Can you explain to me what you mean by that ?
In a simple way.
Then if you allow me I’ll reply to the whole thing
While you are at it, can you explain the “psychosexual drive” ?
Don’t forget that we’re talking about how to be irresistibly sexy to other sex.
Not a logical reply, but if you go with Tyler Durden, I have a similar illustration
It is highly unlikely that the individuals you described would develop such skills, but, if they could, then yes, they would absolutely destroy the best “animal” game candidate.
But that would be imperfected love alchemy and it would be very dark and manipulative… this would require you to deconstruct a girl’s internalised image and make her believe that your validation is the only way for her soul to feel satisfied… psychopaths and narcissists easily pull this off … gas lightning, fractionation (making her core values seem worthless), etc… all pretty dark.
I am highly against this… more than anything because then our entire gender has to pay if done enough times with enough girls. (Which is actually already happening)
The mercurial human game cues like protector of loved ones and ability to emote are not even that hard to tick, so yes, ideally, you’d want to make sure the girl at least really really likes you at a base level before telling her to imagine you are co-creating energy balls in your hands and stuck in a bubble as part of a game 
before divorce became easy and the power balance was unfairly tipped in favour of women, marriage actually carried that symbolism of “we’re together for life”, and that was enough for many to stay with one another for a lifetime… having your SO at your disposal a few finger taps away is just not healthy. Having countless others dudes and dudettes at your disposal while you are in your household isn’t either.
But with social media, phones, free hd and vr porn and onlyfans (all which might be archonic or daemonic tech), it’s becoming harder and harder to build solid bonds. A date used to be a commitment… missing on it a serious insult since it meant you made someone wait without any way to alert them you’re not coming.
Our civilization has been collapsing since 2012 (arbitrary number for dramatic effect, mostly around the past 15 years), we just aren’t savvy enough to see it.
I think sex for fun is perfectly fine, mature adults are free to agree on that… but I just hope they are aware that it’s push pull with all the chemical fireworks lighting up in their brains and sooner or later something will go wrong if turns into more than a one night stand or an occasional fling… for that, mercurial techniques like those shared in the two books above are fine…
And yeah what @Drift said is true… “irresistible” implies no sovereignty from the other party … if you want guaranteed sex aren’t there ladies who offer just that type of service?
what are you talking about ?
People adapted to the horrors of barbarism and lawlessness that existed for most of history to create eras of growth and prosperity. Diseases are down, infant mortality, we live longer, we are not starving, most people are fat.
We adapt to the new baseline that’s it. We are wired to not be satisfied for evolutionary reasons. You are free to go live like a savage. Would you like to ?
Watch uncontacted tribes from the Amazon and how fast they switch, these “noble savages” switch fast to get clothes, shoes and food, let alone medicine.
We live in one of those few windows of time where we have maximum freedom and that’s not even sustainable.
You are oppressed by your diet ??
Workout routine ??
Ok, stop.
First of all, you have choice, that’s a new thing in history, go eat like a pig if you want, but don’t complain when your heart blows up.
What power ?
The power to starve ?
Are you independant in all ways ?
No, you need others, society is very efficient, because everyone specialized and relies on each other. But if you want freedom, go out of town, keep walking for a week and sing Akunamatata all day.
It’s very obvious that you’re bored and unsatisfied, creating drama.
You have internet, you’re young and you spent your time reading whatever. instead of working the fields.
Again, you are oppressed by your diet
sigh
You sound spoiled to me man
You’re not the boss, because you haven’t earned it, because you are dependent on others.
You get food, you get clothes, you get internet, you get knowledge (even bad ones) spoon fed.
You need to learn your place in this world, that’s what it is.
Your parents provide a house, teach you, feed you, protect you, you follow their rules.
If you don’t like obeying your boss, create your own business.
Beggars are not choosers.
You’re lucky to have things to begin with thanks to them. That’s why you don’t run away.
When you get older, you become the leaders.The parent, the boss if you are willing to learn.
But at some point the wave function has to collapse, the potential get realized and become static. To go one way means renouncing the other way. That’s just reality.
PS: for those who want to go “I knew it Manhattan thinks he is all that”. I AM NOT. I can live with it.
Manhattan is cool i think
That we are on diapers when it comes to conscious decisions and political progress.
Psychosexual drive means our energetic source of sexual impulses.
Nothing to discuss here in terms of technological progress.
Although scientific objectification and an excess of solutions made us weak, fear and danger became abstract. Now everyone sees danger to even talking to people in big cities. Whatever psychologists call social anxiety is a creation of modern society and commodities.
Nah, not going to stop.
It is a thing. Your logical understanding of what you eat doesn’t negate the fact that whatever you feel your ideals are dragging you to end up owning you and becoming a master of your life.
Now people want to travel everywhere and take pictures. That also became a new master.
Or defining your sexual identity by having sex with tons of women as a man also became a huge social expectation and master.
Sure, you can brainwash yourself into believing it is all biological endevour and go to sleep, but 500 years ago people didn’t have the same interests they do now.
Whatever is “normal” now wasn’t normal 1000 years ago, or even how people tried to define their sexual identity. Social expectations were diferent.
You can justify it all you want.
If you are dragged by social expectations there is a point in which you became a slave.
I think you’re projecting here.
I feel that you are very politically conservative and a very strong sense of identity, which is not bad but does not allow you to see beyond “how things are” or “should be”.
There is a difference between hysterically opposing a perceived master as Cartman, and not having one to begin with.
If you reduce the amount of projected masters in your life you become more and more free.
If you oppose them, you become more ruled by them. Whatever you resist persists.
They only exist in your intersubjectivity.
you can also follow a diet or routine without becoming a slave to it.
if you are able to do that, congratulations, but it requires a lot of awareness. most people follow routines under a slave subjective position. basically they do it because their ideal ego and ego ideal have to survive. it’s unconscious.
if you can have a diet or workout routine without feeling like shit if you skip a day or two, then you’re not enslaved by your superego.
Actually, it’s not that the abundance of solutions made us weak, it’s that the lack of solutions made the other generations stronger and they developed mechanisms to deal with it.
We are wired to look out for threats in our environnements. Trusting strangers does open some negative doors from an evolutionary perspective. Children are naturally afraid of strangers, they need to learn to face it.
Social anxiety had to be overcome back in the days. The problem is the lack of guidance and discipline.
Kids used to work in mines and take serious whippings, you’re not going yo tell me that they were better because they were more free to eat boiled fruits at every meal and work on the farm.
We are the outcome of freedom and lack of pressure, where we don’t develop our muscles and skills to handle relationships because we don’t have to.
It’s too much freedom and lack of guidance and discipline. Remember we’re talking getting attraction from the other sex.
It becomes wired as an habit, the repetition of action creates neural connections making the repetition easier (or unconscious if you want) and that limits who you are by making you specialize and narrow your range of action.
Humans conquered the earth, walked everywhere and always bragged about epic travels since before writing was invented. Most didn’t have the opportunity at the time.
A huge social expectation nowadays ?
We literally have twice as many women ancestors as men in our DNA because of polygamy.
That’s how it used to be all around the world until monogamy was enforced by religions.
Women can only have babies once a year, men can shoot all day everyday and it’s a mating competition where women are looking for social proofs (ie: other ladies already vetted that man).
99,99% of heterosexual boys instinctively want multiple women.
“500 years ago” societies repressed sexuality, boys and girls barely saw each other, adulterers got excommunicated, sentenced to hell and elites had secret solicited to enjoy their “base instincts”. Aristocrates always had mistresses and the rest had whorehouses.
It’s always been a literal FIGHT against promiscuity, it took murder and oppression to engineer people with sexual modesty which freedom eroded.
People have a neurological need for things and technology can change how we fulfill those needs doesn’t mean it’s made up. There’s always been status symbol like traveling.
People had the same desires as today, they fulfilled them in less efficient ways.
It’s actually predictable, since the need for status and exclusivity express itself predictably as luxuries become mainstream and lose their symbolic potency.
Sigh
That’s not even a proper argument.
I give up now, you’ll be spouting whatever and I’ll have to run back to this thread to point out real life.
I wonder why… that may be related to the mating value certain traits have.
Lmao, I didn’t even think of that, that’s some real evil stuff.
Really ?
Did you know that most men are not attractive to most women ?
Surely, it can’t be that easy. Especially if it’s about finding the “best mate” out of the lot.
In fact women will increases their requirements as the old ones become easier to meet.
If you were a young men with a car in 1920, you were gonna get some action. In 2020, a much better car is no guarantee. A phone was a signal of status in the 80’s, you can have an iPhone today, it doesn’t make you a man with his shit together they can rely on. Same with hygiene and other clues.
If most guys aren’t getting any, it can’t be said to be easy. Keep in mind that we are all using magic here and we are less than 1% of the population.
this seems quite contradictory, on one hand you’re saying that desire got manofactured by society (which i agree) and on the other hand you’re saying that people always had the same desires.
desire and drive are two different things.
drive is a motion that’s purely polymorphic and energetic. it has no object and can move anywhere. desire is a social construction which finds its force in drive.
competition between men for women perceived as “scarce” it’s based on how castration and impotence was dealt with. oedipal complex. basically an unresolved intersubjective drama of wanting to kill dad to have mom, that most men have because our society is still deeply unconscious.
a drama that is also rooted in capitalist ideals and market competition, which is a reflection of a massive Real (a circular motion in which one feeds the other) that our society has as a whole.
there are tribes that are not phallogocentric in which sex is not as prohibited as it was under Christianity and nonetheless men do not feel the “need” to compete to have multiple women.
the main issue with Western civilization is phallogocentrism, which was also there during Greek times. Judeochristian God is male, most powerful Greek gods were male too. everything about the West is phallic and logocentric.
this started to change during XIX century thanks to Freud that gave voice to women in scientific societies, Marx & Engels that made evident the relationship of power between men and women and later on suffrage for women during the XX century.
if you feel the need to compete with other men for capital, knowledge or women you need to solve some issues related to dad/male friendships.
i’m not saying that competition is bad, it’s just not a “need”. if you need to compete there’s some underlying issues going on.
I never said that
Also, 1 unnamed tribe (if it exists) doesn’t refute worldwide genetic studies and the quasi totality of civilizations and cultures who were not fighting famine and abject poverty behaving the same way even without knowing of each other, nor the scientific experiments and statistics of our current societies.
heyyy… i am using magic and still not gettin any…
but it is my problem.
i see and feel too much and my own standarts and trust issues are getting over the chart.
aand i have decided to wait. and heal myself.
have lots to do on myself first before u look arround.
you cool. your work too…
wanted to lighten the tone of the topic.
take care!
I’ve already said it.
Sexuality is what makes people want to have sex.
If your sex and agression is repressed, doesn’t matter if you’re man or woman, you won’t be attractive to any other sexual being.
The Mosuo are often referred to as China’s “last matrilineal society.”[4] The Mosuo themselves may also often use the description matriarchal , which they believe increases interest in their culture and thus attracts tourism.[5] However, the terms matrilineal and matriarchal do not reflect the full complexity of their social organization. In fact, it is not easy to categorize Mosuo culture within traditional Western definitions. They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike a matriarchy, the political power tends to be in the hands of males.[5] For instance, a man named Ge Ze A Che is the political leader of Luoshui village.[6] However, according to an article by NPR, there was once a time when the political leaders of Mosuo villages were in fact female.[7] The anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday has argued that the Musou should be considered a matriarchy.[8] Further, scholars have argued that while matrilineal arrangements are the normative pattern, domestic arrangements still vary geographically and by family circumstance.[4]
Biology is, but whatever.
My point is obvious throughout history and geographically from Alaska to New Zealand.
You had to cherry-pick the Chinese Mosuo and Indian Keralas if that’s not looking hard to prove your point….
Are they successful these little tribes living in countries ruled by other ethnicities, clearly they’ve been conquered a long time ago and ruled by patriarchal societies, what did they invent ?
Says it all
They are on the way out, that’s how evolution works
I never said there weren’t any matriarcal societies, now if you want to go about it, they are the least successful there are. There are 8x more sapien medicine subscribers than Mosuo in the world.
I don’t think the rest of the article proves any of your point, if anything it agrees with me
Now, the reason an unrestrained “sexual energy” is a benefits is because it signals a high sexual value and sends a message of social proof. You signal that you are most often successful in mating and you expect the same.
However it’s contingent on you meeting a minimum requirements in terms of sexual value, appearance and status for security and ressources.
Confidence on a very very ugly, short, broke, missing finger man, will be creepy to most girls. They’ll call the cops. It’s a signal for underlying traits. In fact, good physical and social traits leads to a release of neurochemicals that calms down and relax women so you can approach them.
this is an interesting debate,
it really boils down to the question: are “successful” societies always right?
if we are evolutionists we would say “yes”. because that’s what darwin said, right? it’s the organic evolution of species. darwinism.
we could argue that babylonia was more advanced in terms of knowledge and technology than persian culture, but persian culture managed to destroy them entirely by flooding their rivers because babylonian walls were impenetrable.
does it mean that persian culture is more right than babylonian culture because they were more successful at persisting through history?
leninism and stalinism was also right because it conquered russia for almost 80 years? and then capitalism was right because they became capitalists?
i think winners and losers discourse do not depict the complexity of human tendencies.
we aren’t newtonian causalistic beings in which you press A, and B comes on the other side, our existence is based on potentiality, that’s why we can only do forecasts. you press A and B, C, D or A can happen. or even A and D at the same time.
i agree with this.
we also have to appeal to the superego of the other person.
if you’re naked on the street projecting sexual energy and conscious agression through your entire unconscious communication, it won’t help if the other person’s superego cannot relate with your persona and social expectations of how a person should be presented in society.
The shortest and most direct answer to this is: align with the concept of co-creating amazing, raw and unconditionally mind-blowing sexual experiences.
How you do that is up to you… but your perspective needs to shift to co-creating the experience rather than outsourcing it to some other mystical attraction concept.
masculine or phallic satisfaction relies on filling up a lack for achieving an ultimate goal (making money, competing in sports or having sex).
femenine satisfaction relies on occupying the place for that phallic completion to be achieved.
therefore, femenine satisfaction exists by giving sense of phallic completion to the masculine that is lacking a phallus and seeking one.
both are functions because they can only exist in relation to the other, not by themselves. therefore, it can be mathematized.
The point here is that the masculine side of the graph is the logic of identity and therefore only loves the same (men, the story goes, are only interested in women insofar as they are a semblance of objet a, which is to say, a semblance of the man’s own reflection in the mirror). As a consequence, all masculine desire (as Freud noted in Civilization and its Discontents is “homme-sexual”. If the feminine side of the graph is hetero-sexual, this isn’t because women desire men , but because only the feminine side sustains a relationship to difference as such and a difference that is not subordinated to identity.
only men can have sex with multiple women just to prove their worth to other men, for the love of other men.