"The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society"

Standman · 09-12-2014 07:04PM

The MGTOW thing seems a tad passive aggressive to me. I'd be interested to know how many of these guys have had serious relationships or been successful with women in the past.

lazybones32 · 09-12-2014 08:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. TBH I can understand the older guys who got really fecked over in nasty divorces. I can see why they then preselect the worldview that all "Women are bitches(tm)". Divorce hits men particularly hard mentally and emotionally(and financially in many cases). The rate of suicide for men going through a divorce is three times higher than background for their age, whereas women's suicide rate doesn't change. I can understand where their fears come from and why they lash out.

Definitely. I don't blame the men for being bitter against their wives (and the Judge in many cases) but to see young men and teenagers adopt the view that 'all women are b!tches' does not make for healthy relationships and will make them as bitter. Also, the younger men are only getting one-side of the story and it is rare for someone to hold their hand up to their own responsibility in the breakdown of a relationship.

GalwayGuitar · 10-12-2014 02:33PM

Interesting article but what really caught my eye was the French ban on paternity tests. So your wife cuckolds you and you have to raise her children? Can't test to see if the kid is actually yours??

'French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology'(!)

Jesus. France will probably be better off when it becomes an Islamic society.

Delirium · 10-12-2014 02:44PM

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Interesting article but what really caught my eye was the French ban on paternity tests. So your wife cuckolds you and you have to raise her spawn? Can't test to see if the kid is actually yours??

'French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology'(!)

Jesus. France will probably be better off when it becomes an Islamic society.

where does it say that in the linked article?

EDIT:
From what I can find, a court order is required to have a paternity test.

Pug160 · 10-12-2014 09:55PM

FactCheck wrote: »

But talking about controlling one's own personal circumstances, to go back to the first point - now we have the opportunity to help ourselves. If you're an awkward, scrawny, working class kid, nowadays you grow up, get a decent Leaving, get an IT degree and leave whatever backwater you grew up in. Boom, you have a good job and nobody remembers the awkward teenage years. If you want to get fit or overcome social anxiety, I'm not saying it's easy per se, it isn't, but it is easier than it ever has been.

And that's where I think some of the anger or bitterness is coming from. It's not that there are more men being left behind - on the contrary, we have more social mobility, healthcare, you name it, it has become so easy to get ahead that this is now expected. And so the people who don't want to get onboard with that, not only do they have the old difficulties, they now have the new difficulty which is everyone around them not just looking down on them for being awkward misfits, but judging them for not improving their own circumstances like most others are able to.

You seem to be equating quality of life with romantic success. I can see where you're coming from but it doesn't always work that way IMO. It's quite often analytical type guys who may or may not have degrees who actually struggle when interacting with women and people in general. I do acknowledge that people who have gone to uni and have done well academically probably have an advantage when it comes to success with women - especially the ones who are naturally sociable anyway. But it is certainly no guarantee. A lot of young professionals don't actually have a lot of time on their hands either, which can be damaging. There was a recent report about men who use escorts in the UK, and I think it stated that young professional men between the ages of 25 and 34 were the most likely group to avail of an escort's services.

ZeitgeistGlee · 10-12-2014 10:26PM

SW wrote: »

where does it say that in the linked article?

EDIT:
From what I can find, a court order is required to have a paternity test.

IIRC the court order will only be made with the consent of the mother, and if said mother suspects her husband may not be the father of her child she's unlikely to give it.

Wibbs · 10-12-2014 10:56PM

Pug160 wrote: »

You seem to be equating quality of life with romantic success. I can see where you're coming from but it doesn't always work that way IMO. It's quite often analytical type guys who may or may not have degrees who actually struggle when interacting with women and people in general. I do acknowledge that people who have gone to uni and have done well academically probably have an advantage when it comes to success with women - especially the ones who are naturally sociable anyway. But it is certainly no guarantee. A lot of young professionals don't actually have a lot of time on their hands either, which can be damaging. There was a recent report about men who use escorts in the UK, and I think it stated that young professional men between the ages of 25 and 32 were the most likely group to avail of an escort's services.

Interesting stat that last one P.

Just going on personal experience here, which I realise isn't worth the pixels that are used displaying it

but at the other end of the spectrum, the "player" type guy, I found little or no social or educational background difference that stood out with those guys. I would say though that the single most obvious thing they all had was confidence. Sometimes it was false confidence when you got down to it, but they had it publicly. They also very rarely got too emotionally involved, or seemed to be able to walk away with relative ease, again at least publicly. Some were game players and some were not funny enough and even funnier enougher(should be a word) some were obvious extroverts and some were quite introverted on the surface. But yea social confidence was very high. In some t'was near pathological in fact, quietly or no.

Of the guys I knew who had little or no success romantically they were actually more variable again in my experience. Some were very outgoing and sociable, but couldn't quite get beyond a certain point with women, unless the woman thought "feck this" and got tired of waiting and just jumped them.

There was a barrier of sorts compared to the "players", even compared to the average man. Then there were the very withdrawn socially awkward guys. They had it very tough. Tougher than very withdrawn socially awkward women. At least they'd get approached, it was only after such approaches they might feck it up.

So very very broadly, those guys who had little or no difficulty "getting" women rarely seemed to connect with them and the guys who wanted desperately to connect with them couldn't get beyond their barrier. Ironic or some such.

Pug160 · 10-12-2014 11:47PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting stat that last one P.

Just going on personal experience here, which I realise isn't worth the pixels that are used displaying it but at the other end of the spectrum, the "player" type guy, I found little or no social or educational background difference that stood out with those guys. I would say though that the single most obvious thing they all had was confidence. Sometimes it was false confidence when you got down to it, but they had it publicly. They also very rarely got too emotionally involved, or seemed to be able to walk away with relative ease, again at least publicly. Some were game players and some were not funny enough and even funnier enougher(should be a word) some were obvious extroverts and some were quite introverted on the surface. But yea social confidence was very high. In some t'was near pathological in fact, quietly or no.

Of the guys I knew who had little or no success romantically they were actually more variable again in my experience. Some were very outgoing and sociable, but couldn't quite get beyond a certain point with women, unless the woman thought "feck this" and got tired of waiting and just jumped them. There was a barrier of sorts compared to the "players", even compared to the average man. Then there were the very withdrawn socially awkward guys. They had it very tough. Tougher than very withdrawn socially awkward women. At least they'd get approached, it was only after such approaches they might feck it up.

So very very broadly, those guys who had little or no difficulty "getting" women rarely seemed to connect with them and the guys who wanted desperately to connect with them couldn't get beyond their barrier. Ironic or some such.

The really confident men who are the least intimidated by women are also the ones who can quite often attract women who are a league or two above them in terms of physical appearance it seems. That brings me onto another topic I feel is relevant here, which is the decision some men make to stay single unless they attract a fairly hot woman (or a hot one in their eyes). Some men spend a very long time chasing their elusive white whale, and I'd imagine some of them give up just like these other men have. For me personally, I'd rather wait until I found someone who ticks a lot of boxes, rather than settle. But no one should ever give up.

Littlekittylou · 11-12-2014 04:40AM

iptba wrote: »

I thought this article discussed an interesting phenomenon that may not get discussed much:

I've no idea how common it is in different countries.

I have read before about some Japanese young men doing this.

There are also communities on the internet called MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way. A lot of them seem to be men who are divorced and are not happy about how things worked out, rather than being young men.

For what it's worth, the author is gay so not actually an advocate of the position.

It's their choice. Respect people's choices.

braddun · 11-12-2014 05:35AM

where I live theres 5 women to each man

laoch na mona · 11-12-2014 05:02PM

sure theres always the priesthood

never heard of MGTOW before sounds neck beardy,

Pug160 · 14-12-2014 06:29PM

I've had a look at what some of these guys are saying. One school of thought seems to be that if enough men take themselves out of the dating pool, it will have an impact on women and force them to reconsider their importance. To me, that's not only defeatist, but it's unrealistic because men and women are always going to be attracted to each other and want relationships, sex, companionship and all the rest of it. These men who are taking themselves out of the 'market' are probably making no difference, as I assume they weren't really in it to begin with anyway.

It does appear as though some men really do get screwed in the courts. It's also probably fair to say that young women probably have at least a slight advantage when it comes to the dating game and attracting partners. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging those things. But to sit and cry about it and put your head in the sand is absolutely pointless. Like some other posters mentioned, it's about choosing wisely. I'd also say it's about having a positive outlook on life and having self respect.

the evasion_kid · 14-12-2014 06:41PM

An Irish woman's take on mgtow:

http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/category/mgtow/

Pug160 · 14-12-2014 09:00PM

Isomorphism wrote: »

If you are average looking man without any anxiety chatting/flirting with women chances are you'll have more women than you can handle. These men "going their own way" need to realise this, then they can dictate the type of relationships they want and what behaviours they will and won't tolerate from women.

Theory and reality are two different things. We live in an age where we can theoretically attract lots of women because our society is more liberal and because there are so many ways to meet people, especially if you include the online stuff. I think the guys who do well do very well. But it does seem to be rather polarised. Looking decent and being able to communicate is no guarantee, especially if you have standards. Most of the compliments I get when I go out are from other men. They ask me where I buy my clothes and stuff. Black and gay men have complimented me, which some might say is pretty much the biggest compliment you can get as a lot of those guys are generally very well presented themselves. But a lot of the more desirable women are still way more demure than men.

Guys who are beating women off them tend to have no morals - they tell women whatever they think the woman wants to hear, and don't give a damn about causing harm if the truth is exposed. They're ruthless and have sociopathic traits. That's been my experience anyway.

Wibbs · 14-12-2014 11:19PM

Pug160 wrote: »

Guys who are beating women off them tend to have no morals - they tell women whatever they think the woman wants to hear, and don't give a damn about causing harm if the truth is exposed. They're ruthless and have sociopathic traits. That's been my experience anyway.

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits. Secondly men who "are beating women off them" may quite simply be more attractive than the norm. Taller, younger, or older(depending on demographic), better looking, more intelligent, more successful, more emotionally and socially mature etc. IMHO the sociopath label is too easy and is too often trotted out as a sop, a comfort, for men who want to be like that, or at least want to have the choices these kinda men seem to have, but who aren't or don't.

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

GalwayGuitar · 14-12-2014 11:46PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits. Secondly men who "are beating women off them" may quite simply be more attractive than the norm. Taller, younger, or older(depending on demographic), better looking, more intelligent, more successful, more emotionally and socially mature etc. IMHO the sociopath label is too easy and is too often trotted out as a sop, a comfort, for men who want to be like that, or at least want to have the choices these kinda men seem to have, but who aren't or don't.

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

Sociopathic may be a bit strong but its also been my experience that men who do above average with women have less morals and less respect for women. The last 'player' I knew was proud he had no females friends, believed there should be more segregation between the sexes and was about as anti-feminist as you can get. Women either loved him or hated him, there was no middle ground. But I've never seen a man as successful as him.

Sure looks are important but the guys at the top seem to have a ruthlessness that a lot of us lack.

Also on looks: I know a few good looking shy guys who struggle. If you're a good looking woman you don't need to do much, you'll naturally attract men. If you're a man you need looks, confidence and wit.

Pug160 · 15-12-2014 01:44AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits.

I've heard quite a lot of psychologists on TV programmes say that sociopaths are often very appealing to women because they seem exciting and charming and spontaneous etc. One phrase I've heard from psychologists on more than one occasion is that they don't ''carry any emotional baggage'', which is what you yourself were describing earlier on I think. I don't reckon it's about women being ''daft'', I think a lot of these men are just very charming and appear sincere perhaps. I guess they can be cunning and manipulative too, at a more sinister level.

Secondly men who "are beating women off them" may quite simply be more attractive than the norm. Taller, younger, or older(depending on demographic), better looking, more intelligent, more successful, more emotionally and socially mature etc. IMHO the sociopath label is too easy and is too often trotted out as a sop, a comfort, for men who want to be like that, or at least want to have the choices these kinda men seem to have, but who aren't or don't.

I have never disputed that. I was referring more to the guys who use deceitful tactics in order to string women along. Some such men are handsome in addition to that. Physical attraction is very important but it's merely one leg through the door. Women will be more receptive to being approached but decent looking men are not guaranteed success with the ladies. It's possible that there's a slight but crucial difference between physical attractiveness and sex appeal. There could be a few other intangibles. Some men are hot sh** and have other qualities - I agree. But it's just noticeable that many men who are successful do seem to have a darker side.
If you're talking about looks you're actually preaching to the converted, as that's something I've spent time working on myself.

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

I never said there was. It's not always black and white though, which makes it both interesting and frustrating.

15-12-2014 02:37AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno P. That suggests that women, at least a subset of women are naturally attracted to men with "no morals", ruthless sociopathic men and are too daft to spot these traits.

You've never seen Jeremy Kyle then? :pac:

Pug160 · 17-12-2014 05:42PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It pretty much boils down to this; some people, men and women, are quite simply just more attractive to the opposite sex(or the same sex if they're gay folks). No underlying pathology required.

I'll try to articulate what I was thinking about today. Let's start with physical attraction by itself. Isn't it fair to say that people can be handsome or attractive on different levels? Let's say, for the benefit of the discussion, that there are three levels of physical attraction. A guy or woman (but a man in particular) will need a lot more than just his looks to succeed with an attractive, desirable woman if he's just considered 'cute' rather than 'hot'. Whereas a man who is off the charts in terms of appearance will probably get away with other shortcomings a bit more easily. The first man still has a chance, as he has easily passed the minimum requirement stage looks-wise and the woman does consider him to be handsome, but that's all he has done. Attractive, desirable women - particularly the ones in a certain age bracket, have lots of handsome guys pursuing them, so the novelty and value of appearance alone probably erodes somewhat. The difference between a woman thinking you're shaggable and actually giving you a chance can sometimes be immense.

The reason for that, I assume, is because women in the most desirable bracket have more filters than other women as they're attracting so many desirable guys (and plenty of undesirable ones too for that matter). There seem to be other quirks more associated with pretty women - at least from what I've observed. For example, I've noticed that they're more likely to form a romantic relationship with someone they've got to know over time, perhaps in a social circle or at work (that's just my own observation mind you). That could be related to the more extensive filters they have in place. I do agree with some of the research that suggests that most couples are on a similar level appearance wise, but it doesn't tell the whole story - not by a long way.

Wibbs · 17-12-2014 09:48PM

Pug160 wrote: »

The reason for that, I assume, is because women in the most desirable bracket have more filters than other women as they're attracting so many desirable guys (and plenty of undesirable ones too for that matter). There seem to be other quirks more associated with pretty women - at least from what I've observed. For example, I've noticed that they're more likely to form a romantic relationship with someone they've got to know over time, perhaps in a social circle or at work (that's just my own observation mind you).

There may be another factor too I reckon. Yes on the surface very attractive women seem to have lots of options and yes they will tend to get much more attention, but their numbers of good men as options may be remarkably low as a percentage of that attention. Maybe even lower than a plainer woman. They're more likely to get attention from "players" and indeed friendzone types and more men who are just seeing the visuals and nothing else. Over time that can make them quite defensive in social settings and more sound lads may think "oh oh ice queen/hard work" and not bother. So guys already known from within their social circle have been pre checked as it were, for arsehole factor.

Very attractive men would in general have an easier time as it's still the cultural standard that men approach women* so they at least have more choice. The attractive woman is usually the approached, so that's one less filter.

*though in reality and experiment women nearly always signal first in a social setting. Micro gestures and looks that signal a willingness to engage. Strangely many men are terrible at spotting such signals. One would think it would be innate, but it seems not. Though maybe that's nature at work in another way, IE men who recognise the signals more often are transmitting better social intelligence and if they follow up with an approach are signaling better social confidence? Still one would also think that would be "bred out" by now. Odd one.

Pug160 · 18-12-2014 01:58AM

Wibbs wrote: »

There may be another factor too I reckon. Yes on the surface very attractive women seem to have lots of options and yes they will tend to get much more attention, but their numbers of good men as options may be remarkably low as a percentage of that attention. Maybe even lower than a plainer woman. They're more likely to get attention from "players" and indeed friendzone types and more men who are just seeing the visuals and nothing else. Over time that can make them quite defensive in social settings and more sound lads may think "oh oh ice queen/hard work" and not bother. So guys already known from within their social circle have been pre checked as it were, for arsehole factor.

Very attractive men would in general have an easier time as it's still the cultural standard that men approach women* so they at least have more choice. The attractive woman is usually the approached, so that's one less filter.

*though in reality and experiment women nearly always signal first in a social setting. Micro gestures and looks that signal a willingness to engage. Strangely many men are terrible at spotting such signals. One would think it would be innate, but it seems not. Though maybe that's nature at work in another way, IE men who recognise the signals more often are transmitting better social intelligence and if they follow up with an approach are signaling better social confidence? Still one would also think that would be "bred out" by now. Odd one.

They tend to be far more unforgiving when it comes to guys who don't appear confident. If a guy mumbles or is a bit too drunk etc it's game over usually. You can sometimes get away with it if the woman is below you in terms of physical appearance and is really attracted to you, or if the woman is a bit more mature, but young pretty girls will nearly always reject guys who fall below a certain standard socially - it's like it's wired into their DNA. The only exception to that rule I can think of is young single mothers who are pretty. They have a tendency to be slightly more forgiving if they fancy you.

Although that whole pick up bootcamp thing seems like a load of nonsense and a waste of money, one thing they do might be of value - which is hiring female models for the shy men to talk to and practice on. It would seem a bit odd though, I have to say.

Leeleather · 18-12-2014 06:27AM

Pug160 wrote: »

They tend to be far more unforgiving when it comes to guys who don't appear confident. If a guy mumbles or is a bit too drunk etc it's game over usually. You can sometimes get away with it if the woman is below you in terms of physical appearance and is really attracted to you, or if the woman is a bit more mature, but young pretty girls will nearly always reject guys who fall below a certain standard socially - it's like it's wired into their DNA. The only exception to that rule I can think of is young single mothers who are pretty. They have a tendency to be slightly more forgiving if they fancy you.

Although that whole pick up bootcamp thing seems like a load of nonsense and a waste of money, one thing they do might be of value - which is hiring female models for the shy men to talk to and practice on. It would seem a bit odd though, I have to say.

Why does a pick up boot camp seem like nonsense?

nokia69 · 18-12-2014 10:36AM

Leeleather wrote: »

Why does a pick up boot camp seem like nonsense?

if it works, the only reason is because it tells you that you need to make a move and talk to women, and also try not to worry about the knock backs

paying for that kind of advice is foolish IMO

Leeleather · 18-12-2014 10:54AM

nokia69 wrote: »

if it works, the only reason is because it tells you that you need to make a move and talk to women, and also try not to worry about the knock backs

paying for that kind of advice is foolish IMO

What are you basing this on that the only reason it works is that they make you talk to women?

Plenty of men talk to countless women and get no where, often there is something about their body language, mindset and general behaviours that needs correcting. Like leaning in for example, an instructor can walk over and whisper in the students ear to lean back.

Seriously? · 18-12-2014 11:09AM

Leeleather wrote: »

What are you basing this on that the only reason it works is that they make you talk to women?

Plenty of men talk to countless women and get no where, often there is something about their body language, mindset and general behaviours that needs correcting. Like leaning in for example, an instructor can walk over and whisper in the students ear to lean back.

Sounds a bit like the media training that politicians for example receive to handle the media and attempt to control the message given. They’re both about manipulation at the end of the day.

Wibbs · 18-12-2014 11:20AM

Leeleather wrote: »

Why does a pick up boot camp seem like nonsense?

Couple of issues I have with the whole thing.

It's exploitative, or at least the temptation to be so is very high. There are a subset of young men who feel adrift and are a charm for being exploited by "gurus" selling snakeoil at a price, using the interwebs to bolster sales.

Much of it is snakeoil and dishonest. Examples like telling men looks, height etc don't really matter, it's all about the "game"(that we're selling). Many of the so called gurus are good looking men, so are ahead of the pack from the get go. Quite a number of their on the ground encounters are staged.

It works on a subset of women. The honest PUA types will tell you that the ratio of approaches to numbers then dates and then sex/relationships is a very high one. 1 in a 100 or less. Hardly conducive to dealing with women in general, never mind that the subset of women that it works on might actually be a bad match for many guys.

It turns interaction into a process. That's fine if it's a learning thing, however I would contend that the type of guy who buys into it is more likely to be the type of guy who is addicted to processes in his daily life, a guy on the shallow end of social autism and that's why he has issues with romantic encounters in the first place. The PUA process will really appeal to this type, but IMHO it's not helping and may actually make things worse.

Mainly though it's the exploitation of vulnerable men for profit. Now I'm sure there are PUA guys who are trying to do it honestly and fair play, but IMH it's a small enough number.

Potatoeman · 18-12-2014 11:21AM

Seriously? wrote: »

Sounds a bit like the media training that politicians for example receive to handle the media and attempt to control the message given. They’re both about manipulation at the end of the day.

It depends on how much you are altering yourself. If its just body language its not really manipulative.

ancapailldorcha · 18-12-2014 11:26AM

Wibbs wrote: »

It's exploitative, or at least the temptation to be so is very high. There are a subset of young men who feel adrift and are a charm for being exploited by "gurus" selling snakeoil at a price, using the interwebs to bolster sales.

The thing is, noone else seems to be interested in reaching this subset affrording PUAs the perfect environment in which to proliferate. I do think that it's unethical at the very least but not everyone has the likes of Boards.ie to get free help and advice.

Leeleather · 18-12-2014 11:35AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Couple of issues I have with the whole thing.

It's exploitative, or at least the temptation to be so is very high. There are a subset of young men who feel adrift and are a charm for being exploited by "gurus" selling snakeoil at a price, using the interwebs to bolster sales.

Much of it is snakeoil and dishonest. Examples like telling men looks, height etc don't really matter, it's all about the "game"(that we're selling). Many of the so called gurus are good looking men, so are ahead of the pack from the get go. Quite a number of their on the ground encounters are staged.

It works on a subset of women. The honest PUA types will tell you that the ratio of approaches to numbers then dates and then sex/relationships is a very high one. 1 in a 100 or less. Hardly conducive to dealing with women in general, never mind that the subset of women that it works on might actually be a bad match for many guys.

It turns interaction into a process. That's fine if it's a learning thing, however I would contend that the type of guy who buys into it is more likely to be the type of guy who is addicted to processes in his daily life, a guy on the shallow end of social autism and that's why he has issues with romantic encounters in the first place. The PUA process will really appeal to this type, but IMHO it's not helping and may actually make things worse.

Mainly though it's the exploitation of vulnerable men for profit. Now I'm sure there are PUA guys who are trying to do it honestly and fair play, but IMH it's a small enough number.

As someone who has benefited from it in the past I can tell you the difference it made to be is huge, and this is all free material, I would have loved to have taken a bootcamp if I had the money. Looks and height quite clearly do make a difference, but it is seriously underestimated how effective good "game" is. The point of deemphasising looks and height is that so many men have limiting beliefs around those things, and you really don't need to be good looking or tall to consistently attract hot women. It takes time to get there, but with practice and the right guidance you can get there if you are an average looking guy.

For me, it didn't work on a subset of women, it worked on women in general. How many women aren't attracted to high status cues, such as being relaxed and outcome independent or being self amusing rather than trying to impress. Making a woman laugh at herself is about as universal as it gets, I'd say it's very rare that a woman is turned off by making her laugh at herself.

Wibbs · 18-12-2014 12:19PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is, noone else seems to be interested in reaching this subset affrording PUAs the perfect environment in which to proliferate.

Oh I very much agree. Who else can such men turn to. All too often they'll hear the very well intentioned, but ultimately as much use as bewbs on a bull "just be yourself". If being oneself worked these guys wouldn't have an issue. For me it's up there with telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

Again IMH - and I'm loathe to add another term to the list of medicalised mind states - many of these chaps are suffering from a subdivision of social phobia to varying degrees and with various reasons behind it(autism spectrum, social interaction stagnated in a pre adolescent state kinda things). Then again is the mainstream psychology discipline even looking at it in this way and are there therapies out there? I mean beyond general therapy(which no doubt would be useful for some). Though if I just wanted to rack up the notches I'd be asking a PUA type long before I'd be asking a mainstream therapist. The former are on the ground as it were with tried and tested(if longwinded) theories and practices. I might well need the mainstream shrink after I got through with the notch journey mind you.

In one way PUA bootcamps are following some aspects of phobia therapy by forcing the men to interact with the object of their phobias by approaching as many women as possible. And I could see how that could work to lower the agitated state. It's the ancillary stuff that is the more worrying for me. The process, the "red pill" stuff. Fine for otherwise mentally healthy guys who just need to get over the hump of talking with women, but not so fine for those with more underlying problems, where this could set the stage for obsessive behaviour and a very rigid worldview.

You see this with some of the more honest "gurus" themselves with their collating of approaches, bangs etc and a few who are more honest who say that they can't ever really let go emotionally with a woman. They're always thinking of the process, the next one. The guy Roosh behind Return of Kings, a site that has gotten some blasting around here(and easy to see why) has spoken honestly on this very subject. He has said he can't quite settle no matter how sound and gorgeous the woman is. The deeper he feels himself getting in the more he wants out.

It would also depend on what a guy wants to get from it. The removal of approach and interaction phobia so he can engage with women and the world in a more healthy way, fine. Racking up notches on the bedpost forever looking for the next perfect approach and bang, not so fine IMH. And I'm not talking about the women here BTW, women have the choice whether to shag someone or not. I don't buy into the "a PUA tricked me into bed" victim stuff. At any point in the interplay the woman can choose not to fall on his mickey. I mean the men caught in that mindset and how that could negatively impact their lives and worldviews on women.

Those worldviews are pretty plain to see on PUA forums and blogs and missives. Basically Women(tm) are narcissistic, hypergamous and untrustworthy with an expiry date and you have to see the matrix to be able to deal with them and here are examples of hypergamous and untrustworthy Women(tm) etc. Surprisingly, as quite a number of these dudes are clearly intelligent guys, they seem to miss the possibility that they're actively preselecting for these type of women . There is a huge amount of confirmation(and cultural) bias going on.

"The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society"

Comments