Why Asceticism is an immoral philosophy

[Outcast9428]

I read a quote once that said “if you’re ever questioning the morality of a certain action or lifestyle, think about what would happen if everyone or even just a lot of people did what you are doing. If the consequences would be bad, then what you’re doing is probably immoral.” How does that relate to Asceticism? I’ll get to that later.

Asceticism is basically a philosophy that denounces pleasure as a moral evil. Now there are two strains of asceticism one which is more moderate and another more extreme.

Moderate asceticism says that all desire is bad and that pain comes from desire for pleasure itself. This is basically what Buddhists believe. Ascetics of this kind will become hermits, isolating themselves to a tiny dwelling away from other humans, never marrying, forgoing basic hygiene and often fasting as well. The argument one may make in favor of this is that the desires of people may lead to the suffering of others, therefore the moral thing to do is to stop desiring.

The problem is that all this leads to is slow self destruction. It is a philosophy that essentially forbids humanity from building anything because building things reflects desire for some kind of joy or pleasure. If humanity stops building and stops reproducing, life in the universe goes completely extinct. It seems to me that this philosophy is just arguing in favor of passive self destruction. From what I’ve seen of people who accidentally behave as Buddhists… NEETs who have no desires or purpose in life. I can confirm that having no desires very much does lead to suffering because those kind of people are some of the most miserable people I’ve met. They are essentially people who are so scared of suffering they’d rather do nothing then encounter any suffering but their lack of desire and purpose in life breeds mental illness and depression which eventually leads to suicidal behavior.

Moderate asceticism is basically a passive version of extreme asceticism which argues that pleasure is bad and pain is good. Practitioners of this will deliberately hurt themselves, smear themselves in filth, become disgustingly unhygienic and fast in order to create as much physical discomfort as possible.

The question is, under the rules of this philosophy, isn’t the moral thing to do to create as much suffering as possible? If pleasure is bad because all it does is distract us from obtaining nirvana then shouldn’t practitioners beat each other up every day or even eventually murder one another after they have forgone all desires? Not for the sake of achieving or obtaining anything but simply to help one another suffer more and achieve nirvana? The implications of this philosophy when taken to their logical conclusion are quite frightening and basically turn everything we know about right and wrong upside down on their head.

Some people argue that asceticism reflects a saintly life but I personally think it has only been held up as such because it is a difficult life. I don’t think difficulty for the sake of difficulty really cultivates any virtue. Virtue is that which minimizes the suffering in other people’s lives and brings joy to them instead.

[Outcast9428]

I’d argue that the highest good in life is love because it combines pleasure with caretaking. Therefore one obtains pleasure and joy without ever creating suffering or pain in another person. Rather their pleasure is created by another person’s pleasure to a large extent. In a romantic relationship, two people who love each other will selflessly seek the other person’s happiness and ultimately fulfill all their desires for them. A parent selflessly desires the success of his or her children and gets joy from seeing them succeed. This can be a never ending cycle. Only when someone chooses to abandon this cycle will suffering enter into their life.

[Lucas88]

I read a quote once that said “if you’re ever questioning the morality of a certain action or lifestyle, think about what would happen if everyone or even just a lot of people did what you are doing. If the consequences would be bad, then what you’re doing is probably immoral.”

The quote which you read sounds like a variation of Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that is universalizability. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Kant writes: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

I admit that I hate this way of thinking. It assumes from the start that all individuals are equal and therefore have equal rights and obligations but this assumption has absolutely no basis in reality. We are not all equal. We each have different natures, proclivities, abilities and virtues. Nietzsche criticized Kant's concept of universalizability for this same reason. He argued that when the moral systems of the masses are made into universal maxims then higher types of men often end up being held back by the artificial ideals of the mediocre types which may result in a levelling effect. I agree with Nietzsche. I've never cared for the ideals of the masses. I've always preferred to follow my own instincts.

I also believe that moralists in the vein of Kant have a flawed understanding of human nature. They seem to think that self-appointed philosophers of morality can prescribe morals and expect the masses to accept them either through the use of reason or through the threat of shaming or being portrayed as a bad person but that's not the case. People are generally motivated by innate drives and instincts and sometimes also by environmental pressures and psychological conditioning, not by moral concerns. People who are extremely promiscuous for example are driven by an out-of-control libido and/or addiction. Same for people who are addicted to drugs which they often got into as an escape from their lives' overwhelming pressures and negative circumstances. Serious criminals such as psychopaths and pedophiles are also motivated by innate drives, in this case extremely corrupt and pathological ones. You can't preach morality to a psychopathic or pedophilic criminal. They're simply broken. All you can do is eliminate them from society so that they can't hurt others. True nobility cannot be moralized. The desire to do good must genuinely come from within. Only through such an internal illumination from one's own consciousness can one be truly motivated to work towards a more noble way of life.

I am also distrustful of moralists because I see how many have used or continue to use their own vision of morality to control other people's lives. They impose their own subjective ideals on others and then shame or condemn any dissenters through the charge of immorality no matter how arbitrary it may be. Behind many outward moralists lies an authoritarian tyrant in love with power.

Apart from that, I completely agree with your analysis of asceticism and Buddhism. For years now I've viewed Buddhism as a thoroughly nihilistic philosophy which denies life itself through its denial of desire. I've never understood why so many people exalt Buddhism so highly as though it were the most progressive and sophisticated religion. To me it just seems like self-destructive self-abnegation turned into a religion.

I’d argue that the highest good in life is love because it combines pleasure with caretaking. Therefore one obtains pleasure and joy without ever creating suffering or pain in another person. Rather their pleasure is created by another person’s pleasure to a large extent. In a romantic relationship, two people who love each other will selflessly seek the other person’s happiness and ultimately fulfill all their desires for them. A parent selflessly desires the success of his or her children and gets joy from seeing them succeed. This can be a never ending cycle. Only when someone chooses to abandon this cycle will suffering enter into their life.

I don't think that one single thing can be elevated to the status of highest good in life. Life is multifaceted and therefore too complex for that. I much prefer the Aristotelian approach of eudaimonia which emphasizes the necessity of a plurality of virtues for the achievement of human flourishing. Also different people value different things. What one person pursues as the highest good in his own life might differ from that which another person pursues as such.

[MrPeabody]

Buddhists don't say that desire is evil or leads to suffering. This is a bad translation. It's more like "craving" or "clinging" that leads to suffering. The desire for liberation or the desire for enlightenment are considered good.

[Outcast9428]

I read a quote once that said “if you’re ever questioning the morality of a certain action or lifestyle, think about what would happen if everyone or even just a lot of people did what you are doing. If the consequences would be bad, then what you’re doing is probably immoral.”

The quote which you read sounds like a variation of Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that is universalizability. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Kant writes: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

I admit that I hate this way of thinking. It assumes from the start that all individuals are equal and therefore have equal rights and obligations but this assumption has absolutely no basis in reality. We are not all equal. We each have different natures, proclivities, abilities and virtues. Nietzsche criticized Kant's concept of universalizability for this same reason. He argued that when the moral systems of the masses are made into universal maxims then higher types of men often end up being held back by the artificial ideals of the mediocre types which may result in a levelling effect. I agree with Nietzsche. I've never cared for the ideals of the masses. I've always preferred to follow my own instincts.

I also believe that moralists in the vein of Kant have a flawed understanding of human nature. They seem to think that self-appointed philosophers of morality can prescribe morals and expect the masses to accept them either through the use of reason or through the threat of shaming or being portrayed as a bad person but that's not the case. People are generally motivated by innate drives and instincts and sometimes also by environmental pressures and psychological conditioning, not by moral concerns. People who are extremely promiscuous for example are driven by an out-of-control libido and/or addiction. Same for people who are addicted to drugs which they often got into as an escape from their lives' overwhelming pressures and negative circumstances. Serious criminals such as psychopaths and pedophiles are also motivated by innate drives, in this case extremely corrupt and pathological ones. You can't preach morality to a psychopathic or pedophilic criminal. They're simply broken. All you can do is eliminate them from society so that they can't hurt others. True nobility cannot be moralized. The desire to do good must genuinely come from within. Only through such an internal illumination from one's own consciousness can one be truly motivated to work towards a more noble way of life.

I am also distrustful of moralists because I see how many have used or continue to use their own vision of morality to control other people's lives. They impose their own subjective ideals on others and then shame or condemn any dissenters through the charge of immorality no matter how arbitrary it may be. Behind many outward moralists lies an authoritarian tyrant in love with power.

Apart from that, I completely agree with your analysis of asceticism and Buddhism. For years now I've viewed Buddhism as a thoroughly nihilistic philosophy which denies life itself through its denial of desire. I've never understood why so many people exalt Buddhism so highly as though it were the most progressive and sophisticated religion. To me it just seems like self-destructive self-abnegation turned into a religion.

I’d argue that the highest good in life is love because it combines pleasure with caretaking. Therefore one obtains pleasure and joy without ever creating suffering or pain in another person. Rather their pleasure is created by another person’s pleasure to a large extent. In a romantic relationship, two people who love each other will selflessly seek the other person’s happiness and ultimately fulfill all their desires for them. A parent selflessly desires the success of his or her children and gets joy from seeing them succeed. This can be a never ending cycle. Only when someone chooses to abandon this cycle will suffering enter into their life.

I don't think that one single thing can be elevated to the status of highest good in life. Life is multifaceted and therefore too complex for that. I much prefer the Aristotelian approach of eudaimonia which emphasizes the necessity of a plurality of virtues for the achievement of human flourishing. Also different people value different things. What one person pursues as the highest good in his own life might differ from that which another person pursues as such.

Promiscuity really has no relation to high libidos. My ex has the highest libido of anybody I’ve ever met. She told me in high school and college she’d spend four hours every day masturbating. She can’t even get through a shift at work without masturbating, she has to go to her car during lunch.

Her entire life has been in long term relationships though. Several of which lasted for years. She doesn’t do hookups at all and agrees with me that hookup culture needs to be destroyed and replaced with the expectation of life long love. She was opposed to all fetishes and kinks and honestly, it was like the whole concept was alien to her. It wasn’t even just opposition it was straight up confusion. I knew people from college who had medium libidos that doubled or even quadrupled her total partner count in just one year. She on the other hand was in a three year relationship during college. She was loyal to me the whole time we were together. I called her every night and we’d talk for hours until she was ready to go to bed.

There’s nothing sexier then a girl who combines a super high libido with a strong moral compass. She seemed to feel kind of guilty about how high her sex drive was but I told her it only made her more beautiful to me.

Promiscuity is a sign that somebody lacks loyalty, lacks commitment, is impulsive and undisciplined, insecure about their value in life so they have to prove it to everybody by sleeping with lots of different people who give them validation and reassure them that they are in-fact attractive, or prioritize their personal freedom and independence over strong bonds formed by love. That’s why promiscuity is immoral, not because you have a high libido.

Personally I really dislike Nietzche’s philosophy. I feel like the man was just using fancy words to justify being selfish. I agree that people who have committed moral wrongs don’t have the same right to resources or happiness in general as innocent people do but Nietzche is basically just laying out a foundation for anybody to justify being selfish and say “it’s because I’m an ubermensch! Denying myself whatever I want is slave morality!”

[Lucas88]

Promiscuity is a sign that somebody lacks loyalty, lacks commitment, is impulsive and undisciplined, insecure about their value in life so they have to prove it to everybody by sleeping with lots of different people who give them validation and reassure them that they are in-fact attractive, or prioritize their personal freedom and independence over strong bonds formed by love. That’s why promiscuity is immoral, not because you have a high libido.

While it's true that a high libido alone doesn't necessarily result in promiscuity, people who sleep with multiple partners often do so due to strong internal impulses. They crave novelty and a variety of aesthetics and sexual experiences and act out those desires. Sometimes those impulses are so strong that the individual is controlled by them. Preaching morality to people like that is futile. They might pay lip service to certain moral ideals in public but, unless they really come to an inner realization that that kind of lifestyle is not good, nothing will change and the individual will continue to be controlled by his strong promiscuous impulses. In my observation this is how human behavior works most of the time. Most people are not particularly concerned about moral behavior and mostly follow their own impulses regardless of whether these lead to good or bad outcomes. This is why in my view moralistic conceptions of human nature are always flawed.

Why does everyone have to be motivated by love? What if somebody is motivated by some other driving force or gives greater importance to personal freedom and independence? Do we all have to want the same?

You've implied in other threads a that a man like myself or @WilliamSmith desiring to sleep with multiple women is inherently immoral. But why is it inherently immoral? Is there an objective reason? Or do you simply consider it immoral because it offends your own subjective sensitivities and is different to what you want?

Personally I really dislike Nietzche’s philosophy. I feel like the man was just using fancy words to justify being selfish. I agree that people who have committed moral wrongs don’t have the same right to resources or happiness in general as innocent people do but Nietzche is basically just laying out a foundation for anybody to justify being selfish and say “it’s because I’m an ubermensch! Denying myself whatever I want is slave morality!”

I don't know how much of Nietzsche you've read but if that's your only takeaway I don't think you studied him too deeply.

I find Nietzsche's philosophy exceptionally valuable because it opens the reader's eyes to how so many moralists use their own brands of morality to exercise power over others, especially those moralists of lowly origins. Nietzsche's writings expose their ulterior motive and the ploys which they use to impose their mental tyrannies. Yes, it exposes the modus operandi of the slave moralities. Nietzsche shows us how the game works. In this regard his writings are invaluable.

We are all selfish to some degree. We experience reality through our own egos and have our own needs and drives and so some degree of selfishness is natural. Self-abnegation for its own sake on the other hand is wholly unnatural.

I'm sure that even your own desire to love somebody else has an element of selfishness in it. Of course it does. You want to feel the pleasure of loving somebody else, right?

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88 The genuinely promiscuous have R-selected genetic patterns. Of course, most people are some kind of mix of the two. But I’ve met people who were genuinely R-selected.

Honestly @Lucas88 I don’t think you or even @WilliamSmith are authentically promiscuous. You both have a similar past that you remedied in different ways. You both used to struggle with girls. And modern liberal culture tells men who can’t get girls that they should feel ashamed of themselves, that they’re not a real man and that they’re deficient basically. This upholds feminist power because a lot of women get off on the idea of men competing amongst one another for access to their bodies. Very few will directly tell you that but it’s why they have sex with men they see as dominant. They enjoy the idea of making some men winners who get access to all the girls and some men losers who don’t get any. Men are encouraged to bully and mock the men who lose at this competition or see through the entire bullshit of it and tell other men that this is a dumb game with a dumb prize. Making “the winners” bully “the losers” psychologically maintains the status quo because the majority of the population is conformist and only views life through the lens of status and popularity.

You and him felt for years like you lost at the game so in his case, he studied the rules and figured out how to win, while you lowered the difficulty by moving to countries where the same game is in place but not nearly as convoluted and outrageously complicated as it is in full blown feminist societies like the UK or Canada. Now you guys are the winners and feel like you’re on top and now that you’re winning the game you were losing at for so long, you find it difficult to see just how toxic the game actually is.

Part of the reason why I think y’all think the way you do is because you were psychologically conditioned in a feminist environment and are now moving to a more conservative one. In my case it was the opposite. At home and with my peers in high school, I was psychologically conditioned with mildly conservative values and then in college moved to a feminist environment. The difference is like night and day. You keep saying the UK is puritanical. It’s not. The more feminist a society becomes, the bigger the shit test all dating turns into. Right leaning liberal environments like South America are much easier by comparison because the shit-testing isn’t nearly as complicated. It gets more complicated with more feminism because you guys are giving into and indulging the most toxic, primal part of female sexuality.

Patriarchal societies basically mandate that shit tests are completely unproductive for society and thus will not exist anymore. A romantic relationship will be based on the values that men tend to hold more which are honesty and loyalty.

This is why liberally minded girls in patriarchal societies are, admittedly, very easy to sleep with… Because the girls in those societies are not psychologically conditioned to shit test men at all. They’ve been raised on men’s values which say that they should just be honest, logical, and direct.

People say that Asian societies are effeminate but I strongly disagree. Asian societies are very much built on men’s values. Sleeping around, being aggressive, dominating women, that’s not being masculine, that’s being a very specific image that degenerate women like for men to be. Honestly, being innocent, sweet, loyal, loving, and nurturing. That’s not really femininity either. It’s what good men want girls to be like. But because men breed those traits into women over the course of hundreds of years it basically became real femininity, especially in Asia where it seems the genetic selecting for women like that was unusually rigid compared to elsewhere.

Good women do not expect “primal masculinity” out of men. They want men to be breadwinners, loyal lovers, and fathers.

Why is promiscuity wrong? Because you are maintaining a social structure which requires men to be aggressive and competitive with one another in order to achieve a relationship. This system will make it so that men can never be themselves, never have peace in their lives, they will always be required to keep proving to their spouse over and over again that they can still win the game. That they can get a better partner at any time and other women still find him sexy. Under sexual liberalism the minute you show your wife you can’t win the game anymore she cheats on you or divorces you and liberalism calls this “freedom.” Traditional society awards men with women’s love and affection for being good, virtuous men and through building the society around them. This symbiotic system rewards men for doing good to their wife, their family, and country.

Feminism and liberalism rewards men for being violent, dumb, and parasitic.

Western and Asian patriarchy was built by good men for good men and women. Ancient patriarchies like Rome, the Huns and the Mongols were built by degenerate men for degenerate men. Feminist societies were built by degenerate women for degenerate women. Liberal societies were built by both degenerate men and degenerate women.

This is no way to live life. Men should be able to enjoy a genuine bond with their wife. His wife should be his best friend in life, the person you can be yourself around. You shouldn’t have to be a powerful gladiator all the time in order to win a girl’s affections. Nor should a man have to feel like he must withhold his affection from his wife for his entire life for fear of being seen as weak and unmanly.

My dad didn’t have to do any of that. You guys would think my dad is the most beta guy ever. He is constantly telling my mom how cute she is, that she’s a doll face, that he loves her. My mom likes all of it, says she feels cherished.

That’s what a marriage should look like. Giving and receiving affection with acceptance. I know what a true, passionate romantic marriage looks like and that’s what I want for myself and for all of you too. But you’re never going to experience anything like that while clinging to these toxic, feminist values.

[Outcast9428]

Ancient Sparta was the most feminist society in the history of humanity. Even when you married you couldn’t live together with your wife until you were 30 years old. In order to have sex before then you had to kidnap your struggling wife who would be clawing you and kicking you at every stage of the way, find a remote spot and borderline rape her.

This is the endgame for feminism. This is ultimately the future we are heading towards if we don’t start reversing things. You will be forced to engage in heinously immoral conduct if you ever want to be happy and have a wife in life. Patriarchy on the other hand, gave us a world where the kindest of folk enjoyed the happiest lives. It was a world of justice, where loyalty and love came first.

Feminism, under the veneer of progress, will return us to true barbaric, law of the jungle type norms. And nobody will experience peace again until the feminist oligarchy is overthrown.

I do not believe that the desires of degenerate women reflect the desires of all women. Anymore then patriarchy reflects the desires of all men. Patriarchy mandated monogamy which obviously not all men want. The same is true of feminism. Feminism mandates degeneracy but this isn’t what all women want.

[Lucas88]

Honestly @Lucas88 I don’t think you or even @WilliamSmith are authentically promiscuous. You both have a similar past that you remedied in different ways. You both used to struggle with girls. And modern liberal culture tells men who can’t get girls that they should feel ashamed of themselves, that they’re not a real man and that they’re deficient basically. This upholds feminist power because a lot of women get off on the idea of men competing amongst one another for access to their bodies. Very few will directly tell you that but it’s why they have sex with men they see as dominant. They enjoy the idea of making some men winners who get access to all the girls and some men losers who don’t get any. Men are encouraged to bully and mock the men who lose at this competition or see through the entire bullshit of it and tell other men that this is a dumb game with a dumb prize. Making “the winners” bully “the losers” psychologically maintains the status quo because the majority of the population is conformist and only views life through the lens of status and popularity.

Your assumption about our motivations is incorrect. Men like @WilliamSmith and myself don't chase multiple women for the purpose of validation, popularity or bragging rights. Neither are we being conned by some societal game of "winners" vs. "losers". Rather we are primarily motivated by a much more fundamental drive to pursue sex with women. Sex is undeniably one of the principal driving forces of human behavior. It is inseparable from our very being. Most promiscuous people are simply following primal drives. If you were to ask them they probably wouldn't even be able to explain in an intellectual manner why they behave that way. I too am motivated by the same primal drives but at the same time I also hold certain aesthetic fascinations (certain types of asses, boobies, ethnic phenotypes, etc.) and seek to experience them in the flesh. I view female bodies as fine works of art and wish to personally savor their artistic beauty like an avid art collector. Whenever I go to Spain or Latin America this motivation is significantly accentuated. I could be in the street and when I look around I see hot Latinas with big phat asses, delicious round titties and a variety of attractive phenotypes and I just want to enjoy them all! I don't do this for social validation. I'm a bit of a lonewolf. I couldn't give a damn about what society thinks.

You also give way too much importance to the role of feminism. Feminism didn't engineer the sexual game. The sexual game has existed since the dawn of time and is part of nature. Feminism simply emerged as an underhanded female strategy to shift the power balance in women's favor. Men don't compete for women simply due to artificial ideologies; we compete for women because it is a biological imperative, although I do agree that the degree of competitivity and the form which the competition assumes have been influenced at certain times in history and especially in recent times by certain ideologies and programs of social conditioning such as feminism, capitalism, modern popular culture, etc. But the game itself exists independently of these things. Men are forced to adopt one strategy or another if they wish to gain sexual access. To eschew the game altogether like some MGTOWs do is to deny one's own fundamental drives. You could even argue that it is a form of unnatural asceticism.

Good women do not expect “primal masculinity” out of men. They want men to be breadwinners, loyal lovers, and fathers.

Who says that good women don't expect primal masculinity out of men? That seems to me like nothing more than an arbitrary moral judgment of yours. My Peruvian ex-girlfriend was very conservative in all the ways that you would approve of yet at the same time she was extremely turned on whenever I showed dominance and other traits associated with primal masculinity. She was absolutely enraptured by it. The more primally masculine I acted the more she respected me and showed me gestures of love and admiration.

A few centuries of modern civilization cannot erase countless millennia of primal instincts. Even in modern industrial societies most women are still intensely aroused by displays of primal masculinity. Such displays just ignite something in their female psyche. Don't be fooled by the half century of relative peace. The warrior instinct is still extremely important. History has shown us that we could be plunged into brutal warfare and anarchy in any moment. Women will always be attracted to the masculine warrior types. No amount of industrialist social engineering will ever change this. Women who crave this kind of primal masculinity in a man don't do so because they are bad or immoral but rather because such a desire forms part of their natural instincts.

People say that Asian societies are effeminate but I strongly disagree. Asian societies are very much built on men’s values. Sleeping around, being aggressive, dominating women, that’s not being masculine, that’s being a very specific image that degenerate women like for men to be. Honestly, being innocent, sweet, loyal, loving, and nurturing. That’s not really femininity either. It’s what good men want girls to be like. But because men breed those traits into women over the course of hundreds of years it basically became real femininity, especially in Asia where it seems the genetic selecting for women like that was unusually rigid compared to elsewhere.

I know that you like to idealize Asian women but I think that your views on them are a little naïve. I've lived in Japan and interacted with a lot of Japanese and Chinese women and I can honestly say that much of that Asian sweetness and innocence is just an act. Many Japanese women are major-league cunts once the virtuous mask slips. I've known Japanese women who are materialistic as f**k, treat their husbands as their cash cows and with utmost disdain, behave like spoiled princesses and have affairs (including with their gaijin English teachers) behind their husband's back. I've been privy to a lot of things that go on in Japan and I know that it's certainly not a male paradise with exceptional women. Plenty of Chinese women are awful, selfish, materialistic bitches too. Even my Chinese acupuncturist hates Chinese women. He tells me that they act nice at first but then as soon as you marry them they turn into insufferable monsters.

Oh, just for the record, Asian women also respond pretty well to primal masculinity.

This is no way to live life. Men should be able to enjoy a genuine bond with their wife. His wife should be his best friend in life, the person you can be yourself around. You shouldn’t have to be a powerful gladiator all the time in order to win a girl’s affections. Nor should a man have to feel like he must withhold his affection from his wife for his entire life for fear of being seen as weak and unmanly.

Certain traits appeal to certain women. It's just the way it is. If most women are attracted to primally masculine men or a certain kind of exciting bad boy or whatever the case may be and don't find goody-goody strait-laced men attractive it's not their fault. They cannot help what they like and don't like. A guy can either adapt and consciously develop traits which appeal to the majority of women or look for a mate among the minority of conservative women who are on his wavelength. But it seems superfluous to accuse the kinds of women of whom you disapprove of being immoral. They're just following certain internal drives of theirs after all, even if their level of consciousness isn't very high and their psychological constitution is almost completely animalistic. It would probably be better just to accept the amoral reality of the majority of human beings, let those types be, and focus your energies on finding the kind of traditionally minded woman who you are seeking. Human nature cannot be so easily molded by external moral ideals. Your best bet is to search for a girl with the kind of nature that you cherish.

[Tsar]

Human nature cannot be so easily molded by external moral ideals.

I have to agree. Most humans are more like intelligent animals rather than higher life forms.

An animal must be trained with carrots and sticks. Trying to persuade an animal with reason or convince animals of morality won't work. A leader of a society must treat most people the same as animals, intelligent animals, but still animals.

Only a tiny percentage of humanity can be molded by external moral ideas and most need to somehow learn the lessons themselves, or be taught them with real world examples and reasoning.

[Outcast9428]

Honestly @Lucas88 I don’t think you or even @WilliamSmith are authentically promiscuous. You both have a similar past that you remedied in different ways. You both used to struggle with girls. And modern liberal culture tells men who can’t get girls that they should feel ashamed of themselves, that they’re not a real man and that they’re deficient basically. This upholds feminist power because a lot of women get off on the idea of men competing amongst one another for access to their bodies. Very few will directly tell you that but it’s why they have sex with men they see as dominant. They enjoy the idea of making some men winners who get access to all the girls and some men losers who don’t get any. Men are encouraged to bully and mock the men who lose at this competition or see through the entire bullshit of it and tell other men that this is a dumb game with a dumb prize. Making “the winners” bully “the losers” psychologically maintains the status quo because the majority of the population is conformist and only views life through the lens of status and popularity.

Your assumption about our motivations is incorrect. Men like @WilliamSmith and myself don't chase multiple women for the purpose of validation, popularity or bragging rights. Neither are we being conned by some societal game of "winners" vs. "losers". Rather we are primarily motivated by a much more fundamental drive to pursue sex with women. Sex is undeniably one of the principal driving forces of human behavior. It is inseparable from our very being. Most promiscuous people are simply following primal drives. If you were to ask them they probably wouldn't even be able to explain in an intellectual manner why they behave that way. I too am motivated by the same primal drives but at the same time I also hold certain aesthetic fascinations (certain types of asses, boobies, ethnic phenotypes, etc.) and seek to experience them in the flesh. I view female bodies as fine works of art and wish to personally savor their artistic beauty like an avid art collector. Whenever I go to Spain or Latin America this motivation is significantly accentuated. I could be in the street and when I look around I see hot Latinas with big phat asses, delicious round titties and a variety of attractive phenotypes and I just want to enjoy them all! I don't do this for social validation. I'm a bit of a lonewolf. I couldn't give a damn about what society thinks.

You also give way too much importance to the role of feminism. Feminism didn't engineer the sexual game. The sexual game has existed since the dawn of time and is part of nature. Feminism simply emerged as an underhanded female strategy to shift the power balance in women's favor. Men don't compete for women simply due to artificial ideologies; we compete for women because it is a biological imperative, although I do agree that the degree of competitivity and the form which the competition assumes have been influenced at certain times in history and especially in recent times by certain ideologies and programs of social conditioning such as feminism, capitalism, modern popular culture, etc. But the game itself exists independently of these things. Men are forced to adopt one strategy or another if they wish to gain sexual access. To eschew the game altogether like some MGTOWs do is to deny one's own fundamental drives. You could even argue that it is a form of unnatural asceticism.

Good women do not expect “primal masculinity” out of men. They want men to be breadwinners, loyal lovers, and fathers.

Who says that good women don't expect primal masculinity out of men? That seems to me like nothing more than an arbitrary moral judgment of yours. My Peruvian ex-girlfriend was very conservative in all the ways that you would approve of yet at the same time she was extremely turned on whenever I showed dominance and other traits associated with primal masculinity. She was absolutely enraptured by it. The more primally masculine I acted the more she respected me and showed me gestures of love and admiration.

A few centuries of modern civilization cannot erase countless millennia of primal instincts. Even in modern industrial societies most women are still intensely aroused by displays of primal masculinity. Such displays just ignite something in their female psyche. Don't be fooled by the half century of relative peace. The warrior instinct is still extremely important. History has shown us that we could be plunged into brutal warfare and anarchy in any moment. Women will always be attracted to the masculine warrior types. No amount of industrialist social engineering will ever change this. Women who crave this kind of primal masculinity in a man don't do so because they are bad or immoral but rather because such a desire forms part of their natural instincts.

People say that Asian societies are effeminate but I strongly disagree. Asian societies are very much built on men’s values. Sleeping around, being aggressive, dominating women, that’s not being masculine, that’s being a very specific image that degenerate women like for men to be. Honestly, being innocent, sweet, loyal, loving, and nurturing. That’s not really femininity either. It’s what good men want girls to be like. But because men breed those traits into women over the course of hundreds of years it basically became real femininity, especially in Asia where it seems the genetic selecting for women like that was unusually rigid compared to elsewhere.

I know that you like to idealize Asian women but I think that your views on them are a little naïve. I've lived in Japan and interacted with a lot of Japanese and Chinese women and I can honestly say that much of that Asian sweetness and innocence is just an act. Many Japanese women are major-league cunts once the virtuous mask slips. I've known Japanese women who are materialistic as f**k, treat their husbands as their cash cows and with utmost disdain, behave like spoiled princesses and have affairs (including with their gaijin English teachers) behind their husband's back. I've been privy to a lot of things that go on in Japan and I know that it's certainly not a male paradise with exceptional women. Plenty of Chinese women are awful, selfish, materialistic bitches too. Even my Chinese acupuncturist hates Chinese women. He tells me that they act nice at first but then as soon as you marry them they turn into insufferable monsters.

Oh, just for the record, Asian women also respond pretty well to primal masculinity.

This is no way to live life. Men should be able to enjoy a genuine bond with their wife. His wife should be his best friend in life, the person you can be yourself around. You shouldn’t have to be a powerful gladiator all the time in order to win a girl’s affections. Nor should a man have to feel like he must withhold his affection from his wife for his entire life for fear of being seen as weak and unmanly.

Certain traits appeal to certain women. It's just the way it is. If most women are attracted to primally masculine men or a certain kind of exciting bad boy or whatever the case may be and don't find goody-goody strait-laced men attractive it's not their fault. They cannot help what they like and don't like. A guy can either adapt and consciously develop traits which appeal to the majority of women or look for a mate among the minority of conservative women who are on his wavelength. But it seems superfluous to accuse the kinds of women of whom you disapprove of being immoral. They're just following certain internal drives of theirs after all, even if their level of consciousness isn't very high and their psychological constitution is almost completely animalistic. It would probably be better just to accept the amoral reality of the majority of human beings, let those types be, and focus your energies on finding the kind of traditionally minded woman who you are seeking. Human nature cannot be so easily molded by external moral ideals. Your best bet is to search for a girl with the kind of nature that you cherish.

C’mon Lucas this is such an obvious act that it’s painful to watch. You’re acting like a 16 year old boy who thinks people can’t put two and two together. If you had so much primal masculinity and such a warrior spirit and are such a hit with the ladies because of that then why were you an incel for years in the UK? Also you told me you had autism and in my experience, I’ve never met an autistic guy, especially not one who was an incel, who is the kind of guy you’re trying to portray yourself as. You try to act like women are the same everywhere and then in the next breathe talk about Latina women being superior and that you get along so much better with them then with British women.

Not to mention when you first got to this forum you talked about the male underclass of society in Anglo countries who were deprived of sex and you talked about going to prostitutes. Believe it or not I have met a lot of different people in my life. I was on a college campus full of dudes who slept around like crazy and none of the guys I’ve met who actually sleep around and “exude primal masculinity” a lot talk this way. They all act confused as to why anybody would ever go to a prostitute.

This puzzle doesn’t fit together. There’s either something you are not telling us, you aren’t self aware of your true personality, or you’re lying about something.

I’ve seen the aggressive approach fail on girls before. I had a roommate in college who joined a high tier fraternity and basically looked like a Greek God. He pulled girls like nobody’s business. At least one girl a week if not two. He tried to hookup with a devoutly religious girl in my friend group and the approach completely failed. She ended up dating one of the anime nerds in our group instead. Also why does every Asian girl I’ve ever met seem to almost exclusively date nerds? It’s not just my experience either. I’ve read numerous PUAs complaining that Asian girls are so shy that they don’t respond to flirtation the way you expect a girl too. I’ve even seen some guys raging that Asian girls “hate masculine men.” Of course I disagree with his definition of what masculinity is because I don’t think a man needs to act like a barbarian in order to be masculine but I’ve read them complaining about trying to pickup girls in Asia saying “there’s a reason why there’s the stereotype of Asian girls with pencil necked nerds.” Even outright complaining that Asian girls I’ve also seen articles like this one written by Western girls complaining that “the dating laws in Asia defy all evolutionary logic.”

https://vagabondish.com/female-foreign-japan/

Despite what so many guys want to believe no matter what type of guy they are. Women are not a unified block of people who are all into the same things. Men are not either. And it is common knowledge that different races of men are attracted to very different things to a pretty radical degree.

I don’t personally know what it is you see in those girls you guys post. You and WilliamSmith have very black taste in girls. I feel like guys are more uniform then girls are in what they are attracted to so I don’t get why it’s so difficult for y’all to comprehend that different races of girls are into different things as well.

As for the Peruvian girl. Latina girls have a reputation for being into guys like that so it is not surprising to me.

Also I have never said that every woman of a specific race is a certain way. I said that certain preferences and behavior is much more common among different races. You’d have to be willingly blind not to see this.

There wouldn’t be so many “beta guys” in Asia if the women there had the same preferences as other women do. It’s simply impossible. Nor would there be so many black women with large figures if black men had the same preferences as Asian men do.

[Lucas88]

C’mon Lucas this is such an obvious act that it’s painful to watch. You’re acting like a 16 year old boy who thinks people can’t put two and two together. If you had so much primal masculinity and such a warrior spirit and are such a hit with the ladies because of that then why were you an incel for years in the UK? Also you told me you had autism and in my experience, I’ve never met an autistic guy, especially not one who was an incel, who is the kind of guy you’re trying to portray yourself as. You try to act like women are the same everywhere and then in the next breathe talk about Latina women being superior and that you get along so much better with them then with British women.

Not to mention when you first got to this forum you talked about the male underclass of society in Anglo countries who were deprived of sex and you talked about going to prostitutes. Believe it or not I have met a lot of different people in my life. I was on a college campus full of dudes who slept around like crazy and none of the guys I’ve met who actually sleep around and “exude primal masculinity” a lot talk this way. They all act confused as to why anybody would ever go to a prostitute.

This puzzle doesn’t fit together. There’s either something you are not telling us, you aren’t self aware of your true personality, or you’re lying about something.

I see that I've hit a nerve in you just because I spoke some harsh truths about your precious Asian girls which contradict the idealized image that you've created around them, but never mind.

I'm not sure exactly what you think that I'm lying about or hiding but I assure you that on this forum I've always been extremely transparent about my own life together with all of my flaws and eccentricities. Why wouldn't I be? This is one of the few places where misfits and eccentrics like ourselves can truly be ourselves without taboos or the need for self-censorship.

There really is no secret. No "puzzle".

I started off as a somewhat nerdy, socially awkward incel in a country which I didn't fit into at all. I was even a little bit prudish and had an uncomfortable relationship with sexuality. I was even a bit of a goody-goody strait-laced dude like you. But then in my early to mid 20s I began to realize that all of that shit wasn't getting me anywhere and so I decided to reevaluate my own values and conception of masculinity. It was a long process of self-discovery. I had always done martial arts but then in my mid 20s I got into MMA training and connected with a new kind of masculinity -- a more primal one. Through my MMA training I progressively gained more confidence and really started to come into my own. Not only did I develop a more masculine athletic physique but was also transformed over time on a psychological level.

I also spent a lot of time in Spain and Latin America in my early to mid 20s. In Spain and Latin America I always feel disinhibited, like I can just let loose and be myself. I began to experience a lot more social interaction than I normally would and most of it was positive. I gradually got more confident and was brought out of my shell. At the same time I became intoxicated with the Latin free-spiritedness and passion for life. I became much more like a Mediterranean or a Latino in terms of behavior and mindset and ditched my former nerdy Anglo whiteboi personality which was just dorky anyway and only held me back. Remember also that I speak fluent Spanish and speak nothing but Spanish when I'm in a Hispanophone country. I find that exclusively speaking a foreign language can facilitate radical change in one's own personality. So I completely changed over the course of a few years. I found myself much more forward with women (Latinas). I had even developed a bit of an edge.

The simple answer is that I changed due to my own life experiences and also a conscious effort on my part.

Now, I don't deny that I'm a curious case. I feel comfortable with Latin American women and when I'm speaking Spanish but I still feel extremely uncomfortable with British women and people from the UK in general. It's as though I can't function socially with people of my own nationality. It has to be with Latin American women and with Spanish as the medium of communication for me to do okay socially. I've had girlfriends in Spain and Latin America (all Latinas) but never in the UK. But I don't like British women anyway and don't even attempt anything with them.

I've never said that I believe that women are the same everywhere. Never. I observe clear differences across ethnic lines. In fact I only date women of certain races and cultures for this same reason.

You base your idea of how men who "exude primal masculinity" are supposed to be confused as to why any guy would ever go with a prostitute on your experiences with guys at some college of yours in America. Well I was living in Spain and in the Hispanic world plenty of guys go with prostitutes regardless of whether they are incels or not. Almost every guy I know has had at least one encounter with a professional. It's just a different culture.

I don’t personally know what it is you see in those girls you guys post. You and WilliamSmith have very black taste in girls.

We do, especially in the booty department!

Also I have never said that every woman of a specific race is a certain way. I said that certain preferences and behavior is much more common among different races. You’d have to be willingly blind not to see this.

I've experienced Japanese society myself. While there certainly are clusters of traits and behaviors within certain races, I think that your tendency to overidealize Asian women -- particularly Japanese and Chinese women -- could potentially lead you to disappointment.

[kangarunner]

I also spent a lot of time in Spain and Latin America in my early to mid 20s. In Spain and Latin America I always feel disinhibited, like I can just let loose and be myself. I began to experience a lot more social interaction than I normally would and most of it was positive. I gradually got more confident and was brought out of my shell. At the same time I became intoxicated with the Latin free-spiritedness and passion for life.

Why is it that in Spain and Latin America, you feel wild and free and uninhibited. But in the UK, you don't feel this way? What is it about each that brings out this difference?

[Lucas88]

I also spent a lot of time in Spain and Latin America in my early to mid 20s. In Spain and Latin America I always feel disinhibited, like I can just let loose and be myself. I began to experience a lot more social interaction than I normally would and most of it was positive. I gradually got more confident and was brought out of my shell. At the same time I became intoxicated with the Latin free-spiritedness and passion for life.

Why is it that in Spain and Latin America, you feel wild and free and uninhibited. But in the UK, you don't feel this way? What is it about each that brings out this difference?

The UK is a culture of narrow conformity. You are expected to fit a certain mold of behavior and thought patterns deemed "normal" and the scope of that mold is very reduced and illiberal to say the least. Self-expression is therefore extremely limited. Those who don't fit the mold of normality are viewed as "weird" and subtly ostracized. Anecdotally I almost always feel socially repressed and inhibited in the UK. I just can't be myself.

I actually touched on this a little in this other post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=45734

Spain and Latin America are a different story. The permitted scope of self-expression is much greater. The people there value frankness and authenticity over dishonest groupthink and self-censorship. You can generally express yourself however you like as long as you are polite and respectful and individual quirks and eccentricities are liberally tolerated. Even non-neurotypical people are accommodated. Most people seem to just accept that some people have atypical behavioral expressions due to an underlying neurological problem and don't see the need to make a big deal out of it. Naturally in this kind of environment I feel much more comfortable and disinhibited knowing that I'm not going to be judged or ostracized for any petty insignificant reason. My social development went up dramatically once I moved to Spain.

The UK is a nightmare for anybody who is on the autistic spectrum. Autistic people are socially deficient yet the UK's social culture which is intolerant towards any kind of neurodivergent expression doesn't even allow autistic people a chance to practice and develop social skills. You're just excluded from the start and forced to retreat into a state of social alienation.

I find the Anglo soul utterly perverse. I absolutely cannot stand British people and their evil culture and would much rather be a Mediterranean or a Latino. At least their cultures are more or less sane.

[kangarunner]

The UK is a culture of narrow conformity. You are expected to fit a certain mold of behavior and thought patterns deemed "normal" and the scope of that mold is very reduced and illiberal to say the least. Self-expression is therefore extremely limited. Those who don't fit the mold of normality are viewed as "weird" and subtly ostracized. Anecdotally I almost always feel socially repressed and inhibited in the UK. I just can't be myself.

I'm just curious what your thoughts are on London? This city has always fascinated me and I want to go there one day.