not as intense. I mean you literally have people deem us less rational than bears because of their own fear. Dating feels like a weird form of humiliation you have to pay for and its sad. I don't blame him and wish i had better answers but i kind of agree. Love is a gamble and the house always wins, sometimes it feels better not to play at all.
That whole bear thing is performative man. People are incentivized to make posts that get lots of likes and you expect people to tell the truth? There is a general atmosphere of demoralization for young men but your doomer posting is contributing to it. Billions must try
@@thesneakysnek4024 it's been going on for over 40 years, I'm no longer interested in being mashed into bits by the cogs in the machine for its fuel. Call it doomer all you want but the odds ain't in my favor. Life is better not capitulating to others.
@@thesneakysnek4024I think you’re right. The bear thing is ridiculous on purpose…to get a reaction on social media. And it’s working. People are reacting.
I think the internet makes all this kind of worse. Expectations about what to do, how well to do etc when you’re dating. One thing I’ve done is flip “dating” on its side by not playing along with the whole “you have to take her to dinner” mentality. A LOT of women are fine with a quick walk somewhere, or a coffee (10-15 minutes of chatting). It’s low pressure and doesn’t feel like a date. You don’t have to play the game. Rise above it. Just enjoy life and hanging out with people and if you don’t like them, get up and leave politely saying “it was nice to meet you.” Zero discomfort. Zero demoralization (don’t really know why that has to be a thing, unless you’re listening to the masses [which have always been irrational themselves]). But, I can’t convince you to be happy and not play people’s silly games (social norms of what dating is). You’re choosing to leave instead of enjoy what you could without the games, aren’t you?
@@teroyselfhelpjourney3661Human males have it pretty good compared to other males in the animal kingdom. Some species the males die right after they copulate and impregnate a female. Some even develop features on their body for sexual selection that can be detrimental to their own survival, but the positives outweigh the negatives because it makes the male more likely to attract and be chosen by a female to procreate and pass on their genes. One of the most fundamental principles of evolutionary psychology is that women are much more selective than men in their mate choice. Because women pay far greater reproductive costs by making the wrong choice, women have been designed by evolution to be more cautious and choosier than men in mate selection. Hence the “coy” female, and the sexually aggressive male, in every human society ever found (as well as in most other mammalian species). Mate choice is generally exercised by females and based upon male display traits, even in cases in which males provide no resources. A woman usually looks for signs of commitment and that a man has the means to provide for her and practical needs to also be met. Back in the day, if these resources were of poor quality or inconsistent, this would threaten a woman’s survival and the survival of her children. Being less choosy about sexual partners could also result in raising a child without the help of the father, who could otherwise provide material resources in addition to emotional support and physical protection. In response, men have evolved to be highly competitive in order to be attractive to the choosiest (and, therefore, highest value) sexual partners. Individuals who are well adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who are less well adapted. Eggs are more costly to produce produce than sperm; consequently, women release one egg a month while men produce several hundred million sperm a day. Women are very selective about who gets to fertilize that egg, and men need to be competitive in order to get access to this precious resource. Natural selection exerts different pressures on males and females. In virtually every mammalian species there is male-male competition. in most mammalian species most males who reach reproductive age never get to copulate even once, while virtually every female that reaches reproductive age will find someone to donate sperm to her. Also in many mammalian species mothers can cooperate in rearing offspring at little cost. Although there's less male-male competition when there is less dimorphism in a species and higher monogamy and pair-bonding unions. Fathering only evolves when there is monogamy. Before DNA testing became available for humans the only way a man would know it was his child and his genes passed on would be a monogamous pair bonding union with a woman. Women choose to mate with men who would showed signs they were willing to commit and provide for the survival of her and her offspring. There would be no benefit to a woman being monogamous if the men were not willing to do the same and support her. Without the help of the father it would threaten her and her future off springs survival. That's why women on average have evolved to be more selective. This is just as they are biologically wired, women seek a provider the same way men seek young attractive women. I also think it’s a bit unfair that women get more flak from society for their partner preferences than men. Women who date wealthy men are commonly derided as gold diggers, while men who prefer to date young, attractive women will get an eye roll at most. Truly successful relationships require a healthy and accurate understanding of not only one another, but human behavior; otherwise you will end up with a partner who is only telling you what you want to hear. Most men are perfectly happy to sleep with a ton of women, but then complain when women have high body counts. The only reason these women have a high body count is because these men are sleeping with them. If hypothetically most women had no body count in their early 20s, then most men in their 20s would have a no body count either(unless these men were all all sleeping with older women, which is unlikely). If men on average in any age group have high body counts then women on average are going to have high body counts and that's always been the case. The only way most men would be able to have high body counts and most women have low body counts would be if these men were sleeping with other men. That's why when I hear red pill type men talk about how it's okay for them to sleep with a harem of women, but that it's not okay for women to do the same and it makes them low value But if they weren't sleeping with a ton of women then women wouldn't have high body counts. The only way that would make sense is if what they are really saying is it's okay for them and them only to sleep with lots of women, but they are going to need most men not sleeping with any so there's more for them to have all to themselves. It's kind of how polygamist societies work, all the rich men have a harem of women, and all the poor men are bachelors. It's the same in polygamist species as well like sea lions and seals..the strongest most dominant males have an harem of females and most of the males are bachelors. That's kind of how it goes when you don't have monogamy and pair-bond relationships.. They also make no sense when they say that most men have always had high body counts, but only women in this generation have high body counts and not the older generation women. The math doesn't add up because who have all these men been sleeping with if they have high body counts? women of course. So if it's okay for men to go out there and have high body counts, by default women are going to have high body counts too. Unless only a small percent of men have a high body count and all the rest have low body counts or are sleeping with no women, or a small percent of women had extremely high body counts but the rest had low body counts or sleeping with no men... that's the only way it would add up because it averages out the same then..but even then, if only a small percent of men are sleeping with all the women it's not going spread out among all women to them all having high body counts because you need more men having sex than women for that to be the case. If men don't want women to have high body counts and sleep with lots of men, then they are going to have to do the same and not sleep with lots of women. The same standard would have to be applied to men. It's not possible for one sex to all have high body counts and the other to all have low body counts unless one is sleeping with the same sex. a
I can attest to this. I remember these two girls who liked me back because I was being my authentic self and being humorous in my own way, just having fun on dates. It didn't feel like I was trying to win them over by doing dating "techniques" which makes you be all in your head when talking to other people, specially girls. Recently I met another girl in the gym and during that time I was watching PUA stuff and I decided to test it out on this girl, she was gorgeous. Unfortunately, she ended up ghosting me and I think it's because she felt I was playing games and wasn't being my genuine self and doing those techniques made me awkward cuz it wasn't me, it was an act.
Thanks for making this video because it's true. It's way better to just socialize without using any system/techniques like these pua do. We learn through interacting with other people and it carries over to talking to girls without being all nervous and awkward. Also, having a purpose helps with your identity which then improves self-esteem and confidence, thus improving your social interactions
I appreciate your advice. Hope you make more videos.
Thank you 👍
There is a general atmosphere of demoralzation for young men these days. There were forms of it in the past but not as intense. I mean you literally have people deem us less rational than bears because of their own fear. Dating feels like a weird form of humiliation you have to pay for and its sad. I don't blame him and wish i had better answers but i kind of agree. Love is a gamble and the house always wins, sometimes it feels better not to play at all.
That whole bear thing is performative man. People are incentivized to make posts that get lots of likes and you expect people to tell the truth? There is a general atmosphere of demoralization for young men but your doomer posting is contributing to it. Billions must try
@@thesneakysnek4024 it's been going on for over 40 years, I'm no longer interested in being mashed into bits by the cogs in the machine for its fuel. Call it doomer all you want but the odds ain't in my favor. Life is better not capitulating to others.
@@thesneakysnek4024I think you’re right. The bear thing is ridiculous on purpose…to get a reaction on social media. And it’s working. People are reacting.
I think the internet makes all this kind of worse. Expectations about what to do, how well to do etc when you’re dating. One thing I’ve done is flip “dating” on its side by not playing along with the whole “you have to take her to dinner” mentality. A LOT of women are fine with a quick walk somewhere, or a coffee (10-15 minutes of chatting). It’s low pressure and doesn’t feel like a date. You don’t have to play the game. Rise above it. Just enjoy life and hanging out with people and if you don’t like them, get up and leave politely saying “it was nice to meet you.” Zero discomfort. Zero demoralization (don’t really know why that has to be a thing, unless you’re listening to the masses [which have always been irrational themselves]). But, I can’t convince you to be happy and not play people’s silly games (social norms of what dating is). You’re choosing to leave instead of enjoy what you could without the games, aren’t you?
@@teroyselfhelpjourney3661Human males have it pretty good compared to other males in the animal kingdom. Some species the males die right after they copulate and impregnate a female. Some even develop features on their body for sexual selection that can be detrimental to their own survival, but the positives outweigh the negatives because it makes the male more likely to attract and be chosen by a female to procreate and pass on their genes.
One of the most fundamental principles of evolutionary psychology is that women are much more selective than men in their mate choice. Because women pay far greater reproductive costs by making the wrong choice, women have been designed by evolution to be more cautious and choosier than men in mate selection. Hence the “coy” female, and the sexually aggressive male, in every human society ever found (as well as in most other mammalian species). Mate choice is generally exercised by females and based upon male display traits, even in cases in which males provide no resources.
A woman usually looks for signs of commitment and that a man has the means to provide for her and practical needs to also be met. Back in the day, if these resources were of poor quality or inconsistent, this would threaten a woman’s survival and the survival of her children. Being less choosy about sexual partners could also result in raising a child without the help of the father, who could otherwise provide material resources in addition to emotional support and physical protection. In response, men have evolved to be highly competitive in order to be attractive to the choosiest (and, therefore, highest value) sexual partners. Individuals who are well adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who are less well adapted. Eggs are more costly to produce produce than sperm; consequently, women release one egg a month while men produce several hundred million sperm a day. Women are very selective about who gets to fertilize that egg, and men need to be competitive in order to get access to this precious resource.
Natural selection exerts different pressures on males and females. In virtually every mammalian species there is male-male competition. in most mammalian species most males who reach reproductive age never get to copulate even once, while virtually every female that reaches reproductive age will find someone to donate sperm to her. Also in many mammalian species mothers can cooperate in rearing offspring at little cost. Although there's less male-male competition when there is less dimorphism in a species and higher monogamy and pair-bonding unions. Fathering only evolves when there is monogamy.
Before DNA testing became available for humans the only way a man would know it was his child and his genes passed on would be a monogamous pair bonding union with a woman. Women choose to mate with men who would showed signs they were willing to commit and provide for the survival of her and her offspring. There would be no benefit to a woman being monogamous if the men were not willing to do the same and support her. Without the help of the father it would threaten her and her future off springs survival. That's why women on average have evolved to be more selective. This is just as they are biologically wired, women seek a provider the same way men seek young attractive women. I also think it’s a bit unfair that women get more flak from society for their partner preferences than men. Women who date wealthy men are commonly derided as gold diggers, while men who prefer to date young, attractive women will get an eye roll at most. Truly successful relationships require a healthy and accurate understanding of not only one another, but human behavior; otherwise you will end up with a partner who is only telling you what you want to hear.
Most men are perfectly happy to sleep with a ton of women, but then complain when women have high body counts. The only reason these women have a high body count is because these men are sleeping with them. If hypothetically most women had no body count in their early 20s, then most men in their 20s would have a no body count either(unless these men were all all sleeping with older women, which is unlikely). If men on average in any age group have high body counts then women on average are going to have high body counts and that's always been the case. The only way most men would be able to have high body counts and most women have low body counts would be if these men were sleeping with other men.
That's why when I hear red pill type men talk about how it's okay for them to sleep with a harem of women, but that it's not okay for women to do the same and it makes them low value But if they weren't sleeping with a ton of women then women wouldn't have high body counts. The only way that would make sense is if what they are really saying is it's okay for them and them only to sleep with lots of women, but they are going to need most men not sleeping with any so there's more for them to have all to themselves. It's kind of how polygamist societies work, all the rich men have a harem of women, and all the poor men are bachelors. It's the same in polygamist species as well like sea lions and seals..the strongest most dominant males have an harem of females and most of the males are bachelors. That's kind of how it goes when you don't have monogamy and pair-bond relationships..
They also make no sense when they say that most men have always had high body counts, but only women in this generation have high body counts and not the older generation women. The math doesn't add up because who have all these men been sleeping with if they have high body counts? women of course. So if it's okay for men to go out there and have high body counts, by default women are going to have high body counts too. Unless only a small percent of men have a high body count and all the rest have low body counts or are sleeping with no women, or a small percent of women had extremely high body counts but the rest had low body counts or sleeping with no men... that's the only way it would add up because it averages out the same then..but even then, if only a small percent of men are sleeping with all the women it's not going spread out among all women to them all having high body counts because you need more men having sex than women for that to be the case.
If men don't want women to have high body counts and sleep with lots of men, then they are going to have to do the same and not sleep with lots of women. The same standard would have to be applied to men. It's not possible for one sex to all have high body counts and the other to all have low body counts unless one is sleeping with the same sex. a