/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

>>1776
>do women have some sort of responsibility to let men they know are courting them that they're not interested?
The world would be so much simpler if this was the case..

Courtship would be better (or at least more fun) if everyone was autistic but anyways
Basically it depends. Yes its the simps fault but women who are socially intelligent enough will understand if they're dealing with an autist or a normie and signal their interest or lack thereof accordingly. Some are autists themselves and struggle to know when they're being courted but that's rare. Others are a bit evil and want to farm the attention, less rare but not super common. A lot of women are anxious as fuck and genuinely paranoid of the intentions of men. Also a lot of women actually don't want a partner and are only doing it due to social pressure or whatever, but aren't really self-aware so send a lot of mixed signals. Other times its because they want to test you to see if you actually desire them, which makes sense but then they don't know when to settle.
TL;DR women are just as stupid, evil, insecure, and/or clueless as men.
Courtship in current year is messy as fuck because there aren't really any common rules or traditions to govern how people should behave, thats why we get all these gurus and le experts who shill self-help and dating advice from hell. At this point, if you aren't willing to invest a lot of fucking time into developing your social skills, it might be better to just go buddha mode and find ways to manage your desire.

>>1778
>Courtship in current year is messy as fuck because there aren't really any common rules or traditions to govern how people should behave, thats why we get all these gurus and le experts who shill self-help and dating advice from hell.

Lol, the ghey cultural left dedicates itself to destroying unspoken rules and traditions and then complains when they're 'successful' at this.

A good rule of thumb is to only take advice about something from people who have already achieved that thing.

As such, you can basically ignore achievementless losers who cry all the time and whine about self help gurus. Of those said self help gurus have actually achieved the thing you want, it's probably worth it to listen to them over some Marxist fag whose accomplished nothing in their life.

>>1776
There are actually four zones:

The creeper zone
The friendzone
The boyfriend zone
The fuck zone

Many of the people here only experience being in the first two zones and aspire to make it to the third. They're barely cognizant that the last zone exists.

>>1779
>the ghey cultural left dedicates itself to destroying unspoken rules and traditions and then complains when they're 'successful' at this
Okay sure except why the fuck are you lumping me in with the "ghey cultural left"
Why do you just arbitrarily posit that I want to destroy unspoken rules and traditions, where did I ever say anything like that
You seem to be a very resentful person

>>1780
The part where you wish everyone had autism — that all sounded rather ghey and leftist to me…

But after rereading your post, you're mostly right. The onus is on men to develop themselves into something attractive and valuable to women. Guys who can't or won't would be better off accepting and becoming comfortable with a life of being disrespected/ignored at every turn.

>>1781
>The part where you wish everyone had autism
That wasn't serious uyggha.
You sure you aren't an autist yourself?
>The onus is on men to develop themselves into something attractive and valuable to women
>Guys who can't or won't would be better off accepting and becoming comfortable with a life of being disrespected/ignored at every turn.
I don't necessarily disagree but that isn't really what I was saying either.
For example, what if what women find attractive and valuable is wrong? Well, whether or not it's wrong is up for debate but assuming it is, then why shouldn't men fight against that? The same applies if the sexes are reversed of course.
Like suppose that women find it attractive for men to always be subservient to their bosses. In that context, being a socialist don't think it's unreasonable for men to be upset about it. But obviously its wrong to just resent an entire sex because of it, and its still important for people to have standards for their partners.
Generally speaking I think what women find attractive in men and vice versa is partially shaped by bourgeois values but also by the necessities of life and to some extent biology, so it's more often than not plastic to whatever social situation they're in. If people don't like those standards then they should focus on other things just because agonizing over those standards is pointless and changing those standards is an "other thing" anyways.
In the perfect ideal world in my head, both sexes would have a shared responsibility to figure out what ought to be to them by engaging the topic together in civil society organizations rather than simply allowing their values to be the result of social conditioning or biology. But to be honest I haven't really thought about this topic enough, it's not a high priority for me.

>>1782
>then why shouldn't men fight against that?
Even if we assume that what women are attractive to is somehow objectively wrong, there isn't really a unified collective of men capable of mounting some united effort to change things, especially in the context of contemporary western society [the very notion of divine moral objectivity has been replaced with post modern values faggotry.]

>Like suppose that women find it attractive for men to always be subservient to their bosses. In that context, being a socialist don't think it's unreasonable for men to be upset about it.
This is such on unreal claim (women attracted to subservient men) that is doesn't even warrant a response.

>Generally speaking I think what women find attractive in men and vice versa is partially shaped by bourgeois values but also by the necessities of life and to some extent biology, so it's more often than not plastic to whatever social situation they're in.

Women are generally attracted to 3 things: status, preselection, and genetic fitness/superiority. Those three things are conditioned by society (i.e., what is given status or how genetic fitness presents itself is conditioned according to social context), but the underlying basis for female attraction remains constant. Women don't recognize the underlying thing that they are attracted to. It doesn't register for them. Instead, they tend to register the emotions of fun and security. Hence, they believe that they are attracted to guys they have fun and feel secure with.

>In the perfect ideal world in my head, both sexes would have a shared responsibility to figure out what ought to be to them by engaging the topic together in civil society organizations rather than simply allowing their values to be the result of social conditioning or biology.
You frequently make the mistake of reification. Taking some abstract concept (i.e., the collective of men and the collective of women) and mistakenly assuming it's a real thing that acts in the real world. It's not. People are largely individuals, pursuing individual interests, which in turn are shaped and conditioned by society.

Obviously, society will change over time. But dedicating yourself to changing society is a fool's errand - one which usually makes society worse. Focusing on changing yourself in a positive direction is much more doable (since you have much more control over your own feelings and action than control over the feelings and actions of others and total strangers) and are more likely to achieve the desired result

>>1783
In b4 some faggot's gotcha hot take
>This is such on unreal claim (women attracted to subservient men) that is doesn't even warrant a response.
As I said, women are attracted to a few fundamental things (status, pre selection, genetic health/fitness). What they don't particularly care about, aren't aware of, and aren't moistened by is the work and effort that might go into these things.

In fact, it's much more attractive to women when they aren't aware of the work (or subservience) which might go into these things. They want status, pre selection, and fitness that seems to come naturally, as if it's a gift from god, not something which had to be created through discipline and practice.

This is why things like self help, work out pictures posted on social media, or even consciously trying to improve one's social skills and experience with women (i.e., learning game) comes across as cringy. It violates this idealized principal that things should just sort of happen naturally for high quality men.

But, when it comes to women as well, they are acting based on their perception rather than any sort of objective reality. Hence, in many cases, presentation is more important than fact or reality. This can cut both ways. Thus, presenting yourself in the right light is crucial and will help determine which zone you end up in.

<unlike spinning your wheels about muhcommunism online, you are able to test out theories of social interaction with women in real time, gaining direct feedback, and refining your practice into something which has the effective impact you desire. In essence, the art of seduction, relationship management, and virtually anything practical in the real world is more scientific than muhimmortal science of Marxism..

>>1783
>Even if we assume that what women are attractive to is somehow objectively wrong, there isn't really a unified collective of men capable of mounting some united effort to change things
Yeah that's true, ideally I'd want both men and women tome come together and consciously work this shit out.
>This is such on unreal claim
Don't be autistic just substitute the claim for a more realistic one and address the actual point
>Taking some abstract concept (i.e., the collective of men and the collective of women) and mistakenly assuming it's a real thing that acts in the real world. It's not.
>People are largely individual
I know this, the point is it doesn't have to be this way. What I want is to constitute men and women into a community and develop a form of group consciousness.
>dedicating yourself to changing society is a fool's errand - one which usually makes society worse
Capitalist realism? On MY leftychan?
I can get being skeptical of aocial movements but come on now

>>1776
>Is the friendzone really just a social construct.
It depends if you chase after barely socialized women with good looks, nice makeup an flashy attire, than yes. If you go for the plain looking ones with a good brain, then no.

It's a bit like those game character creation screens, you only got so many points and you can't max out all the character traits.

*to let men they know are courting them know that they're not interested?