I should point out something that may be taboo for most people. I'm antifeminist and don't feel bothered with saying it, and I don't expect the usual ad hominem attacks to pop out on this forum.
Basically, any action that triggers emotions directly or indirectly in other people is either right or wrong. Therefore, when a woman rejects someone, her rejection is either justified or unjustified, based on the motivations behind it.
* She may be rejecting a man for morally objective reasons - for instance, because she's sure he cannot meet certain objective criteria that would make him objectively worth loving, because she's already taken and strongly believes in monogamy, or because she will soon be leaving the country forever and he is unlikely to come with her.
* She may be rejecting a man for empathic reasons - for instance, because she's already taken and wouldn't want to make her lover jealous, even if she disagreed with monogamy.
* She may be rejecting a man out of feminine lust - for instance, because he isn't "confident" enough, i.e. he isn't controlling other men, or because he is "needy", i.e. wants to form strong bonds with her.
* She may be rejecting a man out of cold self-interest - for instance, because he cannot provide as much wealth to her as the next guy.
It's easy to see that a woman is justified in rejecting someone for morally objective or empathic reasons, but not out of lust or self-interest. Also, moral objectivity and empathy cannot coexist with lust and self-interest, although it's beyond the scope of this post to explain why.
Now, let's look at the "nice", "needy" guy, whom women shun like holy water. Refraining from cultivating a sense of dominance, and thus being nice, is a quality. Dominance is a bad thing, it hurts and cripples its victims. Being "needy" by wanting to form strong bonds is also a quality, as it allows people to help each other in profound ways; indeed, not being "needy" in this sense is a defect. If a woman loses interest in a man because he has qualities such as the above, she either believes she has a deeper understanding of what true qualities are than the man she is rejecting, or she is rejecting him because she concerns herself more with her lust and self-interest than with objective measures of worth. But if she really did have a deeper understanding as suggested, she would arguably want to reveal her understanding of things to the man involved. What women do instead, when asked about the reasons for their rejection, is lie through their teeth, further supporting the idea that they act out of self-interest instead of objective morality. They then tell the man that they should be "just friends", showing that they have no real understanding of how friendship works (hint: it does not involve trying to ignore the friend's suffering for the sake of personal convenience), and wander off, feeling proud of seeming a bit more desirable for the day. This is not very ethical.
I mention all this because some of you have mentioned issues regarding PUAs and the evolutionary psychology of feminine lust. Rather than merely describing these issues as facts, it would help to identify their moral value on a case-by-case basis. If the facts are just, then they must be taken into account as moral prerogatives; if they are unjust, however (and they are), then they must be stringently opposed, along with those who brought them about or endorses them.
The whole PUA thing bothers me for the obvious reasons: it is about sinking into dishonesty, cruelty and apathy for the sake of persuading the kind of woman who buys into PUA garbage to sleep with you.
Dating also bothers me, because I need to trust the person involved in order to love her, and if I do trust her, I expose myself to a lot of deceit, to the pain her potentially selfish rejection causes me and to the neglect she would exhibit towards that pain; and all of these merit retaliation, which is in most cases so inconvenient to apply and so limited in scope that it cannot be relied on as a consolation.
The only sane thing I can do in light of this is to refuse to contribute to the welfare of women or save them from their difficulties, though I make an exception of those who have demonstrated that they are motivated by strong principles, rather than whim or personal ambitions, in all aspects of their lives, including romance. Nowadays, if I see a female stranger getting sexually assaulted in the street, I would walk by without so much as batting an eyelash, because I could reasonably assume that she would treat me with deceit, callousness and cruelty if I allowed myself to trust her. It may sound harsh, but so are the standards that women have (for their own benefit) set up in dating.
Basically, any action that triggers emotions directly or indirectly in other people is either right or wrong. Therefore, when a woman rejects someone, her rejection is either justified or unjustified, based on the motivations behind it.
* She may be rejecting a man for morally objective reasons - for instance, because she's sure he cannot meet certain objective criteria that would make him objectively worth loving, because she's already taken and strongly believes in monogamy, or because she will soon be leaving the country forever and he is unlikely to come with her.
* She may be rejecting a man for empathic reasons - for instance, because she's already taken and wouldn't want to make her lover jealous, even if she disagreed with monogamy.
* She may be rejecting a man out of feminine lust - for instance, because he isn't "confident" enough, i.e. he isn't controlling other men, or because he is "needy", i.e. wants to form strong bonds with her.
* She may be rejecting a man out of cold self-interest - for instance, because he cannot provide as much wealth to her as the next guy.
It's easy to see that a woman is justified in rejecting someone for morally objective or empathic reasons, but not out of lust or self-interest. Also, moral objectivity and empathy cannot coexist with lust and self-interest, although it's beyond the scope of this post to explain why.
Now, let's look at the "nice", "needy" guy, whom women shun like holy water. Refraining from cultivating a sense of dominance, and thus being nice, is a quality. Dominance is a bad thing, it hurts and cripples its victims. Being "needy" by wanting to form strong bonds is also a quality, as it allows people to help each other in profound ways; indeed, not being "needy" in this sense is a defect. If a woman loses interest in a man because he has qualities such as the above, she either believes she has a deeper understanding of what true qualities are than the man she is rejecting, or she is rejecting him because she concerns herself more with her lust and self-interest than with objective measures of worth. But if she really did have a deeper understanding as suggested, she would arguably want to reveal her understanding of things to the man involved. What women do instead, when asked about the reasons for their rejection, is lie through their teeth, further supporting the idea that they act out of self-interest instead of objective morality. They then tell the man that they should be "just friends", showing that they have no real understanding of how friendship works (hint: it does not involve trying to ignore the friend's suffering for the sake of personal convenience), and wander off, feeling proud of seeming a bit more desirable for the day. This is not very ethical.
I mention all this because some of you have mentioned issues regarding PUAs and the evolutionary psychology of feminine lust. Rather than merely describing these issues as facts, it would help to identify their moral value on a case-by-case basis. If the facts are just, then they must be taken into account as moral prerogatives; if they are unjust, however (and they are), then they must be stringently opposed, along with those who brought them about or endorses them.
The whole PUA thing bothers me for the obvious reasons: it is about sinking into dishonesty, cruelty and apathy for the sake of persuading the kind of woman who buys into PUA garbage to sleep with you.
Dating also bothers me, because I need to trust the person involved in order to love her, and if I do trust her, I expose myself to a lot of deceit, to the pain her potentially selfish rejection causes me and to the neglect she would exhibit towards that pain; and all of these merit retaliation, which is in most cases so inconvenient to apply and so limited in scope that it cannot be relied on as a consolation.
The only sane thing I can do in light of this is to refuse to contribute to the welfare of women or save them from their difficulties, though I make an exception of those who have demonstrated that they are motivated by strong principles, rather than whim or personal ambitions, in all aspects of their lives, including romance. Nowadays, if I see a female stranger getting sexually assaulted in the street, I would walk by without so much as batting an eyelash, because I could reasonably assume that she would treat me with deceit, callousness and cruelty if I allowed myself to trust her. It may sound harsh, but so are the standards that women have (for their own benefit) set up in dating.
