• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Start approaching women? How?

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
David. said:
If that's the case I get it and I'm not going to shit on the guy.

I do understand that is tough being a guy-espeixially when younger and who haven't experienced many women on an actual person level and seen how hurt they get and struggle etc, and when you're fresh out of a relationship with someone who was toxic to/for you. There's a reason why Andrew tate and the various pua and subreddits get traction, there are a lot of disenfranchised guys that see that got dealt, comparatively, a bad hand.

I think deradicalizing them is probably a good idea for them on an individual level and for the whole rather than having them dig their heels in. Our little bros are out there and they need healing and some compassion and advice
Click to expand...

Just want to say I see your growth and applaud it. Cheers man.

Just gonna throw this out there because I see physique get brought up a lot in this thread. I’m not in shape and find myself to be objectively unattractive in a traditional sense. However, I never had a problem finding and dating women that I found to be much more attractive than me. Personality, character, and a sense of humor go a long way IMO. You might not get as many swipe rights, but you can still find potential mates who place a higher priority on your strengths if being a fashionable in shape dude just isn’t who you are. Shout out to my chubby boys out here, husky jeans for life!
 
HammerGold said:
I didn't insult you about it, I just questioned why you'd care if it was important to other men (to many it is.) It just goes back to a basic feeling that the rarer something is, the more value it has.


"If pussy was a stock right now the value would be plummeting because you've flooded the market with it."

Regarding the men vs women thing. Yeah there's a double standard. I've had like 20 partners but would insist a serious gf be like 7 or 8 max. Men and women aren't the same, I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

So if you really had to think about it, deep down, why would you not be okay with a woman having 20 partners even though you’ve had the same number? I know you mention nature, but there’s nothing in nature that I’m aware of to suggest it’s natural to desire mates less experienced than you. Culture, up bringing, being cheated on the past….sure, I could see that shaping those feelings. Just curious why it’s the way for you?
 
HammerGold said:
I didn't insult you about it
Click to expand...
I don't think I ever claimed you did.

HammerGold said:
, I just questioned why you'd care if it was important to other men (to many it is.) It just goes back to a basic feeling that the rarer something is, the more value it has.


Regarding the men vs women thing. Yeah there's a double standard. I've had like 20 partners but would insist a serious gf be like 7 or 8 max. Men and women aren't the same, I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...
Glad you don't have any basis for your stance and you're okay admitting you're just an asshole.
 
David. said:
If that's the case I get it and I'm not going to shit on the guy.

I do understand that its tough being a guy-espeixially when younger and who haven't experienced many women on an actual person level and seen how hurt they get and struggle etc, and when you're fresh out of a relationship with someone who was toxic to/for you. There's a reason why Andrew tate and the various pua and subreddits get traction, there are a lot of disenfranchised guys that see they got dealt, comparatively, a bad hand.

I think deradicalizing them is probably a good idea for them on an individual level and for the whole rather than having them dig their heels in. Our little bros are out there and they need healing and some compassion and advice
Click to expand...
That's why I generally like Jordan Peterson (I think you mentioned following him once, IIRC?). Unlike Tate, he connects much of his thought to Judeo Christian ethics. He encourages men to develop noble principles, enter into monogamous relationships, and endure a certain bit of struggle.

Without religion as a foundation, men have no systematic basis for which to disapprove of certain practices, like female promiscuity. I'm glad the poster here admitted it's nothing more than a gut feeling. Unfortunately for women, men don't accept our gut feelings as reason for anything; history has always generalized men as rational and women as emotional. I do think men tend to be more systematic and logical about everything, except sex. Men can be profoundly irrational and gut feeling about sex, and it's their biggest weakness.
 
KevinLoveFan said:
That's why I generally like Jordan Peterson (I think you mentioned following him once, IIRC?). Unlike Tate, he connects much of his thought to Judeo Christian ethics. He encourages men to develop noble principles, enter into monogamous relationships, and endure a certain bit of struggle.

Without religion as a foundation, men have no systematic basis for which to disapprove of certain practices, like female promiscuity. I'm glad the poster here admitted it's nothing more than a gut feeling. Unfortunately for women, men don't accept our gut feelings as reason for anything; history has always generalized men as rational and women as emotional. I do think men tend to be more systematic and logical about everything, except sex. Men can be profoundly irrational and gut feeling about sex, and it's their biggest weakness.
Click to expand...
I like the Jordan Peterson the clinical psychologist but I disagree with him on a lot, like a lot of stuff.

I don't necessarily see monogamous relationships as anything more noble than meeting more temporary people but I appreciate his effort into pushing people into being more decent.

I've seen a lot of hate about Andrew tate and only a little content, and that which I saw may have been cherry picked but I don't see it as as incendiary as others do.i disagree with a lot of the stuff he says but I'm not offended yet.

I agree that religion can surely aid in being more principled and would say that all things equal id trust a religious person to be a better person than those who aren't but there are a lot of shitty people who were raised religious and a lot of empathetic, good people who weren't.
 
pr26 said:
Just want to say I see your growth and applaud it. Cheers man.

Just gonna throw this out there because I see physique get brought up a lot in this thread. I’m not in shape and find myself to be objectively unattractive in a traditional sense. However, I never had a problem finding and dating women that I found to be much more attractive than me. Personality, character, and a sense of humor go a long way IMO. You might not get as many swipe rights, but you can still find potential mates who place a higher priority on your strengths if being a fashionable in shape dude just isn’t who you are. Shout out to my chubby boys out here, husky jeans for life!
Click to expand...
Looks are the other area where men and women, generally, are much different.

I've frequently clashed with other women for placing a high emphasis on looks. They say it's shallow, and that all they look for in men is stuff like empathy, humor, good job etc. I always needed a guy I was physically attracted to, and glad I found him! So I'm an exception to the generality.

I'd go as far to say that 80 to 90% of women give absolutely zero importance to looks. They could happily live with a guy who was unattractive and never had sex. You'd be hard pressed to find a man who could live with a woman being unattractive or never having sex.
 
David. said:
all things equal id trust a religious person to be a better person than those who aren't but there are a lot of shitty people who were raised religious and a lot of empathetic, good people who weren't.
Click to expand...
I come about it the exact opposite.

I was raised in a religious household and attended a religious high school and university.

I think those who wield the shield of religion are far more dangerous and untrustworthy than those who walk without it.

If you're only good because you're afraid of breaking made-up rules from your magical floaty dude, you're not a good person to begin with. (This last line is a separate aside--I'm not implying that everyone who is religious is the Dennis Prager type who openly admits how shitty of a person he'd be if it weren't for God's rules holding him back).
 
Out of the Rafters at the Q said:
I come about it the exact opposite.

I was raised in a religious household and attended a religious high school and university.

I think those who wield the shield of religion are far more dangerous and untrustworthy than those who walk without it.

If you're only good because you're afraid of breaking made-up rules from your magical floaty dude, you're not a good person to begin with.
Click to expand...
I personally have not come across many religious people so my small sample could be skewed but they were annoyingly good people
 
David. said:
I like the Jordan Peterson the clinical psychologist but I disagree with him on a lot, like a lot of stuff.

I don't necessarily see monogamous relationships as anything more noble than meeting more temporary people but I appreciate his effort into pushing people into being more decent.

I've seen a lot of hate about Andrew tate and only a little content, and that which I saw may have been cherry picked but I don't see it as as incendiary as others do.i disagree with a lot of the stuff he says but I'm not offended yet.

I agree that religion can surely aid in being more principled and would say that all things equal id trust a religious person to be a better person than those who aren't but there are a lot of shitty people who were raised religious and a lot of empathetic, good people who weren't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like Peterson's ethical insights, but his political and social media fights aren't helpful, IMO.

Rafters mentioned how there are irreligious people with good ethics. I do agree; my husband is one of them. I can always trust him on his word.

But a shortcoming people outside of religion have is when it comes to certain topics like sexual ethics. Rafters is consistent in that he tolerates promiscuity across the board. But there are many men who don't. When these men throw out the religion foundation and yet maintain women shouldn't be promiscuous, they find they can't rationally justify it. I'd argue the reason they have any inkling about it being disagreeable in the first place is because of their conscience God gave them, but since they aren't religious, they can't figure out why they have a dislike of promiscuous women.
 
KevinLoveFan said:
Yeah, I like Peterson's ethical insights, but his political and social media fights aren't helpful, IMO.

Rafters mentioned how there are irreligious people with good ethics. I do agree; my husband is one of them. I can always trust him on his word.

But a shortcoming people outside of religion have is when it comes to certain topics like sexual ethics. Rafters is consistent in that he tolerates promiscuity across the board. But there are many men who don't. When these men throw out the religion foundation and yet maintain women shouldn't be promiscuous, they find they can't rationally justify it. I'd argue the reason they have any inkling about it being disagreeable in the first place is because of their conscience God gave them, but since they aren't religious, they can't figure out why they have a dislike of promiscuous women.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the sales pitch you're making to the three amigos is "Come join religion so you can justify your hatred of others"
 
Speaking for myself here. Not saying this reflects on the other guys.

I had a period in my life where I had a fixation on how many partners a significant other had.

In retrospect, it was reflective of using women as a way to compete with other men. If she’d been with that many men before me, then I wasn’t winning much of a contest.

It’s something I moved away from over time as it became more important to me to partner with a woman with whom I shared a mutual attraction, values, interests, etc.

Now it’s just not something that would register at all. I compete with other men, but don’t use women to do it.

I don’t think what I described is an uncommon thought process, but I think it’s one that’s very self-focused.
 
Not to mention, and sorry to fart in people’s cereal here, but women deserve better than this.

Correction:

Some do. Some of them are really terrible scumbags who deserve to be shit on but not because of how many people they’ve slept with.

I also think it’s worth men’s effort to put time into understanding how women actually behave, think, etc and have some curiosity about the interests of the ones they meet.

I know @FiveThous will back me up on that hardcore boomer shit.
 
Last edited:
The Oi said:
Speaking for myself here. Not saying this reflects on the other guys.

I had a period in my life where I had a fixation on how many partners a significant other had.

In retrospect, it was reflective of using women as a way to compete with other men. If she’d been with that many men before me, then I wasn’t winning much of a contest.

It’s something I moved away from over time as it became more important to me to partner with a woman with whom I shared a mutual attraction, values, interests, etc.

Now it’s just not something that would register at all. I compete with other men, but don’t use women to do it.

I don’t think what I described is an uncommon thought process, but I think it’s one that’s very self-focused.
Click to expand...

The great part about this is how much maturity you're showing about your wife and my kids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top