To shoot the messenger is deflecting, when there is no authority for the contentions made.

Where have I claimed to be a psychologist? How does the statement that women trade sex for resources have zero significance to my personal claims? Where did I promote a hatred of learning?

I'm saying that I disagree with your statement. I'm disagreeing because I have had plenty of experiences that didn't involve SPAM resources. "What I see must be all there is" is true in this case because with all I've gotten, I still walked away with all I had previously. That's math...but I don't have a degree in that.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Your claims to being a psychologist and your avowed hatred of learning:
The conclusory statement, "I'm saying that I disagree with your statement. I'm disagreeing because I have had plenty of experiences that didn't involve SPAM resources. 'What I see must be all there is' is true in this case because with all I've gotten, I still walked away with all I had previously," is irrelevant because it does not address anything that I have stated and is not supported by any authority. The exchange includes the buying of drinks, dinner, the provision of trips, and the lure of having an affluent life style. For the latter, it is a mere expectancy for the opportunist. However, that the commercial transaction occurs is not at issue, rather we are merely haggling over the price. See Farrel, Warren, "Why men are the way they are," (men’s primary fantasy: access to as many beautiful women as desired without risk of rejection; women’s, security and family.).

Worse is the fallacy that, for example, you allegedly had sex with a woman, did not offer any of the above material advantages, etc, and she allegedly had sex with you, because it is not representative of the whole. As you know, because you have a degree in psychology, in research design this non-representative example is called sampling bias. If we were to extend this logic, we would conclude that because a worker or some workers did not contract mesothelioma, that asbestos does not cause mesothelioma.

In your alleged scenario, we would assume that you (dressed in dirty work clothes) met a woman on the sidewalk and she had sex with you in the alley (for free not even drinks). Such an assertion if accepted to be true is not representative of the whole nor does it address the dynamic of sex for resources as addressed conclusively by researchers. Actually, sex for resources is the core social milieu in which the PUA operates, the bar or disco, where there is some sort of cover charge, i.e. a broad announcement that men of resources are present and the suggestion is for the PUA to buy drinks, show high value, try to demonstrate the female LV relative to his HV, to develop an appealing life style (i.e. affluence), etc.

For a formalized relationship, the conventional gender roles propose an even higher amount of investment for the man to be attractive to the woman as a mate. Women who pursue careers do so as has been observed to demand a man with a higher income as a spouse. Villar, Ester, "The Deceived Man."

Some folks even conduct informal case studies into this opportunism. These video taped case studies alone are fascinating, as to this dynamic.

Here's something to learn. Bachelor's in psychology does not equal psychologist. It doesn't even qualify as psychologist. I also haven't avowed a hatred of learning. If you can't even get those things right, how can your translation of learned material be correct? Wait...maybe you can find a quote of me making claims to any of those things.

I get what you are saying though. However, since you need to add to my experiences without even knowing the whole story...I'll just write that off as jumping to conclusions in order to make my alleged sexual encounters fit your needs.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

A person with a degree in sociology is a sociologist. Someone with an alleged degree in psychology is a psychologist. A licensed clinical psychologist is one with a license to practice in a given state.

If you notice I explained how your conclusory statements, without any further explanation, invite us believe that you just met someone on the sidewalk, you did not give any indication of affluence, no resources like drinks were exchanged, and the woman had sex with you away from a home or hotel (symbols of affluence). You raised the aforementioned unsupported conclusions with their implictions, "However, since you need to add to my experiences without even knowing the whole story...I'll just write that off as jumping to conclusions in order to make my alleged sexual encounters fit your needs," which are not representative of the whole. However, now you contend that there is more to the story, namely that the exchange of resources occurred and that the promise of further advantage was held out to the women, via the DHV angle, which is invariably a high paying career and an attractive home. Thus far you have not been forthright, nor have you supported your contentions with any research backed authority.

The entire reason that you wrote in response to my advice to the OP (that he speak candidly with the woman and that he watch out for opportunists) was to demonstrate that "experience" is superior to informed knowledge, i.e. research. That is hatred of learning as exemplified by the "$2 word" reference.

Wrong.The night I lost my virginity was the day before joining the military. The military put us up in a hotel so we wouldn't back out at the last second and not show up on our swearing in date. I had sex with a girl that was joining a different branch and we knew we would never see each other again. No symbols of affluence, no money spent, and I had no status that elevated me above any other guy. I just happened to stay up when everyone else went to their rooms and she shown up. No resources spent...I had none.No...I said that to address you being pretentious. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I recommend books outside of PUA to learn about women and how they work. Like I said...you jump to conclusions.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Everything you just explained is a show of resources and an exchange of resources, right down to the hotel that you provided at the expense of your life, as to join the military is a venture implicating the sacrifice of life.

Let us turn to Warren Farrel, summarized, men’s primary fantasy: access to as many beautiful women as desired without risk of rejection; women’s primary fantasy, financial security and family; Women’s primary means to their primary fantasy are glamour/beauty and men; Men’s primary means to their primary fantasy are heroism or performance; To get part of his primary fantasy, just one woman, he must perform; to get his entire primary fantasy, access to many, be a hero. Your above statements regarding hotels paid via your service and your enlistment is text book right out of Warren Farrel's book, "Why men are the way you are." You were forced to perform materially; the woman offered no competence performance in exchange other than her sensuality. In the example you gave, the woman knew all of these things about you, the place paid by your already made sacrifice (loss of liberty upon enlistment) and future sacrifice (risk of death) prior to having sex with you. You had already dated her previously and had exchanged the dinners, drinks, etc. That was the exchange. You fulfilled her primary and secondary fantasy, while giving up your first in order to achieve your secondary. Text book.

I do not care about you personally. The merit of your arguments is not derived from anyone knowing you personally but from the substance and evidence that you provide. If you have access to learning, show it by citing to authority. In this brief exchange, I offered a close interpretation of dynamics, fact, and research. You made certain assertions, which were puffing. Even without knowing your facts, the research, especially that of Farrel, was correct. Now, that you have revealed some facts, Farrel is conclusive.

Things go much better in these exchanges when people are honest. Things go much better for men in general when they understand these pernicious gender roles. That can only be done by reading and then applying critical thinking to one's own life.

Bullshit. She was horny and I was there. She had every resource that I had except for a penis. She criticized the branch that I joined for the lack of toughness. She was joining the Marines and me the Air Force. I'll even admit that there is nothing heroic there compared to where she was going. I had never dated her before...I just met her that night and we had sex within an hour or so. There was no exchange.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

You wittingly miss the point and wittingly confuse your own facts. Women who pursue careers do so to demand a man with a greater income. She required (you complied) both her primary and secondary fantasy, of heroism (material) and the affluent setting (the hotel, i.e. material). Had you not offered both of those she would not have had sex with you; your sole requirement to have sex with her was that she be physically attractive to you. The entire social milieu in which you met her had a cover charge just, as stated in my prior posts, the military setting, where you perform to satisfy her primary and secondary fantasy. Warren Farrel is precisely on point.

Even worse, you offered your personal life as a rebuttal to my advice regarding the OP's quandry about how to keep a girl friend. Here, you did not keep the woman for more than a few minutes. The OP's quandry is about a relationship. To keep this female, whom you met, for more than a few minutes even greater resources would have to be exchanged. The entire crux of your arguments now could not be more irrelevant.

You never addressed why it is wrong for the OP to speak candidly with the woman and why it is wrong for him to be wary of opportunists. You miss-spent your time trying to show that your personal experience is more valuable than formal study, all the while being less than forthright.

I agree with many of the previous replies you've posted. However, might I add, can all of this scientific jargon really be applied to one-night stands? Or very brief sexual encounters?

I believe that all women, to a degree, are gold diggers. If a woman is seeking to raise children in a stable home environment, she will most certainly favor a man with better resources. She might not necessarily aim for a man with a hefty paycheck, but a man that can provide adequately for her offspring. Very few women in their right mind will aim for a man that has been going through bouts of unemployment, alcoholism, etc.

So I can see your statement, "Women exchange sex for material advantage," being applied to a more long-term scenario. The amount of time, effort and money spent on courting a woman vs a one-night stand are significantly different.

But as far as a one-night stand is concerned, perhaps yes, perhaps no. Perhaps if he wines and dines her, then there is something to be gained by her. But if there's little to none of that, then no.

All I'm saying is that I think your theories apply more to long-term scenarios.

We joined at the same time and she went in at a higher pay grade than me. So you're wrong there.We had sex in her room. She supplied the material and affluent setting.I don't think that's the problem. That's why I didn't address that. The only reason I addressed personal experiences is because the things that you are saying, no matter how hard you try to fit the square peg in the round hole, don't hold up. There is a difference between people that only study without gaining real life experience and those of us who do both. I have a formal education and real life experience. Formal education can be used as a guide but once you figure out that outside academia, things don't always go by textbook rules.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Good questions. If viewed under the magnifying lens of Warren Farrel, Friedan, Bergner, and de Bouvoir, the one night stand (at a home or hotel for a few hours) and even hookup (home or hotel for a few minutes) requires to use the lay term (DHV) or as the scientists call the commercial transaction, primary- secondary fantasies, etc. Let's look at what the PUAs believe entails DHV http://www.pualingo.com/display-high-value-dhv/ :
"1.Pre-selection – proving that other women want you; this is the hardest one to fake and one of the most powerful DHVs and attraction switches (in evolutionary biology, a signal most likely to be correct because of its difficulty to fake).

2.Leader of men – indicator of an alpha male and social intelligence. Provider of social proof and survival resources.

3.Protector of loved ones – ability to protect her, her children, and those around you.

4.Ability and willingness to emote – correct emotional filters are in place, so you respond (automatically, unconsciously) the right way to different emotional circumstances.

5.Belief in a greater cause – you are willing to devote to a greater cause in life, bigger than yourself.

6.Willingness to walk way – you WANT her, but you don’t NEED her.

There are many other DHVs that come from other schools of thought:

wealth (perceived)
family background
body build
sense of humor
social intuitiveness and witty-ness
ability to have fun and positive emotions (AKA vibe control)
understanding how to redirect social pressure
sense of style
willingness to walk away
having strong personal values and conviction beyond that of pick up
all of these DHVs relate to: a solid congruency to an cool inner core and unique personality.

The important aspect of a PUA’s game is that the DHVs are real and a part of who the PUA is because, in any long term relationship, fake DHVs will come through. In a cold approach pickup, it is important to deliver subtle DHVs in an efficient and effective manner to create attraction within a given time window."

The above explanation is entirely symptomatic of Farrel's primary-secondary fantasy. The woman does not exchange sex for dinner and drinks; rather, the dinner and drinks are part of her cover charge, because as you have already lived, frequently women will conclude "we're not a match" but only after dinner and drinks- not before. The dinner and drinks setting is one of affluence and a woman seek "orbiters" and a "dugout" of men, who hold out the expectancy of a life of financial security (and ultimate financial independence upon divorce) for the women. The man must invest (clothes, job, home, "interesting hobbies,") , perform, etc, in order to exchange all of that for the woman's physical company for an hour. Remember the PUA advice of having a cool place to live? The exchange could not be more skewed and mercenary. In sum, if you met a woman at the disco and told her to have sex with you in your car where you live, the answer would be no. Same man different material promise- cool home vs. living in a car. These informal experiments like the Ferrari experiment, crudely use a control and experimental group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWvH7jEpMdA and show the same result- a would be hookup only with the promise of material advantage. The exchange of sex evaporates upon the women discovering that the man does not own the Ferrari, even though it is the same man.

You mentioned alcoholics, which is not on point because women and men are enablers of alcoholics. JR Ewing was an alcoholic, and was followed by gold diggers; apparently Prince had a substance abuse problem with a similar experience of being followed by opportunists.

The entirety of PUA is to cater to women materially, because the advice rarely strays from the disco or bar. The DHV is text book Warren Farrel. I cannot in good faith say to anyone that women will have sex with you for free, without some inkling of advantage for the women. No man in this forum places any requirement upon a woman other than she be attractive. Not surprisingly PUA encourages men to endure the "shit test"- one's standards for a woman in exchange for our financial advantage could not be lower.

You understand the point of the milieu and how you satisfied her primary and secondary fantasies. She did not have sex with the bus boy or the gardener. Had you not had the hotel room, she would not have had sex with you. That you ultimately chose to have a few minutes of sex in her room, does not alter the fact that you had to prove that you provided material advantage and the heroism for her fantasies. That she has an alleged higher pay grade than you E1 vs. E2 precisely supports my contention that for the OP to obtain a long term mate, the exchange of resources is even greater. If she were a captain (ignoring the non- fraternization rule), it would be highly unlikely that she would be interested in you in any capacity. The virginity part of the story strains credulity (we will assume you were 18 and not 30).

In a nutshell, you had to satisfy your hookup's fantasies, while sacrificing your primary to achieve your secondary. You did not have sex with that hookup in a car where you lived. Your sole criteria for sex with her was her physical sensuality. Her criteria for you, again, was the primary and secondary fantasy. As has been commented by social theorists, the game of American football represents society with men doing combat to gain the attention of women, with women on the sidelines cheering them on to their death. Unlike football, your relationship to the gender game is such that for sex, you had to make a full representation of those fantasies- material in every way, i.e. conquer the entire world for some female attention. That's an awfully large demand in exchange for nothing.

What should the exchange be? Sex for sex irrespective of any material considerations. In this PUA forum, the rubber meets the road at DHV- entirely material and an admission proving Farrel's findings that men must make a material exchange for sex.

Here's your statement: You are so adamant to sticking to your argument that you changed your original charge of normally to where every little thing has to be sex for something of material. You're not being consistent to your original statement which I disagreed with. I'd even concede that "normally" could be plausible for guys that don't know what they're doing, but now you've gone to the extreme. I see that this is no longer about you making a statement...but more about being right at any cost, even if your original statement was more realistic. Have fun on the deep end.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Hey Sarabellum, I didn't read close-up all your messages but tell me how your theory fits with this case: a married woman meets with a college student, pays him a $100 dinner, then they go back to his apartment (shittier than her own house) and have sex.

_________________
We do what we have to do in order to do what we want to do.