Proven strategies for scoring with women: For those of us who can get women, how do you do it? :)

[Outcast9428]

@fschmidt is right, prostitution was present in most traditional societies. It was legal during the entire middle ages, and it also remains legal in the more traditional Asian nations. And yes, you really do sound like a feminist. You really seem to have it out for the average guy and are angry at the idea that a normal man who isn't particularly confident with women or sexually dominant can walk into a brothel and get his needs met. Why do you have no sympathy for these men when you yourself confessed that simply going one night without a woman made you unusually angry and go off on a lot of people on this forum? Well, how do you think all those men feels having to go months, years, or even a lifetime without sex? You can't stand to go even one night without sex, but you seem perfectly happy to condemn large swaths of men to a lifetime with no sex all for the sake of women's empowerment and all you can tell them in response is that they are twisted, creepy psychopaths for protesting the idea that they deserve to be lonely and sexless because they're not good enough for women? There's just as many women as there are men, women are not more special or deserving of a quality partner then men are. If a woman is average then she deserves an average partner. Average women do not deserve access to handsome, rich, and charming men.

The reason why people keep saying you are a feminist is because you don't seem to have any sympathy for average guys who aren't really anything special, which by the way, is most men. You want them to run a constant treadmill of being better for women as if women's standards aren't high enough these days. This mentality is exactly the same as feminists who seem to really hate the idea that average men expect to be treated like human beings who need love and intimacy too. If prostitution is legal, then an average guy who hasn't felt the touch of a woman in six months can save up enough money to keep himself sane, and possibly find a wife later so he doesn't have to keep going to prostitutes. But you absolutely need prostitutes or those men will simply boil in rage and depression.

Prostitution exists to keep average men sane. If men go too long without sex, it f***s with their mental health, and then they'll either become suicidal or they'll become dangerous to society and turn into some kind of criminal.

There is a difference between prostitutes and sluts. Prostitutes simply say "I want money, and you want sex." Its a simple contract, there is no ambiguity, no room for claims that the sex was non-consensual. Everything is explicitly agreed upon, and there are equal benefits to both the man and the woman. Traditional girls have sex with a man because they seek love, protection, and to be provided for. Sluts, on the other hand, get off on the idea of men fighting over them. They want to be won over. They like the idea of men competing over who gets access to her, and they get off on a system that necessitates having winners and losers.

So yeah, a lot of men think sluts are kind of shitty people.

[WilliamSmith]

Well you should be happy in modern culture which is full of sluts. We don't have to live in the same society. Rather than exterminate sluts, I would be just as happy driving them into exile, into your society which should please you.

I have debated this topic too many time to be willing to do it again. The lesson for me is to stick with Mennonites and Muslims. Proverbs 9:7-9 applies.

Not all the women I get are "sluts," by any means, but otherwise I definitely agree with you! We don't have to live in the same society! See, we've hit on a constructive point here!
Honestly, I wasn't being insincere in various other posts where I say Happier Abroad and "free speech absolutism" are both valuable for that very reason: If we can actually discuss and share information on where irreconcilably different systems of values prevail (rather than just getting "cancelled" by faggots/sjws/jews who love cancel culture) that helps us decide where we personally actually are actually suited to be.
(That was also why I said I respected some ideas in your Arkian writing despite not being a suitable match for anywhere you'd choose, which you obviously agree with based on the above.)

Examples:

You say "sluts" should be driven into exile and go the places I'd be: I don't have anything against "sluts," so that'd be fine to send sexually extroverted women out to places I like (not that my top picks are necessarily their best choices, they'll have to do their own due diligence however much I personally would accept them, hahah)!

I, on the other hand, despite my naive misguided "tolerance" of faggots from days or yore due to my good-natured personal naivete, am now 100% convinced that faggots should be exterminated via chemical sterilization after detecting their genes (which do exist, which I'll validate that in follow-up posts in due course), but an acceptable alternative is to have them deported to festering cesspools of sodomite depravity, such as israel, jew york city, france, or (from what I've heard) some of the homo-infested parts of Asia, if the people there are serious about wanting to tolerate that filth.

On the other hand: publicduende likes to get a blow from pinoy trannies and talks about the "sacrosanct" sexuality of faggots, while making contemptuous remarks about African nations, but however much I ardently disagree, why should I argue? Faggots can go to the Philippines to "transition" and make some $$ giving a blow to a bunch of washed-up pompous old decadent sexpats, so that's one more "co-exist separately" triumph, right? Perhaps even you can get a blow from pinoy trannies, while still imaginging yourself to be a morally superior "traditionalist" if you theoretically marry a virgin? Sounds like total bullshit to me, but that's the point:

That's exactly what I meant when I said many times in multiple threads: Let's share our info so we can productively "co-exist separately!"

Meanwhile, mentally twisted incels who don't even know !@#$ about how to get any women (whether for tradcon relations or for more "open" relations), !@#$ off and take your perverted tradcuck bullshit off my goddamn thread!

P.S. I do have to leave for a month and won't be here to defend this thread until mid-March, but if tradcuck misogynist POS degenerates shit all over the thread with their bullshit, I'll just come back and delete it and/or reboot the theme with another thread later on, so I'm going to win this fight either way.

[WilliamSmith]

In fact I think @MarcosZeitola also liked a social-circle based approach, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

This is actually kind of interesting, @WilliamSmith because there are several different ways in which I have gotten girls. The social-circle based approach is mostly for getting into serious relationships; you cannot go around boning and abandoning the girls who are friends-of-friends or even acquaintances because it's just bad form. So I have not used this "method" a lot unless I was already quite serious about my intentions.

@MarcosZeitola
Ahhh, thank god someone remotely reasonable finally responded!

But the mentally twisted bullshit posted by the "faux-traditionalist" incels earlier proves my point that the young men need to get their eyes opened that many approaches toward getting women do actually work.

Edit: Also, for the record, I've never gone "around boning and abandoning the girls who are friends-of-friends or even acquaintances," .
But a lot of female friends I've made do actually like getting it on sometimes with no-strings attached (even if they're "discrete" about that fact since they don't want a bunch of nutjobs like the traduck squealers "shaming them," or wanting to throw acid on them or burning them on the stake for having sexual desires of their own, vs the traduck squealers who imagine themselves to be morally virtuous despite endorsing forcing someone else's daughters into institutionalized prostitution to indulge their own rodent-like sexual neediness).

Another for me is dating apps; Tinder, OkCupid, whatever app works, works. I have a pretty decent success rate with this. Then there is social media; the old "sliding in a girls DMs" where you spot a beauty, 'research' if she's single, and slip in a message, shooting your shot. Again, I have had *some* success with this. Facebook in particular has worked, but you need to have a decent number of friends so you are likely to have a "mutual friend". This is less risky than outright being introduced by real-life friends in the social-circle based approach because online friends tend to be a helluva lot more shallow giving you leeway in how "serious" things could get.

Interesting stuff, thank you: Like I said above in some of responses, I know 100% from seeing other men succeed with those app things A LOT that apps can work, I just personally can't stand social media. (I only use them for my record labels but have nil personal social media, except one of my Twitter accounts which was banned for "abuse and harassment" of Jordan B Peterson, and "antisemitism," LOL).
So for me, so much for that!

But I know for a fact, for a lot of people looking for real meaningful relationships (not just "hook-ups"), they get connections where they communicate via those app things and sometimes have long-term correspondence, then set up a bunch of dinnner dates that (to me) sound agonizingly slow-paced (but it works for them when seeking "serious" LTR partners), and then eventually they've even tied the knot. So TL;DR = The apps can work for both LTR / monogamous holders, not just "hook-ups."
Also @Outcast9428's infantile squealing about me being a "feminist" lacking sympathy for faggy boys who lack confidence holds no water either, because a lot of the men in those LTR scenarios above were total wimps and played it completely safe using Mr Nice Guy methods and still ended up married after slowly connecting with suitably matched women via these apps.
The tradcuck loonies who weighed in above naysaying that in posts above, and claimed they had the moral high ground while claiming that it was supposedly OK to be prostituting someone else's daughter for their sexual gratification and then forcing disenfranchised virgins to marry them are full of !@#$. IMO.

I have barely ever done "cold approaches". The closest I got to this was a girl I talked to on a beach in Spain and managed to sleep with, when I was nineteen. And two sisters I met at a party, also years ago. A lot of booze was involved, which probably helped. I'm a pretty talkative person, and I can be charming. But to simply walk up to any girl I like in-person and simply start a conversation isn't something I am personally very comfortable with doing. I'm a lot more brave on the internet actually lol. Of course once the signs of interest are clear and I know the girl likes me, I become emboldened move in for the kill.

It takes some effort to get used to direct approaches, it takes more balls AT FIRST (but it becomes easy later), and it's also (IMO) the method that pays off if you do the most advanced study on what really works and put some serious thought into how to try to lay on the non-verbal charm and also conversational charm in only a short encounter...........

I have to comment on how "cold approach" is a bit of a misnomer though, because while trying to get myself "out of the box" on this, I leaned way more in favor of always getting those "signs of interest" you mentioned in advance, and just not bothering with too much aggression unless I got those up front. (That, of course, works far better in an area with a bigger population where it's the norm for you to not only have vastly more #s of women to encounter, but also where it's the norm for strangers to leave each other alone -- because you are much less likely to get other men shoving their oar into your interaction, vs in smalltowns where I've had some "Tuck Pendleton" [ see opening drunk punchout scene in "Inner Space" ] moments occasionally in having local swains deciding they weren't OK with my going after the local smalltown girls, LOL.)

But that's why I prefer "direct approach," orders of magnitude more than any other method. (But that's just me! I've never been trying to say everyone else should do that, which is part of the point of the thread. )
What method to shoot for partly depends on your environment, but direct approach is not 100% dependent on densely populated urban areas either, because even though that's the best environment to learn it in (which I did at 1st), a lot of women in more sparsely populated areas wont' be expecting to be directly approached, but will still respond highly favorably to it, especially if they've spent years or even decades used to a bunch of puds "playing it safe" and over-relying on social networks alone. (Not that there's anything wrong with social networks! "Just sayin'," as our greaseball southern european cousins would say.)

On a side note, it's humorous that you said before: "...to simply walk up to any girl I like in-person and simply start a conversation isn't something I am personally very comfortable with doing. I'm a lot more brave on the internet actually lol," because with me it's the exact opposite: I got out of the box on direct approach, but still have this big "urrgh" nervous/awkward feeling about trying those app things and it just seems strange to me to send out a zillion openers to women I am not personally interacting with, because you get used to reading all these different signals with your own eyes and sense and intuition where there's literally no way you could do that with online interactions...... But to each their own.

Over the years I think a lot of girls started finding guys to sleep with online. For women 30+ and above a cold approach or meeting someone in a bar and going home with them may be more of a thing. For the younger millennial and zoomer generation, these girls hang out in groups a lot, are sometimes fiercely protective of their groupmates and you have to "hunt" them through online profiles because that's the only way to seperate them from "the herd".

Interesting stuff there, thank you for your thoughts!

I find that humor goes a long way and if you can make a girl laugh a lot in the first conversation, it's about as close to a "done deal" as you can get.

Oh hell yes, LOL!! A good sense of humor and a decent ability to ask open-ended questions and do basic conversational segues can often turn "dating" into a surprisingly easy process with you saying little about yourself. (Though for the "Chads and Tyrones," I've noticed they still get laid a lot too by talking about themselves nonstop, laying on the kino heavily, and then pile-driving the chicks into the sack as fast as possible, especially when drunk, but then they get more one-night-stands, vs me who always ideally prefers more potential romance even if only on an FWB basis. )

Also, if you don't have a sense of humor and were uptight and taking yourself seriously about every little thing, or hung-up about what other people think about you, I can't even fathom dealing with the "learning experience" of using "direct approach" and the awkward moments and "rejections" it inevitably entails (though there are a lot of ways to mitigate the most awkward scenarios with some advanced planning).

Life without a sense of humor would be sheer pain. (Life with a sense of humor is painful enough, LOL!)

[MrMan]

They are the same thing except a lot of sluts offer 100% off the price.

They are NOT the same!!!!!!!!!
I have nothing against the way you did it in getting a traditional wife.
However, the "sluts" who I've loved over the years would never give it up to these f***ing twisted degenerates delusionally imagining themselves to be "traditionalists" in a MILLION YEARS! (Which is probably 90+% of why these twisted little shits hate women so much, but if they dropped their hysterical fear of sexual women and learned a thing or two per my 1st post then they probably never would've gotten themselves into that condition. )

Prostitutes can turn down ugly customers, too, if they want, unless there is a pimp hanging around to slap them if they turn down business.

* (Not you MrMan: You're more or less OK, I think, despite worshipping the satanic jews who openly despise Jesus. )

I worship God. Jesus is Jewish.

[fschmidt]

@fschmidt is right,

So why aren't you Arkian?

[Outcast9428]

@WilliamSmith Nobody ever said women were going to be forced into prostitution. There are plenty of women out there who will voluntarily choose to be prostitutes, especially if hookup culture doesn't exist. Plenty of women will try it out for a month or two, decide its not for them, and stop doing it.

You claim to have sympathy for average guys yet you can't resist the opportunity to insult men you deem as not being confident or suave enough with women every chance you get. In your very post, you basically call them "faggy boys." Mercer is right that you seem to want a few alpha males to monopolize the majority of women and you have actually said in the past you want that to protect women from the low status men. You are much more on women's side then you are on men's side because the idea of condemning large swaths of men to eternal suffering doesn't bother you nearly as much as the idea of all women not getting exactly what they want in life. I wouldn't call you a "radical feminist," you're not Andrea Dworkin, but what you, as well as Lucas and Pixel want, is basically an Ancient Sparta style matriarchy where obsession with machismo is utilized to make men utterly subservient to women's desires and then telling them they're not a real man if they don't do exactly what the general collective of women have decided they should be. If that mentality which I just described isn't feminism... Then I don't know what is.

Deep down, what fulfills women more then anything is making other people happy. The people she should care about the most is you, and your kids. Nothing makes a girl who's in love with you more happy then simply telling her "you make me happy," or "I am so lucky you are mine," or "nothing in my life brings me as much joy as you." You need to make her feel special, unique, and valuable to you. You let her know you are proud of her. What really drives a girl crazy is when she doesn't feel appreciated or needed by her man anymore. What also drives a girl crazy is to have nobody need her. Even cat ladies still have cats because they fundamentally need to feel needed. They need to nurture someone.

Being "Mr nice guy" works very well on traditional girls for this exact reason. Nice guys make them feel needed and loved. The reason why nice guys thrive in patriarchal societies is because patriarchal societies encourage women to embrace this instinct within themselves. Feminist societies encourage women to deny it because feminism believes this instinct in women prevents women from being empowered. Right leaning liberals today try to act like men in the past were super alpha and macho and that's why women stayed with them. Watch Shakespeare's plays and that idea is obliterated. Guys in Shakespeares' time period defy all modern dating advice... They were insanely needy, over the top romantics, who exemplified every nice guy trait you can think of. Practically nobody directly approached women back then, everything was arranged through third parties. Parents would approach you and offer their daughter's hand in marriage, or friends would go to the girl you like and tell her you are interested, or men would approach the parents of a girl and tell them he is interested in their daughter.

The reason why this system worked is because most men were happy to see that his girl was happy, and girls were happy to see that her own happiness made her man happy. What makes a really selfless and loving, traditional girl trust you, is when she realizes that you believe in the kind of relationship where each of your happiness and devotion to one another can bounce off one another and you won't be the kind of guy who takes advantage of her desire to be selflessly loving to just make her do what you want all the time and never show any appreciation or gratitude for what she does for you. The secret to a relationship like this, is to have her do things that genuinely make you happy, and then when she makes you happy, make sure that she knows she made you happy. Sex is a big part of that too since sex is one of the easiest ways that a girl can make you happy. But when men try to be the sex object, its confusing for women because you are taking on her natural role, a role that, quite frankly, women are much better at naturally then men are.

I appreciate the kind words @Mercer. Yes, I am tired of this wannabe alpha male culture that celebrates only the most base, primitive form of masculinity and attempts to discredit the far more positive and principled form of masculinity that our ancestors believed in... That wasn't about stomping on other men and having this "I'm gonna get mine, screw you" type mindset. Traditional men would've viewed insulting and abusing men who were less successful/fortunate then you as a form of cowardice and insecurity.

I believe very strongly in trying to be the change I want to see in the world. Yes I am constantly trying to correct other people's behavior, but I set the highest standard of all for myself. I believe more strongly then ever that the traditional way of life is the answer to everything that's wrong with the world today. The traditional way of life will create a beautiful form of harmony between men and women, that will ultimately make both sexes happy and satisfied.

@fschmidt I'm kind of doing the same thing already that you are describing. I want to have a large family and help out my close friends create large families so that I can increase the prevalence of people who are genetically compatible with traditional lifestyles. I'd like to think people across the country are rebelling against the liberal system by setting similar goals. That being said, I believe as of right now that officially/formally joining a group for this kind of thing is too much trouble.

[CaptainSkelebob]

Whatever happened to @WilliamSmith???