[StephCurrybeast]

Women are children, right?

So if we control our children by telling them to behave because of Santa Claus, then why is it is bad to lie to a woman in order to have sex with her, and lets just assume we use a condom.

Anyone who disagrees is a soft cuckold.

[The Catalyst]

You're right. They're both pretty bad...

[John Michael Kane]

That's a ridiculous analogy.

Lying is a sign of poor social attitudes, regardless if it comes from a man or a woman.

Santa Claus isn't a "lie" so much as he is a modern adaptation of a real-life man known as Saint Nikolaos of Myra who gave gifts to children and others in need:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

Saint Nicholas encouraged giving as a means of helping others, and that there is joy to be found in generosity.

Lying to women (or men) for any reason (to sleep with them, take money from them, etc.) should always be discouraged. Living in a low-trust society makes everyone miserable. Lying only decreases trust and increases nasty attitudes. You pay it forward with the right attitude. I actively avoid women with bad attitudes. I don't need to lie to them to get them in bed. I have more respect for myself than to lower myself just to get my dick wet. You accused all women of being like children, and your own attitude sounds like a man who thinks more like a dog than a rational human being. Seriously, just re-read what you just posted.

Bottom line:

1. Don't hang around liars, men or women.
2. Don't be a liar. Full stop.
3. Find better quality humans to spend time with (this includes women).
4. Read about the story of the Real Santa Claus, it is rather interesting.

[PapayaTapper]

Lying to women in order to have sex with them may or may not be bad but starting inane pointless threads certainly is and anyone who does is a hard jackwagon who will likely be getting one of these in their stocking from Mod Claus:

[General Stalin]

I'm such a soft cuckold.

[GlobalMan]

One of my fondest memories was when I was 22 at a bar in LA with my brother. I was playing pool and killing it by sheer luck, started talking to these two girls, told them I was a producer, spent the rest of my time there with my arms around both of them with the biggest and best grin, then left with them and had one of the best nights of my life.

Would do it 100 more times. Some guys take fun times with bitches way too seriously.

The suggestion that a little story telling with a girl in a dimly lit corner of the night reflects poor character is simply without merit.

[John Michael Kane]

Quote:

The suggestion that a little story telling with a girl in a dimly lit corner of the night reflects poor character is simply without merit.

Do you reserve bullshiting for male friends or business acquaintances too? If you're willing to lie to gain something (in this case pussy) where do you stop the line in lying? Why should I believe you in other areas of life which require honesty? This isn't about just women or sex. It is a universal principle. I'd like to hear your counterpoint as to why lying is acceptable in some instances, but not others. Or do you think lying is great, as long as it serves your purposes?

[GlobalMan]

The answer is simple really- the act of seducing women for short term fun has no connection to real and serious life. In fact I'm not sure how one could give that level of seriousness to women in those situations, or why one would.

A man should save serious thought and pure intention for serious matters- the world of entertainment vagina should be approached as seriously as mini golf, and contemplated with a similar level of vigor.

[LeoneVolpe]

I've bolded much of the following essay, although I strongly recommend reading it in its entirety. I felt its content was relevant to the topic being discussed and felt compelled to share it:

https://illimitablemen.com/2015/06/20/mo...ellianism/

Quote:

Morality & Machiavellianism
“Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life so. Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something.” – Henry David Thoreau

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Individualism & Social Adaptation
3.) Matters of Intelligence
4.) Reputation Guarding & The Nihilism of Debating Morality
5.) Sadistic Morality & Betrayal
6.) Machiavellianism Is Necessary
7.) My Stance
8.) In Closing
9.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

Morals are too emotional to be debated and agreed upon via consensus, rather ironically they must be imposed via a platonic noble lie such as religion. This of course is immoral in a number of ways, but nevertheless it is best characterised as deceit with an altruistic intention. It serves a “greater good,” and thus for those who value ethics or altruistic Machiavellianism, it can be reasonably justified.

Of course, religion is like any corporation or government; it can be co-opted and corrupted by those who do not wish to serve the public good by submitting to the purpose of the organisation – but who use their position to fulfil their own purposes in spite of the organisation. We call a betrayal of such systemic significance corruption. Corruption in a civilizational context is effectively the sabotage of societal infrastructure for self-gain; in spite of the fact that society is reliant upon such infrastructure, as indeed is the person exploiting it.

Very few want to be martyrs, and those up to the task would, in my cynicism, only be puppeted by those pretending to serve the public good whilst really serving themselves. Ironically, to do good, one must be very competent in the strategies commonly employed by “evil.” If “evil” has anything going for it, it is that it does not leave anything to chance. Such a thing is so rare with “the good” that a man of strong moral convictions adept in the strategies commonly associated with “evil” is scarcely encountered. Thus it is such that very few believe in the moral Machiavellian, although such a thing is not common and the business of power is inherently dirty, it is my contention that such men exist in small numbers.

Naturally, powerful knowledge carries a certain taint. The more you understand about the realm of cunning, the more likely you are to employ such things, for power is inherently irresistible. You probably sought such knowledge due to powerlessness in the first place, and often the powerless are more neurotic than the powerful, but when the powerful know not when to stop – this is incorrect.

Whether one uses their power for altruistic or sadistic purposes effectively defines whether the Machiavellian in question is moral or immoral in character, but as sadism reinforces narcissism, it is my thought that the latter is more typical. If one has guiding principles they consider superior to their ego, they can be considered a moral Machiavellian. Nevertheless, such people must guard such principles from public view, for these principles are the individual’s Achilles heel and will be exploited by those who do not share them.

2.) Individualism & Social Adaptation:

In terms of ethics, individualism is the root cause of all sadism, which in my view, is the purest form of immorality for it is more predatory than it is pragmatic. In a collectivist society, ignorant women fuck subpar males out of social pressure, this helps civilisation tick over as it incentivises men to produce.

Ignorant men, on the other hand, sacrifice for family and society because they know no better, they are just happy to have mating rights and a life purpose. Everyone sacrifices for the greater good, and the result is modern civilization. Without civilization, you have tribalism. Civilization was built upon the arched back of the nuclear family sweating and toiling, not individualism. Civilization itself is proof of the Aristotelian adage “the total is greater than the sum of its parts.”

In an individualist society, neither party cares for anything but themselves, and so a scarcity of cooperation causes civilization to socially regress until a point that civilization is no more. Whether this process is slow or quick varies. This is what we mean when we refer to “the decline.”

Individualism promotes Machiavellianism which almost inevitably leads to immorality on a macro-scale. The reason the collapse of the family is so bad for society is because it promotes individualism. This leads to Machiavellianism, which can lead to immorality, which leads to exploitation, sadism and sub-clinical psychopathy. Machiavellianism and Narcissism are socially maladaptive qualities. If you had a family that you cared about and who cared for you, any Machiavellian or Narcissistic quality you showed in spite of this compassion would be biological rather than socialised in its nature. A lack of tribe promotes these qualities, as maladaptive qualities aid survival in the absence of cooperation and loyalty.

Effectively, when one does not have people looking out for them, they feel they have to be more ruthless to be successful. Logically, this feeling makes sense. Those with zero or minimal trustworthy social ties have to be more effective individuals, for they have only themselves to rely on.

The adoption of Machiavellianism as a tool and personal philosophy is, therefore, a rational response to an uncertain world that did not supply the individual with a stable and compassionate family. We can bemoan these things, but we cannot help living in the time that we live. We live in this time, so we must adapt to it.

3.) Matters of Intelligence:

Only intelligent men can really discuss the nuance of ethics and thus, whatever their disposition, cognisantly find a balance between altruism and sadism, principle and incentive. Of course if one is innately sadistic, only the discipline of volition can suppress such a thing.

Stupid men are indoctrinated to be moral. When they see the indoctrination for the inauthenticity that it was, they typically go the complete opposite way and endeavour to become sadistic. There is an absence of mediating force and developed reasoning faculty to temper their decisions, rather, they are completely emotional driven. It takes a smarter man to balance the nuances of his morality in a society powerless to impose a collectively shared moral system.

The idiots value liberty, but they cannot handle it. They simply want the freedom to follow incentive and be sadistic without being called immoral for it. Being called immoral would lead to ostracisation, ostracisation would limit their effectiveness. This is why the immoral care about being called immoral and rather you refer to them as amoral. To make idiots productive in a paradigm where they have considerable liberty, you must impose morality onto them until altruism is their preference.

4.) Reputation Guarding & The Nihilism of Debating Morality:

Just because one is capable of great depravity, it does not mean one should engage in such depravity. And because we lack a collectively imposed and adhered to morality as of current, people will argue subjectivity, redefine meaning, and otherwise be completely disingenuous about these things. The need to “be correct” is greater than the need to adhere to any system of morality with such people.

The altruistic will sacrifice some element of freedom for the greater good, the sadistic will not unless enticed to do so through incentive or a glitch of volition. Hence there is a necessity that the noble lie is imposed, for most are incentive rather than principally driven without it. The noble lie keeps the sadist in check if he believes in it, if he doesn’t, the noble lie will cause such an individual to be ostracised by the majority who adhere to it.

In moral debates it is common to hear vague wishy-washy dissociative rationalisations that “everyone defines their own morals.” But only the people who know they behave sadistically care enough to debate the amoral root of immoral action. It’s as I said in my previous article on morality, just because cosmic mathematics and survival of the fittest are amoral, it does not mean the average man does not have a choice between altruism and sadism. This is a unique choice that you, as a human, possess.

Humans have a capacity for altruism in spite of the amoral root of existence. Blaming your sadism on social Darwinism is disingenuously absurd. Know what you are and accept it. If you don’t like it, change it. Arguing about it with those who are indoctrinated differently, or have a different genetic makeup for morality than you is ineffectually asinine. The noble lie is the closest thing to a moral consensus that can be achieved. Likewise, I didn’t write this article to convince anyone of anything, but rather because I find an exploration of the topic to be a worthy exercise.

5.) Sadistic Morality & Betrayal:

Free of religious/moral impositions people don’t define or create ethical systems, but rather they pick and choose when and how they will apply pre-established ethics and morals. Some people in peace time are innately sadistic, others are innately altruistic. Consider this a spectrum of personality with some overlap depending on context. For example in wartime, we must all be destructive to survive – all have a capacity for destruction. Necessity however does not constitute enjoyment. There is a difference between the man who is destructive when wartime comes, and the man who cannot wait for war to begin.

Soldiers often refer to the battlefield as being the eighth incarnation of hell, but note the eeriness of the man in the battalion who seemed to revel in the chaos. These are the sadists that embrace their true nature in a socially acceptable environment, where other than the battlefield would acts of barbarity be any better camouflaged?

The assumption of the “amoral” sadist is absurd, it is nought but a projection of one’s own morals (or lack thereof) on to those who are more altruistic in their nature. It is the notion that absent an implicit or explicit threat of force, others will enter your property, pillage it, and rape any vaginal commodity occupying said property should the opportunity present itself. It is the assumption that the only thing that prevents people from doing things which violate your rights is your power, not an altruistic aspect inherent to an individual’s natural volition. But then it is only logical a sadist would think this, for the sadist unknowingly projects, he thinks because he finds exploitation pleasurable than this is a human rather than individualised trait.

One must remember that like a woman the sadist only respects power, and thus has no frame of reference for innate altruism. It is because of this that the sadist completely disregards the notion that one may wish not to do depraved things, because they themselves would do those things if they could get away with them. Morally we are a diverse species, but in a turn of irony, much like the idiotic altruist indoctrinated by the noble lie, the sadist holds everyone to their own moral expectations without considering the nuance of individual differences.

On this tangent, there is an important lesson to be taught. Some people will betray you for lacking power, others will not. Women in matters of romantic relation invariably will, for this is how they are wired. Some men shall, but not all. When you meet a person you should try to ascertain whether they’re predisposed to altruism or sadism. Once you know this, you will be able to deduce whether they will betray you because it brings them pleasure, or would betray only if it were a last resort – eg: as a means to survive.

Sadists are a bad bet because one cannot rely on a sadist to cooperate out of altruistic volition, but rather, one must constantly outsmart the sadist to receive their cooperation. It is a high cost for cooperation, and many would better spend their time with individuals who are not so expensive to maintain an alliance with. As such it stands to reason that if you are a sadist, you are a bad bet to all who know you. In absence of a capacity to change such an element, a sadist will be forced to hide or otherwise suppress such sadism, sex notwithstanding. In fact, I recommend to every sadist that comes upon this text to confine this aspect of their nature to the bedroom. Naturally this is a recommendation, not a command, and ultimately the choice lies with the individual.

6.) Machiavellianism Is Necessary:

No matter your disposition, Machiavellianism is necessary. If you cannot impose an altruistic moral code on everybody, then thoughtless (rather than low risk) altruism is worthless. Note how easy it is to lead any man down a path of incentive, but how one must tell a noble lie to lead him to altruism if it does not come innately. It is because of this that Machiavellianism always comes up trumps, because no matter what morals people consent to, the power of psychology can be used to override their preferences by limiting their options and leveraging their biases.

Altruism is trumped by sadism in tactical matters and altruism only works so long as everyone is being altruistic. All it takes is one sadist to ruin everything and start game playing. Then all the altruists find out they were being played, want to learn how to do what the sadist did to play them, and risk becoming sadists themselves. Don’t be an altruistic idiot, ration your altruism, but don’t expect you will find salvation in unfettered sadism either.

To be frivolously ruthless is almost as inept as to be frivolously altruistic. Always cost-benefit, always analyse, always have a contingency, be altruistic when you can afford to be; it’s therapeutic and it’s great for your reputation.

7.) My Stance:

The altruistic are too easily exploited, the sadistic, too needlessly destructive in their exploitation. The plausible deniability in writing about such subjects lies in the possibility that such knowledge can be used for altruistic purposes in defence against the sadistic. The fact that the sadistic may use such knowledge more effectively than the altruistic is not my concern.

In a sense, you could say I am a psychological arms dealer. I don’t ask what you do with the arms, so invariably in matters of psychological warfare I will end up arming both sides.

Machiavellianism is not only power, but it is complicit with whatever ideological agenda you possess prior to reading here. I have men, women, Christians, Muslims, self-confessed psychopaths as well as hopeless moralists in the readership. The desire for power is universal, it is how that power is used and with what intent which varies. I do not expect you all to agree with my views, but likewise I do not expect you to read my writings should you prove unable to question your own viewpoint.

I put myself first, I enjoy writing and I enjoy Machiavellianism. So for me, this is a particularly profitable marriage. I don’t take responsibility for what my readers do due to my writings. So am I completely moral by the strictest standards, am I a paragon of virtue? Well no, I am far from perfectly virtuous, but then an absence of saintliness does not necessarily make one predatorily devilish, I’d see myself as somewhere in the middle.

8.) In Closing:


I don’t really like to talk about myself. I am a private man. I realise I have talked about myself more than I would typically, but this is with good reason. I make moral arguments now and again, and then I write about the dark triad. People are mesmerised by this seeming contradiction. I suppose most people are more binary in their morality, whereas I am more fluid. I consider fairly virtuous most of the time, but when I meet people who don’t value altruism, I detect this and suspend my altruism in their company.

Does that make me a sociopath? Those of the strictest morals would claim so, whilst those with the loosest would think the contrary. Perhaps rather simply, knowing what I know about the darker side of humanity means I will not allow myself to be exploited unfavourably. I believe in the balance of power, treat the sadistic sadistically, and the altruistic, altruistically.

[John Michael Kane]

(12-28-2016 10:57 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

The answer is simple really- the act of seducing women for short term fun has no connection to real and serious life. In fact I'm not sure how one could give that level of seriousness to women in those situations, or why one would.

A man should save serious thought and pure intention for serious matters- the world of entertainment vagina should be approached as seriously as mini golf, and contemplated with a similar level of vigor.

Demonstrably false. There are legal and social ramifications for not telling the truth. False representations erode trust, no matter what the environment. This is not just about lying, but also withholding information.

What if a woman has worked as a whore for ten years, but pretends to be a saint to marry some unsuspecting man? Her failure to disclose the truth makes the man's judgement to get married uninformed at best, and perilous at worst.

Short term fun is just that, fun, while it lasts. Often there are no serious consequences. But false rape accusations, lawsuits, loss of reputation, STD's, unplanned pregnancies etc. are just a few of the unexpected downsides that can, but don't always manifest themselves.

Honesty or dishonesty comes with tradeoffs. Obviously, if you tell the truth all the time, it may hurt your chance of getting laid. Still, not telling the truth says that you don't think women will find the real you attractive enough to sleep with you? I don't get it. I just think it is self-deception more than anything.

Also, encouraging fabrications simply for the point of telling a lie to your advantage, you didn't say which circumstances (other than to gain pussy) it is NOT acceptable to lie. This is a philosophical question, not just a how do a I get my dick wet question.

I've seen you post many great opinions on this board, but I find your "it is just fun" response, a tad lacking.

Some further food for thought: http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/...fense.html

[dallasguy]

Anyone who has to lie to get laid is a hardcore betacuck. You can't get laid because the real you is a creepy loser

[wi30]

(12-28-2016 09:16 PM)StephCurrybeast Wrote:  

Women are children, right?

So if we control our children by telling them to behave because of Santa Claus, then why is it is bad to lie to a woman in order to have sex with her, and lets just assume we use a condom.

Anyone who disagrees is a soft cuckold.

(12-28-2016 11:26 PM)dallasguy Wrote:  

Anyone who has to lie to get laid is a hardcore betacuck. You can't get laid because the real you is a creepy loser

Everyone in this thread is either a soft cuckold or a hardcore betacuck.

Roosh, can you change my title from Alpha Male to Switzerland? I'm rather indifferent on this discussion.

[GlobalMan]

(12-28-2016 11:11 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

What if a woman has worked as a whore for ten years, but pretends to be a saint to marry some unsuspecting man? Her failure to disclose the truth makes the man's judgement to get married uninformed at best, and perilous at worst.

I see zero connection between a former whore (or any woman) deceiving a man into marriage, and a guy bullshitting a girl in a bar one night. That's silly.

This is not a comparison by even the most wild of imaginations.

Quote:

Honesty or dishonesty comes with tradeoffs. Obviously, if you tell the truth all the time, it may hurt your chance of getting laid. Still, not telling the truth says that you don't think women will find the real you attractive enough to sleep with you? I don't get it. I just think it is self-deception more than anything.

You don't get it because you equating this nothingness of chasing girls for a night with the meaningful and serious part of a man's life. There is no "self deception" at play.

Quote:

Also, encouraging fabrications simply for the point of telling a lie to your advantage, you didn't say which circumstances (other than to gain pussy) it is NOT acceptable to lie. This is a philosophical question, not just a how do a I get my dick wet question.

I did. The distinction is clear and plain.

And no, this is not philosophical question in the slightest.

Quote:

I've seen you post many great opinions on this board, but I find your "it is just fun" response, a tad lacking.

Sorry to disappoint

------
Somewhere in that mathematical argument you've removed life.

If whether or not one has bullshitted a girl in a bar is the basis for a judgement of their moral character as a man then I fear for the sanity of those asking the question.

[cascadecombo]

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-28-2016 10:57 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

The answer is simple really- the act of seducing women for short term fun has no connection to real and serious life. In fact I'm not sure how one could give that level of seriousness to women in those situations, or why one would.

A man should save serious thought and pure intention for serious matters- the world of entertainment vagina should be approached as seriously as mini golf, and contemplated with a similar level of vigor.

GM, that is part of the answer, but only a part.

The most basic answer is this: the ideas of truth and honesty in the sense that men think about them day-to-day simply have no relation to the way the game between men and women is played. To think they do is to make a category error and is, indeed, the very definition of the "blue pill" if that hoary term is to have any meaning at all.

Factual truth is irrelevant to women and to the sexual arena in general, and men who slavishly adhere to it while attempting to hunt down that elusive and treacherous quarry are not being moral or honorable -- they are acting like uncomprehending fools. All's fair in love and war, as they say; and any man who neglects to use all the trickery, devices and artifice he can muster in this desperate context is like a soldier who believes it's "dishonest" to deceive the enemy. That is a fatal misunderstanding, and it's strange to see it entertained even for a moment on what is supposed to be a players' forum.

The only lies that a decent man must avoid when it comes to women -- if at all possible -- are the lies that can really hurt them in a serious way; and these are never factual lies, they are emotional deceptions. You can tell a girl that you're any age she'll believe (and that's to your advantage); you can tell her that you do for a living whatever it is that intrigues her and makes her wet; and what's more, you'd be a fool not to say those things if you can get away with them, and -- this is something so many doltish men cannot understand -- none of them will ever be seriously held against you by the female herself after the fact if you've managed to seduce her, and are irrelevant if you haven't. They all understand the game and know how it's played; and they all lie like they breathe.

What you should never do is to tell a girl you love her if you don't mean it, because that is terribly important to them and must never be dissimulated. You should not do things that are grossly emotionally dishonest; you should not make the girl believe you're very serious about her in a certain way if that is not your intention. Beyond that, it's all fair game.

[GlobalMan]

Lizard thank you for that- you have explained exactly the nuance and meat of what I feel on the matter.

Too often, still, men are getting taken in by false moral equivalencies on these matters- when she already has a thumb on the scale.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Also to clarify a point in the previous post:

The most important reason not to tell a girl that you love her if you don't or are serious about her if you aren't is not for her own sake; because women themselves do this at all times, and without the slightest regret or compunction. Rather, the reason is one's own safety and peace of mind. A scorned woman is a disaster to be avoided at almost any cost; and this is why one should not emotionally deceive women in a way that will drive them crazy or turn them against you once the deception has been revealed.

In the sphere of eros, truth and lies on any level are infinitely less important than the evil business at hand.

[Truth Teller]

(12-28-2016 11:26 PM)dallasguy Wrote:  

Anyone who has to lie to get laid is a hardcore betacuck. You can't get laid because the real you is a creepy loser

Game, at the core of it, is very straightforward. Develop yourself into an attractive man whom women are sexually attracted to.

If you can approach a woman and tell her what you like about her and why you do in a calm, non-chodeish way, then escalate from there, you're 95%+ of the way there.

[Atlanta Man]

I lie to women like it makes my teeth white, to get laid and feel no remorse. Women play their games , I play mine- I play to win. Honesty for me with 99% of women is "I want to fuck you and cum in your mouth. I also want to fuck your cute friends. After I fuck you for 2- 3 weeks I will not want you anymore and ignore your attempts to communicate with me." , that is honesty. Also "Hey what is up, you seem cool." is really "hey nice face and tits , wanna fuck?" if I am honest. Without lies, society does not function well between the sexes.

[The Catalyst]

(12-29-2016 01:28 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

I lie to women like it makes my teeth white, to get laid and feel no remorse. Women play their games , I play mine- I play to win. Honesty for me with 99% of women is "I want to fuck you and cum in your mouth. I also want to fuck your cute friends. After I fuck you for 2- 3 weeks I will not want you anymore and ignore your attempts to communicate with me." , that is honesty. Also "Hey what is up, you seem cool." is really "hey nice face and tits , wanna fuck?" if I am honest. Without lies, society does not function well between the sexes.

There's a difference being dishonest and being tactful.

[Gorgiass]

(12-29-2016 01:36 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

There's a difference being dishonest and being tactful.

Finer line than you might think.

Hate to encourage the OP's relentless creation of low quality content, and yet I must. Anyone who's getting laid is lying to women to some degree. When I go for the pull, inviting her back to see that really cool thing we were talking about earlier, I'm lying. When she says "OK, but we're not having sex" and I respond "Slow down Turbo, I don't kiss until the third date!" I'm lying. Additionally, I lie about my age, how long I'm in town for, whether I'm single, timelines of when I was on vacation or doing other interesting stuff, and other trivial stuff regularly and not so trivial stuff occasionally. In many instances women know something is a lie but play along anyway because they're having fun.

And they return the favor. She says she'll meet up on such a night and then flakes. Puts on a sweet front and then goes through my digital stuff while I shower. Lies about political, social and moral beliefs, sex partners, education history...you name it there's a guy on this forum who's been lied to about it.

It's not necessary to lie to guys about things in this manner because we can make a case with logic rather than emotion. GlobalMan knows that he's a master at whatever he does, and I'm sure it adds more value to the world than being a producer of mindless media. He could convey this to us and generate respect and interest, but he couldn't convey that to a woman and generate attraction nearly as easily. Who's the loser here anyway? They both had a good night, he gets to tell people about the hottie he banged, she gets to tell people about the producer she banged, and life goes on.

[Cattle Rustler]

Bitches don't think it's bad when they lie about their number of dicks taken in by a factor of 10.

[Kona]

When I was a kid I lied to Santa Claus to get better presents.

Aloha!

[John Michael Kane]

Quote:

I see zero connection between a former whore (or any woman) deceiving a man into marriage, and a guy bullshitting a girl in a bar one night. That's silly.

This is not a comparison by even the most wild of imaginations.

That wasn't my point to make a direct comparison. It was to draw something in totally different leagues just show you two ends of a massively long and slippery slope. Those two circumstances are not equal.

My point is that lying, or deception, can and does have consequences. If a man (or woman) makes a habit of using deception in dating, are you going to suddenly switch it "off" if you decide to go for a LTR or marriage?

Perhaps you are short-term oriented only, and don't care at all about ever LTR/marriage? If that's how you feel and are self-aware, I say okay. But if you honestly think something less than the truth is the best way to interact with women that moves into a long-term situation, I think you've shot yourself in the foot.

Quote:

You don't get it because you equating this nothingness of chasing girls for a night with the meaningful and serious part of a man's life. There is no "self deception" at play.

You don't think women ever try to convert short-term flings into long-term ones? We all know that they do. It isn't a smart strategy on their part, but men in general can, and sometimes do, fall for their short-term flings. Maybe that's never happened to you? If so, that's your experience. If you started out with something less than honesty, that undermines a relationship.

Quote:

Also, encouraging fabrications simply for the point of telling a lie to your advantage, you didn't say which circumstances (other than to gain pussy) it is NOT acceptable to lie. This is a philosophical question, not just a how do a I get my dick wet question.

Quote:

I did. The distinction is clear and plain.

And no, this is not philosophical question in the slightest.

Maybe I read the wrong philosophical texts, but determining The Truth and objective and subjective values is what I recall my philosophy classes being largely about.

Quote:

I've seen you post many great opinions on this board, but I find your "it is just fun" response, a tad lacking.

Quote:

Sorry to disappoint

No harm, no foul. I enjoy a spirited debate, even though we clearly vigorously disagree. I find respectful debate with you and any other RVF member to be one of the reasons I find this place home. Any place where men can agree to disagree and remain civil is alright by me. Can't win 'em all.

Quote:

------
Somewhere in that mathematical argument you've removed life.

If whether or not one has bullshitted a girl in a bar is the basis for a judgement of their moral character as a man then I fear for the sanity of those asking the question.

I'll check in with my shrink soon, thanks for the reminder.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-29-2016 01:54 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Bitches don't think it's bad when they lie about their number of dicks taken in by a factor of 10.

And the reality is that a lot of the time they don't really care that you lie to them either.

It would be like hooking up at a comic book convention with a cosplayer and then getting angry at each other because "yeah, I'm not actually Deadpool but you're not actually Black Widow either!"

I once tripled my confessed notch count while circling a girl in my social group.

Her interest tripled.

She borderline attacked me at a party later that week. She didn't want to know the truth. She wanted the fantasy. She was happy during and happy afterward. The cat that got the cream, so to speak.

Win/win.

Seriously, this is not a interweb location for moral zealotry. If this famous PUA forum turned 180 and trudged all the way back to some sort of Victorian era one stop shop for sin-shaming then it'd be quite the transformation, but it's not going to happen and frankly I think pushing too hard in that direction borders on pointless troublemaking.