88 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

So, I thought I would take it upon myself to devise a list of things women want. Since there seems to be a bit of confusion circulating about this very topic. So here goes, what women want in men.

 

They want us to be

 

1-Strong, but not TOO strong

 

2-Smart, but not TOO smart

 

3-Skinny, but not TOO skinny

 

4-Pushy, but not TOO pushy

 

5-Arrogant but not TOO arrogant

 

6-Buff, but not TOO buff

 

7-Tan, but not TOO tan

 

8-Sensitive but not TOO sensitive

 

9-Silly but not TOO silly

 

10-Perfect but not TOO perfect

 

Confused yet?

 

Welcome to female consciousness. 

 

 

[Duchykins]

Women are 'designed' by nature (evolution) to be more critical about prospective mates than men are. Deal with it or go celibate.

Edited by Duchykins, 26 May 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[zorba990]

Stop making silly lists like that and go learn game.  Seriosusly, confidence and charm trump all.

Edited by zorba990, 26 May 2014 - 06:19 PM.

[YOLF]

Telling him to learn game doesn't mean anything if he doesn't know the difference between game as in baseball game, and game as in "the game." It's not something he's likely to understand. Why not give him some help on the definition.

 

Before you down vote... remember that as per policy voting is to be done for quality reasons, not to express personal opinions or objections. Those must be expressed in writing for the purpose of discussion.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 27 May 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[Duchykins]

"Game" doesn't work on women anyway. And here I mean women older than mid to late 20s. It certainly doesn't work with relationships lasting longer than 6 months where your partner starts seeing through the bullshit and false persona to your true personality, lifestyle and habits. That's something that works both ways. Just be genuine if you want a life partner.

Edited by Duchykins, 26 May 2014 - 09:00 PM.

[platypus]

I thought "game" referred mostly to generation of interest and seduction and it does not need to "work" for longer. 

[Duchykins]

I suppose that's a perfect example of needing a clear defintion of game as cryonicsculture stated. :D

[TheFountain]

Are you guys trying to say my list is inaccurate? 

 

Citation please? 

[TheFountain]

This documentary talks about some of these issues in detail. And the contradictory nature of female physiology/psychology.

 

Edited by TheFountain, 27 May 2014 - 12:46 AM.

[Duchykins]

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

[YOLF]

"Game" doesn't work on women anyway. And here I mean women older than mid to late 20s. It certainly doesn't work with relationships lasting longer than 6 months where your partner starts seeing through the bullshit and false persona to your true personality, lifestyle and habits. That's something that works both ways. Just be genuine if you want a life partner.

 

Genuine is hard to define. So many people live solely for their future partner, esp. the lonely types and it winds up being self-sabotage. Esp. when they start falling into the traps of various youtube celebrities that feed them to the wolves for relationship issues they can't recognize due to inexperience... Though I suppose that statement doesn't do it justice. If one has limited experience in relationships and needs to be told everything (or assumes that all that is told IS reality as defined by the values of society), they accept everything they hear from a youtube dating celebrity as reality. 

 

For instance, I saw a discussion recently talking about the response one has to a the phrase "I have a boyfriend" when trying to get a date. Some men (including myself) felt that it was respectful to assume that women who answered "I have a boyfriend" were satisfied with their relationship and not interested in replacing it. Some women on the other hand felt that a man not trying to get replace the relationship at topic as a disrespect, as it assumed that the man in her relationship was calling all the shots (sounds like a silly assumption to me... but that's how the women in this conversation felt). Similar things happen when youtube celebrities bait traps for the experienced dating type of person which the unexperienced man... well, refer to the my statement on this above.

 

When the isolated and lonely individual starts watching youtube celebrities for advice... they're jumping out of a plane for the first time and pulling the ripcord as instructed. When the lifelong lonely individual looks to youtube celebrities, they are assuming that everything they know is false and won't work. Their previous role models have failed them and they are looking for a new one wholely oblivious to the facts of life. They throw the good out with the bad and become exactly what they see. The reason for this is that they're a micro demographic and not well understood by the people doing the teaching. Even those saying, "I can teach anyone to get good at picking up girls" is either not qualified to teach the lonely man, or delights and profits from making the lonely man worse off than he already is and further weakening their chance of getting anywhere with relationships and sees himself as the women's hero (ask the families of Santa Barabara how they feel about these "heros"). Such marketers are often overstating their lonelyness, or just weren't in the same boat and want to take everyone's money or just underestimated the social disability of the lonely man. This situation is where social justice ends in neglect unfortunately.

 

What I think people fail to realize is that when someone is lonely and isolated this way for their entire life it's an uphill battle very much like the information young men are shown when they invest. An loose example of which would be, someone investing $10k a year for the the first ten years of their working life and stopping will out invest someone who doesn't invest for the first 10 years of their working life invests $10k every year after that for the rest of their working lives. The lifelong lonely man requires a much greater investment by the social justices to create social cohesion and catch him up to present than will ever be made available to him. Instead, if he received anything at all, it is a second or third class citizenship in the dating and family world which is below the threshold for anyone but a desperate liar who has truly given up IMHO. That's where radical life extension comes in and this is probably the greatest of the social problems that would be solved with RLE. The caveat is that the lifelong loner should have no expectation of being fully integrated into their present social groups unless everyone starts hopping on the cryonics bandwagon. Control and complete reversal of aging and unlimited youthspans/lifespans offer the opportunity to recreate or create anew the process that forms the social cohesion which is absent in our afflicted neighbors. 

[YOLF]

Women are 'designed' by nature (evolution) to be more critical about prospective mates than men are. Deal with it or go celibate.

That's not a valid excuse really... on the other side of the coin men have natural designs which must be moderated... this would mean women moderate these natural urges less than men are expected to considering that men are generally the loners rather than women.

[YOLF]

This documentary talks about some of these issues in detail. And the contradictory nature of female physiology/psychology.

 

I wouldn't suggest that a loner put any stock in this video... It's designed to make fools of men... at least I caught one such cue in the short time I watched. I imagine it's got more in it...

[YOLF]

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

I wouldn't say it's HIM, it's one of his misconceptions. One of those social traps that get placed in media which loners often fall prey to is the cause of this. The social traps (trappings as they say) are designed to be righteous, or maybe just look that way. In the end it comes down to distance members of society are expected to go for their fellow human's socioemotional wellbeing and an animal judgement as to who is salvageable and who is not. An so we dawn the "trappings" of good men in our daily lives and it indicates our range of social selfishness and the amount of time we allocate to others in order to favor our own personal network. The more self absorbed a culture is the more people it will abandon to become loners in the name of "doing the most good" rather than limiting the number of problems it creates (which is IMO the better way of doing the most good). I guess it's something of a compromise that a society chooses to make. What's evil is that people profit from things that don't improve the lives of socioemotionally abandoned people and more than likely make their lives worse or more difficult to understand. As I said in my previous long post, it takes alot of effort to bring someone into social cohesion and most don't care enough about the socioemotionally abandoned to make a difference or realize that they have neither the time or resources to do that and live with the co-morbidity of aging/death which they are facing, and that is where the unlimited lifespan movement is the most humanist. Along with controlling reproduction, we can ensure that no one is socioemotionally abandoned and we will be able to afford the time and resources to fix the problems that occur with co-morbid aging, or which the aforementioned has prevented a solution. It is for reasons like this that we must find a cure for aging and defeat death.

 

Today we rightfully look upon people of the past who did thing which in their time were acceptable. Likewise, what is acceptable today will be tomorrows barbarism. But the better we are as a people, the easier it will be to live in the future, and that's why I'm not afraid to be a cryonicist. 

 

I don't mind personal discussion on this. Feel free to contact me via PM.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 27 May 2014 - 04:05 AM.

[Duchykins]

Women are 'designed' by nature (evolution) to be more critical about prospective mates than men are. Deal with it or go celibate.

That's not a valid excuse really... on the other side of the coin men have natural designs which must be moderated... this would mean women moderate these natural urges less than men are expected to considering that men are generally the loners rather than women.

The comment I made was not meant to be serious, it was prompted by the ridiculousness of the OP and his previous comments about women. And even if it was serious, men being the 'loners' wouldn't necessarily be an indicator of men being choosier or women being choosier. There is a clear pattern in mammalian sexuality, a trend towards intersexual selection more than intrasexual selection, of females being more critical, and this is believed to be because the female cannot reproduce as often or easily as the male, in most species the female invests much more energy to the task and tends to shoulder a greater longer-lasting burden. The males shoulder greater risk in competition for female approval, from something as simple as obvious coloring to behaviors which leave them more vulnerable to predation or injury. The one large egg vs the many small sperm. In social species especially it's common for a significant portion of the males to either be sexually inactive or nonreproducing for a period of time or most of their lives because they have no real choice for a variety of reasons, many species-dependent. Of course this is hypothetical, highly interpretive and doesn't fully apply to rare species where the male does the bulk of offspring rearing.

It's also important to remember that our culture still glorifies the single male who sleeps with many different women with few strings attached... even though studies have been showing a tendency toward men who are married or in long term relationships having more sex regularly than single men. And that women are naturally more promiscuous that men would like to think, even in cheating more than we think, but not as indiscriminately as men. Certain men with 'all the right stuff' are getting more sex with a greater variety of women while others are getting less women if any at all. ... or at the very least, attracting a lot of women's attention even if not having sex with them. This doesn't seem like a novel conclusion but the reasons for this aren't as simple or as well understood as people think they are.

Women famously need "more" to be sexually attracted or aroused, to the great complaint of men, whereas men famously just need something visually appealing. Generally, lol. It's not just because women are more "emotional", women need something visually appealing too but women are also scrutinizing and evaluating men more than they consciously realize. Some criteria are just culturally ingrained, and some of it is just genetically hardwired. Culture and the way we raise girls and boys only makes this more cloudy and complex.

You longer reply was very well said. Men aren't provided with very many useful role models, especially in the media. I think women aren't either, for the most part.

Edited by Duchykins, 27 May 2014 - 04:36 AM.

[Duchykins]

That reminds me, I've had many converstions with women where they are complaining about men expecting them to dress in certain impractical ways which they feel is sexist. This is actually not as true as they think it is - women are the ones driving women's fashion, women are the ones being critical of each other. This is just another manifestation of how much women analyze things. Women are setting the social norm for women, women are the ones setting the standards for what is "sexy" for women; shaven legs and underarms, high heels, makeup, etc ... if all women stopped doing these things, men would still find women desirable.

[YOLF]

That reminds me, I've had many converstions with women where they are complaining about men expecting them to dress in certain impractical ways which they feel is sexist. This is actually not as true as they think it is - women are the ones driving women's fashion, women are the ones being critical of each other. This is just another manifestation of how much women analyze things. Women are setting the social norm for women, women are the ones setting the standards for what is "sexy" for women; shaven legs and underarms, high heels, makeup, etc ... if all women stopped doing these things, men would still find women desirable.

That much we're definitely built for And neither party should feel negative for meeting the other's desire in a relationship... that makes things boring.

[TheFountain]

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

 

Excuse me, are you a licensed psycho-therapist?

 

No? 

 

K thanks. 

 

Anybody with an internet connection can play connect the dots, even if the dots are irrelevant to one another. 

[TheFountain]

 

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

I wouldn't say it's HIM, it's one of his misconceptions. One of those social traps that get placed in media which loners often fall prey to is the cause of this. The social traps (trappings as they say) are designed to be righteous, or maybe just look that way. In the end it comes down to distance members of society are expected to go for their fellow human's socioemotional wellbeing and an animal judgement as to who is salvageable and who is not. An so we dawn the "trappings" of good men in our daily lives and it indicates our range of social selfishness and the amount of time we allocate to others in order to favor our own personal network. The more self absorbed a culture is the more people it will abandon to become loners in the name of "doing the most good" rather than limiting the number of problems it creates (which is IMO the better way of doing the most good). I guess it's something of a compromise that a society chooses to make. What's evil is that people profit from things that don't improve the lives of socioemotionally abandoned people and more than likely make their lives worse or more difficult to understand. As I said in my previous long post, it takes alot of effort to bring someone into social cohesion and most don't care enough about the socioemotionally abandoned to make a difference or realize that they have neither the time or resources to do that and live with the co-morbidity of aging/death which they are facing, and that is where the unlimited lifespan movement is the most humanist. Along with controlling reproduction, we can ensure that no one is socioemotionally abandoned and we will be able to afford the time and resources to fix the problems that occur with co-morbid aging, or which the aforementioned has prevented a solution. It is for reasons like this that we must find a cure for aging and defeat death.

 

Today we rightfully look upon people of the past who did thing which in their time were acceptable. Likewise, what is acceptable today will be tomorrows barbarism. But the better we are as a people, the easier it will be to live in the future, and that's why I'm not afraid to be a cryonicist. 

 

I don't mind personal discussion on this. Feel free to contact me via PM.

 

 

Are you implying that I am "socio-emotionally abandoned"? 

 

And if this is your implication, what is its basis exactly? 

 

I know we are all part time therapists on the internet, but really, do we truly believe that the 2% of one another we see here in this context entitles us to a far fetched opinion?

[Duchykins]

If you don't like the responses I suggest next time you decide against posting passive-aggresive threads about women and relationships. I guess if you were looking for cheerleaders for your opinion you posted either at the wrong time or wrong place.

Edited by Duchykins, 27 May 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[YOLF]

 

 

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

I wouldn't say it's HIM, it's one of his misconceptions. One of those social traps that get placed in media which loners often fall prey to is the cause of this. The social traps (trappings as they say) are designed to be righteous, or maybe just look that way. In the end it comes down to distance members of society are expected to go for their fellow human's socioemotional wellbeing and an animal judgement as to who is salvageable and who is not. An so we dawn the "trappings" of good men in our daily lives and it indicates our range of social selfishness and the amount of time we allocate to others in order to favor our own personal network. The more self absorbed a culture is the more people it will abandon to become loners in the name of "doing the most good" rather than limiting the number of problems it creates (which is IMO the better way of doing the most good). I guess it's something of a compromise that a society chooses to make. What's evil is that people profit from things that don't improve the lives of socioemotionally abandoned people and more than likely make their lives worse or more difficult to understand. As I said in my previous long post, it takes alot of effort to bring someone into social cohesion and most don't care enough about the socioemotionally abandoned to make a difference or realize that they have neither the time or resources to do that and live with the co-morbidity of aging/death which they are facing, and that is where the unlimited lifespan movement is the most humanist. Along with controlling reproduction, we can ensure that no one is socioemotionally abandoned and we will be able to afford the time and resources to fix the problems that occur with co-morbid aging, or which the aforementioned has prevented a solution. It is for reasons like this that we must find a cure for aging and defeat death.

 

Today we rightfully look upon people of the past who did thing which in their time were acceptable. Likewise, what is acceptable today will be tomorrows barbarism. But the better we are as a people, the easier it will be to live in the future, and that's why I'm not afraid to be a cryonicist. 

 

I don't mind personal discussion on this. Feel free to contact me via PM.

 

 

Are you implying that I am "socio-emotionally abandoned"? 

 

And if this is your implication, what is its basis exactly? 

 

I know we are all part time therapists on the internet, but really, do we truly believe that the 2% of one another we see here in this context entitles us to a far fetched opinion?

 

Of course, the thread content we're creating here may apply to someone who needs help or it may not. But someone who isn't dating much or hasn't dated in a long time and no one has reconnecting them to dating is abandoned. At some point they may accept the abandonment and live with it (give up) rather than waste unnecessary resources that won't give them sexual or socioemotional fulfillment, but that doesn't mean they weren't abandoned at some point prior. 

 

The social cohesion that is required to be successful at dating and such things is formed through a lifelong process. Women especially are trained to recognize those who don't fit into the social cohesion. Men know it too and will be rejected by women if they don't help to perpetuate it and it destroys existences. Futurists on the other hand must realize that this activity will be one of those which the future will undoubtedly see as genocide and that's where cryonics offers a solution to this particular ethical problem among many others. We can offer freedom from the oppression of ignorance and hope for a better life in the future. I bet if Elliot Rodger had been a cryonicist, he wouldn't have suffered as he did, and he wouldn't have murdered as he did. The problem here IMO, is that cryonics isn't a greater part of the solution and isn't a more well known part of our culture. We don't have to have people who suffer socioemotional abandonment as Elliot Rodger did (actually, he was very wealthy, and wasn't so much abandoned as he was... sorry, don't have a fancy term for this... but despite all his family's wealth, he didn't have the human investment from his peers, which had it been as affluent (in terms of human investment) might have been the cure he needed. The money alone was just palliative care that, while sparing everyone else from facing the social reality of his existence, was making him hurt more on the inside. He had no peers to associate his identity with. He was what he had and it was a sad existence that lead to deaths by furthering his isolation through the distraction of material wealth. It didn't have to end this way. I would have been honored to have him among us working for the future that would be his cure.

 

As for whether you're socioemotionally abandoned, that's up for you to decide. As virtually all faith books say "we're always planting seeds" it means that we're all the product of some pathology or another in the sense that we're created by the series of events that are our lives. We eventually become aware of it and I suppose that's when we have "mustard seed faith" or the ability to reorient our lives. Either that, or we don't have faith that it's enough to bring us satisfaction. Either way, cryonics and radical life extension futurism brings us improved solutions that I feel can give us better lives than previously available to us and that we'll be obligated to undergo recohesion as the remaining imperfections in our unlimited lifespans will necessitate re-experiencing life to prevent schisms and such things that would lead to war and the resulting malignant conditions that would reverse our progress. 

 

I think I'm a little more than a part time psychologist... I studied psychology academically and on my own and put the context of my 220+ credit curriculum in the context of psychology. I've gone as far as to reverse engineer my life in it's entirety. I may not be as skillfully trained, but what sets me apart is that I'm a futurist and I look for today's barbarisms. My strength is in having abandoned social cohesion which allowed me to arrive at novel solutions to this problem. This is one where I know we can help right now (and have been able for around 40 years) with cryonics and can put an end to unnecessary human suffering. The technology is here, we just aren't using it enough. If we had the socioemotional investment that went towards oppressing Elliot Rodger and people like him, cryonics would be proven to greater extents that it is currently (look at all the new cryoprotectants and theorized processes we haven't even put to use yet, they're piling up), age reversal would be near to solved. Where we could be working to solve a problem we are making people suffer for our socioemotional opulence and peace of mind and it isn't even working. People are dying and I guess that's acceptable if you're looking through the lens of death (and can keep doing the same because you think it's working and there isn't better), but I'm not. I filmed that shit (the death lens) gettin hit with a gavel (at least proverbially speaking).

[TheFountain]

 

This documentary talks about some of these issues in detail. And the contradictory nature of female physiology/psychology.

 

I wouldn't suggest that a loner put any stock in this video... It's designed to make fools of men... at least I caught one such cue in the short time I watched. I imagine it's got more in it...

 

 

Where do you get your assessments?

 

A 'loner'? 

 

What observations did you see in the documentary that do not bear out in real life? 

If you don't like the responses I suggest next time you decide against posting passive-aggresive threads about women and relationships. I guess if you were looking for cheerleaders for your opinion you posted either at the wrong time or wrong place.

 

^^ Thumbs down.

[TheFountain]

 

 

 

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

I wouldn't say it's HIM, it's one of his misconceptions. One of those social traps that get placed in media which loners often fall prey to is the cause of this. The social traps (trappings as they say) are designed to be righteous, or maybe just look that way. In the end it comes down to distance members of society are expected to go for their fellow human's socioemotional wellbeing and an animal judgement as to who is salvageable and who is not. An so we dawn the "trappings" of good men in our daily lives and it indicates our range of social selfishness and the amount of time we allocate to others in order to favor our own personal network. The more self absorbed a culture is the more people it will abandon to become loners in the name of "doing the most good" rather than limiting the number of problems it creates (which is IMO the better way of doing the most good). I guess it's something of a compromise that a society chooses to make. What's evil is that people profit from things that don't improve the lives of socioemotionally abandoned people and more than likely make their lives worse or more difficult to understand. As I said in my previous long post, it takes alot of effort to bring someone into social cohesion and most don't care enough about the socioemotionally abandoned to make a difference or realize that they have neither the time or resources to do that and live with the co-morbidity of aging/death which they are facing, and that is where the unlimited lifespan movement is the most humanist. Along with controlling reproduction, we can ensure that no one is socioemotionally abandoned and we will be able to afford the time and resources to fix the problems that occur with co-morbid aging, or which the aforementioned has prevented a solution. It is for reasons like this that we must find a cure for aging and defeat death.

 

Today we rightfully look upon people of the past who did thing which in their time were acceptable. Likewise, what is acceptable today will be tomorrows barbarism. But the better we are as a people, the easier it will be to live in the future, and that's why I'm not afraid to be a cryonicist. 

 

I don't mind personal discussion on this. Feel free to contact me via PM.

 

 

Are you implying that I am "socio-emotionally abandoned"? 

 

And if this is your implication, what is its basis exactly? 

 

I know we are all part time therapists on the internet, but really, do we truly believe that the 2% of one another we see here in this context entitles us to a far fetched opinion?

 

Of course, the thread content we're creating here may apply to someone who needs help or it may not. But someone who isn't dating much or hasn't dated in a long time and no one has reconnecting them to dating is abandoned. At some point they may accept the abandonment and live with it (give up) rather than waste unnecessary resources that won't give them sexual or socioemotional fulfillment, but that doesn't mean they weren't abandoned at some point prior. 

 

The social cohesion that is required to be successful at dating and such things is formed through a lifelong process. Women especially are trained to recognize those who don't fit into the social cohesion. Men know it too and will be rejected by women if they don't help to perpetuate it and it destroys existences. Futurists on the other hand must realize that this activity will be one of those which the future will undoubtedly see as genocide and that's where cryonics offers a solution to this particular ethical problem among many others. We can offer freedom from the oppression of ignorance and hope for a better life in the future. I bet if Elliot Rodger had been a cryonicist, he wouldn't have suffered as he did, and he wouldn't have murdered as he did. The problem here IMO, is that cryonics isn't a greater part of the solution and isn't a more well known part of our culture. We don't have to have people who suffer socioemotional abandonment as Elliot Rodger did (actually, he was very wealthy, and wasn't so much abandoned as he was... sorry, don't have a fancy term for this... but despite all his family's wealth, he didn't have the human investment from his peers, which had it been as affluent (in terms of human investment) might have been the cure he needed. The money alone was just palliative care that, while sparing everyone else from facing the social reality of his existence, was making him hurt more on the inside. He had no peers to associate his identity with. He was what he had and it was a sad existence that lead to deaths by furthering his isolation through the distraction of material wealth. It didn't have to end this way. I would have been honored to have him among us working for the future that would be his cure.

 

As for whether you're socioemotionally abandoned, that's up for you to decide. As virtually all faith books say "we're always planting seeds" it means that we're all the product of some pathology or another in the sense that we're created by the series of events that are our lives. We eventually become aware of it and I suppose that's when we have "mustard seed faith" or the ability to reorient our lives. Either that, or we don't have faith that it's enough to bring us satisfaction. Either way, cryonics and radical life extension futurism brings us improved solutions that I feel can give us better lives than previously available to us and that we'll be obligated to undergo recohesion as the remaining imperfections in our unlimited lifespans will necessitate re-experiencing life to prevent schisms and such things that would lead to war and the resulting malignant conditions that would reverse our progress. 

 

I think I'm a little more than a part time psychologist... I studied psychology academically and on my own and put the context of my 220+ credit curriculum in the context of psychology. I've gone as far as to reverse engineer my life in it's entirety. I may not be as skillfully trained, but what sets me apart is that I'm a futurist and I look for today's barbarisms. My strength is in having abandoned social cohesion which allowed me to arrive at novel solutions to this problem. This is one where I know we can help right now (and have been able for around 40 years) with cryonics and can put an end to unnecessary human suffering. The technology is here, we just aren't using it enough. If we had the socioemotional investment that went towards oppressing Elliot Rodger and people like him, cryonics would be proven to greater extents that it is currently (look at all the new cryoprotectants and theorized processes we haven't even put to use yet, they're piling up), age reversal would be near to solved. Where we could be working to solve a problem we are making people suffer for our socioemotional opulence and peace of mind and it isn't even working. People are dying and I guess that's acceptable if you're looking through the lens of death (and can keep doing the same because you think it's working and there isn't better), but I'm not. I filmed that shit (the death lens) gettin hit with a gavel (at least proverbially speaking).

 

 

How did this thread evoke a social commentary on Elliot Rodgers? Are you saying you feel like you identify with him on the "socio-emotional" level? And because of this you want to go into cryogenic suspension till you feel more at ease with women and society? 

Edited by TheFountain, 28 May 2014 - 12:33 AM.

[YOLF]

 

 

This documentary talks about some of these issues in detail. And the contradictory nature of female physiology/psychology.

 

I wouldn't suggest that a loner put any stock in this video... It's designed to make fools of men... at least I caught one such cue in the short time I watched. I imagine it's got more in it...

 

 

Where do you get your assessments?

 

A 'loner'? 

 

What observations did you see in the documentary that do not bear out in real life? 

If you don't like the responses I suggest next time you decide against posting passive-aggresive threads about women and relationships. I guess if you were looking for cheerleaders for your opinion you posted either at the wrong time or wrong place.

 

^^ Thumbs down.

 

Well I guess that I assumed you had regular problems with the judgment of women. I don't really know you though... Sorry, I'm not speaking about anyone in particular, I just don't think the video would be good for helping someone like Elliot Rodger. I'm not making any judgement. I don't know anyone from this topic personally. TBH, I've already forgotten why. But for people reading this topic who might, I'd like to impart some knowledge. It's also a great opportunity for us to apply life extension based solutions to problems people searching for Elliot Rodger might have. The only solutions I see being used at present are deeply rooted to deathism. I think the answers your other post too.

[TheFountain]

 

 

 

This documentary talks about some of these issues in detail. And the contradictory nature of female physiology/psychology.

 

I wouldn't suggest that a loner put any stock in this video... It's designed to make fools of men... at least I caught one such cue in the short time I watched. I imagine it's got more in it...

 

 

Where do you get your assessments?

 

A 'loner'? 

 

What observations did you see in the documentary that do not bear out in real life? 

If you don't like the responses I suggest next time you decide against posting passive-aggresive threads about women and relationships. I guess if you were looking for cheerleaders for your opinion you posted either at the wrong time or wrong place.

 

^^ Thumbs down.

 

Well I guess that I assumed you had regular problems with the judgment of women. I don't really know you though... Sorry, I'm not speaking about anyone in particular, I just don't think the video would be good for helping someone like Elliot Rodger. I'm not making any judgement. I don't know anyone from this topic personally. TBH, I've already forgotten why. But for people reading this topic who might, I'd like to impart some knowledge. It's also a great opportunity for us to apply life extension based solutions to problems people searching for Elliot Rodger might have. The only solutions I see being used at present are deeply rooted to deathism. I think the answers your other post too.

 

Why do you continue to intersperse Elliot Rodger into this discussion? How much do you identify with him? Do you feel like he is your twin? 

[YOLF]

 

 

 

 

Oops, I guess if it was on the Discovery Channel, that means it's true!

Does that logic work for the History Channel too?

And are you having problems with a woman right now, that's prompting this and that other thread where you talk about trashy white women being with ghetto black men?

Because from what I've seen so far, it seems as if the real problem is YOU.

I wouldn't say it's HIM, it's one of his misconceptions. One of those social traps that get placed in media which loners often fall prey to is the cause of this. The social traps (trappings as they say) are designed to be righteous, or maybe just look that way. In the end it comes down to distance members of society are expected to go for their fellow human's socioemotional wellbeing and an animal judgement as to who is salvageable and who is not. An so we dawn the "trappings" of good men in our daily lives and it indicates our range of social selfishness and the amount of time we allocate to others in order to favor our own personal network. The more self absorbed a culture is the more people it will abandon to become loners in the name of "doing the most good" rather than limiting the number of problems it creates (which is IMO the better way of doing the most good). I guess it's something of a compromise that a society chooses to make. What's evil is that people profit from things that don't improve the lives of socioemotionally abandoned people and more than likely make their lives worse or more difficult to understand. As I said in my previous long post, it takes alot of effort to bring someone into social cohesion and most don't care enough about the socioemotionally abandoned to make a difference or realize that they have neither the time or resources to do that and live with the co-morbidity of aging/death which they are facing, and that is where the unlimited lifespan movement is the most humanist. Along with controlling reproduction, we can ensure that no one is socioemotionally abandoned and we will be able to afford the time and resources to fix the problems that occur with co-morbid aging, or which the aforementioned has prevented a solution. It is for reasons like this that we must find a cure for aging and defeat death.

 

Today we rightfully look upon people of the past who did thing which in their time were acceptable. Likewise, what is acceptable today will be tomorrows barbarism. But the better we are as a people, the easier it will be to live in the future, and that's why I'm not afraid to be a cryonicist. 

 

I don't mind personal discussion on this. Feel free to contact me via PM.

 

 

Are you implying that I am "socio-emotionally abandoned"? 

 

And if this is your implication, what is its basis exactly? 

 

I know we are all part time therapists on the internet, but really, do we truly believe that the 2% of one another we see here in this context entitles us to a far fetched opinion?

 

Of course, the thread content we're creating here may apply to someone who needs help or it may not. But someone who isn't dating much or hasn't dated in a long time and no one has reconnecting them to dating is abandoned. At some point they may accept the abandonment and live with it (give up) rather than waste unnecessary resources that won't give them sexual or socioemotional fulfillment, but that doesn't mean they weren't abandoned at some point prior. 

 

The social cohesion that is required to be successful at dating and such things is formed through a lifelong process. Women especially are trained to recognize those who don't fit into the social cohesion. Men know it too and will be rejected by women if they don't help to perpetuate it and it destroys existences. Futurists on the other hand must realize that this activity will be one of those which the future will undoubtedly see as genocide and that's where cryonics offers a solution to this particular ethical problem among many others. We can offer freedom from the oppression of ignorance and hope for a better life in the future. I bet if Elliot Rodger had been a cryonicist, he wouldn't have suffered as he did, and he wouldn't have murdered as he did. The problem here IMO, is that cryonics isn't a greater part of the solution and isn't a more well known part of our culture. We don't have to have people who suffer socioemotional abandonment as Elliot Rodger did (actually, he was very wealthy, and wasn't so much abandoned as he was... sorry, don't have a fancy term for this... but despite all his family's wealth, he didn't have the human investment from his peers, which had it been as affluent (in terms of human investment) might have been the cure he needed. The money alone was just palliative care that, while sparing everyone else from facing the social reality of his existence, was making him hurt more on the inside. He had no peers to associate his identity with. He was what he had and it was a sad existence that lead to deaths by furthering his isolation through the distraction of material wealth. It didn't have to end this way. I would have been honored to have him among us working for the future that would be his cure.

 

As for whether you're socioemotionally abandoned, that's up for you to decide. As virtually all faith books say "we're always planting seeds" it means that we're all the product of some pathology or another in the sense that we're created by the series of events that are our lives. We eventually become aware of it and I suppose that's when we have "mustard seed faith" or the ability to reorient our lives. Either that, or we don't have faith that it's enough to bring us satisfaction. Either way, cryonics and radical life extension futurism brings us improved solutions that I feel can give us better lives than previously available to us and that we'll be obligated to undergo recohesion as the remaining imperfections in our unlimited lifespans will necessitate re-experiencing life to prevent schisms and such things that would lead to war and the resulting malignant conditions that would reverse our progress. 

 

I think I'm a little more than a part time psychologist... I studied psychology academically and on my own and put the context of my 220+ credit curriculum in the context of psychology. I've gone as far as to reverse engineer my life in it's entirety. I may not be as skillfully trained, but what sets me apart is that I'm a futurist and I look for today's barbarisms. My strength is in having abandoned social cohesion which allowed me to arrive at novel solutions to this problem. This is one where I know we can help right now (and have been able for around 40 years) with cryonics and can put an end to unnecessary human suffering. The technology is here, we just aren't using it enough. If we had the socioemotional investment that went towards oppressing Elliot Rodger and people like him, cryonics would be proven to greater extents that it is currently (look at all the new cryoprotectants and theorized processes we haven't even put to use yet, they're piling up), age reversal would be near to solved. Where we could be working to solve a problem we are making people suffer for our socioemotional opulence and peace of mind and it isn't even working. People are dying and I guess that's acceptable if you're looking through the lens of death (and can keep doing the same because you think it's working and there isn't better), but I'm not. I filmed that shit (the death lens) gettin hit with a gavel (at least proverbially speaking).

 

 

How did this thread evoke a social commentary on Elliot Rodgers? Are you saying you feel like you identify with him on the "socio-emotional" level? And because of this you want to go into cryogenic suspension till you feel more at ease with women and society? 

 

 

I'm saying that Elliot Rodger's problems are co-morbid conditions to aging and death, and that's how it's relevant. Remove aging and death, and he wouldn't have gone on a rampage as he did. I feel deeply for someone like him, because as a futurist, I want a better future, and that's somewhere where Elliot Rodger doesn't suffer and environment never "pulls the trigger" (from the phrase, "genetics set the stage, and environment pulls the trigger").

 

When I read this post it reminded me of the Elliot Rodger videos I had seen. But someone like him doesn't even understand himself. He's blinded by his newness to things and his arrogance. He doesn't realize that a loner isn't on a level playing field in terms of knowledge that can give an average person an intellectual advantage over a genius and it's sort of like a feedback loop that perpetuates his "bad luck" with women and that on at least some level ties in to the original post. 

 

But yeah, I prospect threads to bring more eyes to our forum when our culture has something to offer which conventional culture lacks or does poorly at. 

 

If I had known Elliot Rodger, I would have levelled with him as well as I could and explained his situation. I'd have freed him from his ignorance, and yes, it would be painful for him. But I'd rather see him live. We're on the precipice of unlimited lifespans and we have the ambulance ride to the future (cryonics) that will bring new and better solutions which will be more acceptable to someone like Elliot Rodgers and something worth living for. If he understood his situation and could live his life accordingly, he wouldn't be wasting his time on all the things that didn't work or only made things worse for him. 

 

Someone in his position of socioemotional abandonment can have an improved life by the standards of mental health. However socioemotional abandonment will effect someone for the rest of their lives and impair their parenting experience and make parenting more difficult. Their reality is less than equal to someone who had never experienced this and from my vantage point, it looks like they are being thrown out by society with their only value being to create the next generation and put them in "God's hands." Life is just better when you have a continuous social cohesion. In ER's case, it was just the opposite. Cryonics offers a better outcome as I've explained prior and ER should have at least known about his options and I don't think any of his mental health professionals would have given him anything but reassurance in deathism that would never give him a life that was equivalent to one which was continuously socially cohesive. This is chiefly important to RLE futurism school of thought and why we should change what we have.

 

Sorry if you feel like I'm comparing you to ER... But the topic was pretty silly to begin with and needed a new direction. I do also feel for ER's victims, but they all share a conceptual victimizer as I've explained which is the root of all of this and truly the primary cause of death. The RLE futurism I'm thinking of solves this. 

[Luminosity]

Stop making silly lists like that and go learn game.  Seriosusly, confidence and charm trump all.

 

 

What he said.

 

 

Below is my thread where I said that I know as a woman who has been alive for half a century about how men can get a relationship with a woman, and about how they can get confidence and self-esteem.  I would not recommend the posts of others on that thread, just the ones I did at the top. 

 

http://www.longecity...nd-self-esteem/

Edited by Luminosity, 28 May 2014 - 06:41 AM.

[Florian Xavier]

hint : stop caring about women

 

they fall in love much less, fall out of love much readily, use sex as a resource because they have a much lower libido, use social cohersion to make sex rare.; who cares about them ?

Edited by Florian Xavier, 28 May 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[Brafarality]

Although I now fully realize the OP had different intentions, I admit the first place I went to mentally when I saw this in the Recent Posts list was Elliott Rodgers. The timing is just too right and I (wrongly, I realize) thought that the OP was tapping into some of that anxiety.

 

Anyway, in day-to-day casual contact, I agree with the list. But, extreme intelligence and strength is usually fine if you are recognized for it, as is a celebrity of some kind. Perhaps a great musical genius or a legendary offensive tackle in the NFL, some of whom are among the strongest people on the planet.

 

Does 'Handsome but not TOO handsome' or 'Beautiful but not TOO beautiful' also belong on this list? I am not sure. Some women I know shy away from excess physical beauty, whereas others do not and, for them, it's the more beautiful, the better, the sky's the limit, considering a younger Cillian Murphy or some male super model to be the pinnacle.

 

And, fashionistas can be ok with 'too skinny' (with some limits- not at the expense of facial and health appearance), although they are a smaller niche and do not represent the wider world.

 

Interesting, as always, Mr. Fountain.

Edited by Brafarality, 28 May 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[ben951]

 

 

So, I thought I would take it upon myself to devise a list of things women want. Since there seems to be a bit of confusion circulating about this very topic. So here goes, what women want in men.

 

You forgot the number one thing that women want in men : Money

Edited by ben951, 28 May 2014 - 02:15 PM.