Ryan Rudolph wrote:
That is not his motivation though, his motivation is to simply use women for sexual gratification, and keep moving on to the next one.
That might be a problem, it depends. Based on the literature I read, it seems to be aimed at guys who want a girlfriend but want to establish respect, dominance, predictability and reliability. This may involve experimentation and courting, but almost everyone goes through that, it's a necessary evil. I do think the lifestyle of going out to a bar, getting a girl drunk, using some seduction techniques, screwing her, and never talking to her again is taking it too far, but I don't think most guys really want that. There will be some who do, but that's just life.
And the problem I have is that most women suffer as a result because they feel they are immoral for having sex with a man without some sort of long term emotional commitment.
Well, I think a big part of the seducer literature is to help guys establish a stable long term commitment, rather than getting dumped, cheated on, or dominated and made miserable by the woman.
He even stated that he admires older men that are still able to seduce large numbers of younger women. It seems like a child-like fantasy to me.
Yeah, it's a bit immature, but I think it's understandably so. He admires the skill and intelligence involved in being able to do that, I think most guys would. He admires the refinement, mastery and consciousness of such men, it's not a common thing, and anything belonging to only a minority of the most intelligent, is easily admirable/enviable.
And as far as your position, it would be fine except that men who aren't able to negate women entirely would still be quite miserable, attached and enslaved to the demands of a family lifestyle. That still seems like a waste of a life to me.
I don't think they would necessarily 'as a rule' experience more misery than someone devoting their life to wisdom. I think generally they would suffer less. The very foolish and the very wise suffer the most, because for them there is no balance. Those who can keep a balance, well, they keep a balance.
It would be better for these men to actually pursue polygamous women because they do not suffer or feel bad after having sex with many men, and they do not usually require as much emotional manipulation, and keeping a relationship with them is much less enslaving to the men, and causes much less suffering to the women after he leaves.
I agree, those types of women would be a good place to experiment and learn.
Here is an excerpt from Poison for the heart â€“ I wonder if Kevin still agrees â€“
One thing to be said for polygamy is that it gives a man more freedom - yes, freedom. A lone wife will feel she is entitled to the entirety of her husband's attention. His very closeness gives her a purchase on him. It is as though he presents her with a large surface area to which she can apply her glue - which bonds deathly tight. However, one wife among many will feel no such exclusivity. She will feel no ownership and will make few, if any demands on her husband.
Yes, that's insightful, but keep in mind, there is a price to pay for a culture based on such polygamy. That the Muslim culture produces such crazy radicals who are willing to kill themselves, is arguably very connected to there not being enough wives to go around for everyone, which causes some men to go crazy.
The survival of wisdom will be much more likely if we have guys like Rich Zubaty and Skipair trying to bring the power back over to men in regards to the family unit.
Children will be raised much healthier if they are raised by a father who understands his wife, and I think they will likely be more receptive to wisdom if they come from a family where the father is not an imbecile when it comes to women.
But this is an argument of sacrifice, he should sacrifice a certain amount of psychological freedom for the well being of the children, but living with most women is not worth the constant bother just for the remote probability that the child he raises will be great.
Some men like having a women companion and their drive to have children is strong. It's inevitable, and so we might as well make the most of it. You appreciate the perks of living with your mother don't you? As long as you have your woman under your control, living with her isn't generally so bad.
The individualâ€™s freedom seems to be more valuable than the sacrifice of parenthood.
I agree - but many men don't care about your conception of freedom. They find it appalling. All our present thinkers, scientists and philosophers that we see in the media, from Dennet to Dawkins to Harris, etc, these guys are not miserable and they have wives. They prefer to have wives.