Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 07:34:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Andrew Tate

Started by bgmnts, August 01, 2022, 01:02:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: sevendaughters on August 02, 2022, 12:38:38 PMin a way that is difficult to prove I kind of think the two things are connected by sheer arrogance and contempt for others. agreed with the rest of the post.

I had suspicions this was a more astute post but wasn't sure, yes I think you are right they are linked the grift consumes the grifter.  This is true of many cult leaders also they become they imagined megalomania seeking a thrill of dominance over others to sustain their illusion.

Paul Calf

Ethan is nice. He's not a cunt and explains baldy extremely well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCl2tyA3uK4

rack and peanut

Didn't know where I recognised the name from, did some googling & it turns out I went to school with this free range headed dickwipe. I don't follow MMA or keep in contact with schoolmates so I was unaware of his cuntery but it doesn't surprise me, he was an arrogant, obnoxious gobshite back then and apparently hasn't changed in 20 years (how depressing!).

And I still have all my hair.


Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

Quote from: Paul Calf on August 02, 2022, 03:47:16 PMEthan is nice. He's not a cunt and explains baldy extremely well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCl2tyA3uK4
the MIDI version of "Crawling" playing in the background as he reads Andrew Tate ranting about how breakfast is for cucks

Cold Meat Platter

This is the sparkling water rant dickhead isn't it? Only really know him through him being roundly mocked on Tom Segura's podcast.
He seems like a real jerk.

Joe Qunt

99.99% of people with YouTube channels are cunts. The only decent ones are the silent fellas who fix lamps from the '20s and shit.

BritishHobo

Observer article about the way TikTok pushes his videos:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/revealed-how-tiktok-bombards-young-men-with-misogynistic-videos-andrew-tate?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I keep getting them, even though I don't engage with the videos at all.

It's scary. Each new one of these cunts is worse than the last. Tate doesn't even have the veneer that people like Jordan Peterson do, of pretending to be all about self-improvement. He's just an unashamed misogynistic scumbag.

Paul Calf

Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on August 02, 2022, 09:54:57 PMthe MIDI version of "Crawling" playing in the background as he reads Andrew Tate ranting about how breakfast is for cucks

I hadn't noticed that :D

willbo

I got into PUA in my early 20s because all the girls I liked dated boys who did "teasing/play fighting banter" with them, all my male friends who were popular with girls did "jokey insults" and "teasing play fighting" with the girls they liked, and I just felt totally out of my depth in that world.

 I think "teasing banter" is normal - in fact, I think its a pretty good way to "sense out" someone's personality and "roleplay" how fragile they are and how they react if someone/some event tests them. I think it's probably a good way to see (in a safe environment) how firm someone's inner esteem is and how laid back they are when things get tough.

That's why I was interested in the PUA books, because they were talking about this stuff, talking about how people can tease you as a way to suss out who you are deep down, and, if you're not strong deep down, then you can't handle it. And I related to a lot of that.

I'd had a lot of experiences with girls I liked trying to initiate "play fighting" with me, and me just not knowing what to say and freezing up.

And every time I had tried to talk to other adults about this, they just put up a wall. "that's immature - no one really likes that. Just talk to girls like you would normal people". 

But that was the problem - whenever a girl liked me, I'd talk to them like I would a male friend, asking them what music they were into or whatever, and we'd have a nice chat, and then they'd get bored, and walk off to find a more fun guy who did cheeky teasing with them.

Personally I think "just talk to them like they're normal people" isn't good enough advice. Dating and flirting is a particular "type" of interaction, and needs a certain "funny" frame of mind IMO.

That's not to say that serious people who don't "tease" can't start relationships - I can and did. I just think there's a lot of young people who feel lost in the world of teasy flirting. And I'm not saying PUA is good. There was some genuinely disturbing, bizzare stuff in the books I read (like authors who regularly secretly recorded their conversations with their girlfriends to analyze them afterwards). I just think there needs to be better talk about this stuff.  And more admitting that teasing/negging/whatever is pretty normal and not always a bad thing.

(I mean, when I first noticed my friends doing it, this was in the late 90s. Way before any of us were into the internet. So I don't think PUA made "negging" mainstream. I think it was always a normal part of flirting, and PUA just forced discussion about it. I also don't think the friendly teasing of normal flirting is the same as "put their esteem down" negging. When my friends did it it always cheered girls up.)

I suppose the issue is that the PUA skills are sold to socially awkward men who struggle to communicate at the best of times and aren't self aware. It means that the idea of being playful is often missed and they don't know when to 'tone it down' when a connection is made. You're also dealing with a theory that a woman is a prize, so you get this weird dialectic between don't put women on a pedestal but try and attain this attractive prize.

Sebastian Cobb

I don't know all that much about him but this video of him failing to make a point land in seconds made me crease:
https://twitter.com/bambooney/status/1556559060362821632

sevendaughters

Quote from: willbo on August 17, 2022, 08:24:24 AMAnd more admitting that teasing/negging/whatever is pretty normal and not always a bad thing.

It feels more of a recent thing to be honest. Like a post-60s phenomenon, and thus not natural and more cultural. I can't buy that my parents generation and their elders were all reverse psychologying each other in order to get a fuck. It's not always bad but it feels so transparent, like one evolutionary step from pulling pigtails in the playground.

willbo

#42
Quote from: sevendaughters on August 17, 2022, 08:37:22 AMIt feels more of a recent thing to be honest. Like a post-60s phenomenon, and thus not natural and more cultural. I can't buy that my parents generation and their elders were all reverse psychologying each other in order to get a fuck. It's not always bad but it feels so transparent, like one evolutionary step from pulling pigtails in the playground.

It may be post 60s/WW2. I just think it way predates the internet and to me just seems like an extension of regular British banter culture - the way male friends do it too.

I mean, I'm not really thinking of "negging" so much as the way people in a couple playfully pretend to put the other one down - like a woman saying "look at you, you big silly lump" to a man she loves - that's like...a show of being at ease together to me.  And even sarcastic negging - I just think its normal. Its what I heard between dating couples in my friend groups all through the 90s.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: sevendaughters on August 17, 2022, 08:37:22 AMIt feels more of a recent thing to be honest. Like a post-60s phenomenon, and thus not natural and more cultural. I can't buy that my parents generation and their elders were all reverse psychologying each other in order to get a fuck. It's not always bad but it feels so transparent, like one evolutionary step from pulling pigtails in the playground.

Strikes me that a lot of this pua stuff like negging might be cargo culting/working backwards from observable relatively benign behaviour from genuinely charming people pleasers, gently teasing someone in the right situation is as old as time but a charming person probably gas gleaned enough about the person they're talking and possesses the social skills to work out that can get away with it, they may not have an alterior motive either. Cargo cult it, wrap it up in some bullshit pop-sci and aim it at desperate people and you've got a pernicious creep manual.

willbo

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on August 17, 2022, 09:20:38 AMStrikes me that a lot of this pua stuff like negging might be cargo culting/working backwards from observable relatively benign behaviour from genuinely charming people pleasers, gently teasing someone in the right situation is as old as time but a charming person probably gas gleaned enough about the person they're talking and possesses the social skills to work out that can get away with it, they may not have an alterior motive either. Cargo cult it, wrap it up in some bullshit pop-sci and aim it at desperate people and you've got a pernicious creep manual.

yeah i agree

Pavlov`s Dog`s Dad`s Dead

Quote from: willbo on August 17, 2022, 08:46:25 AMIt may be post 60s/WW2. I just think it way predates the internet and to me just seems like an extension of regular British banter culture - the way male friends do it too.

I mean, I'm not really thinking of "negging" so much as the way people in a couple playfully pretend to put the other one down - like a woman saying "look at you, you big silly lump" to a man she loves - that's like...a demonstration of being at ease together to me.  And even sarcastic negging - I just think its normal. Its what I heard between dating couples in my friend groups all through the 90s.
It's very culturally specific to the British, I think. Maybe even to the English. Source: my life partner grew up in Russia, and we've had plenty of not-so-comic misunderstandings as a result. I'm a bit more clued-up, now, I think, and it's only taken me the best part of 25 years...

There's something very unhealthy about the idea that putting your partner down, and especially in public, is actually a demonstration of the bond between you. I mean, probably it is. Just not in the way you might think. It's that fucked-up British veneer of irony covering anything that might be seen as sincere.

Kankurette

I think there is a difference between negging and couple banter. Couple banter goes both ways and it's generally good natured and friendly (like, I've got relatives who rip the piss out of each other but they clearly love each other). Negging isn't. It's nasty little put-downs. Also, because of my autism, I've always found it difficult to tell the difference between friendly teasing and unfriendly teasing. I'm not good at the ol' bantz. And I'd rather have someone talk music with me than tell me how fat and ugly I am.

Negging is simply a means to an end, so it's always going to be horrible. A social interaction stripped of all meaning beyond "push button, get woman".

I'm always amazed The Game spawned a mainstream PUA industry. I can only presume people got to the bit with the waitress and thought "yup, that's the life for me" and didn't read any further. The ending, where Mystery loses the love of his life because he can't sustain a serious relationship as all he can do with women is chat them up, is about as bleak a thing as I've ever read.

willbo

Quote from: Huxleys Babkins on August 17, 2022, 11:20:43 AMNegging is simply a means to an end, so it's always going to be horrible. A social interaction stripped of all meaning beyond "push button, get woman".

I'm always amazed The Game spawned a mainstream PUA industry. I can only presume people got to the bit with the waitress and thought "yup, that's the life for me" and didn't read any further. The ending, where Mystery loses the love of his life because he can't sustain a serious relationship as all he can do with women is chat them up, is about as bleak a thing as I've ever read.

but then you've got Strauss himself who (as portrayed in the book) used the confidence gained to move on to serious relationships. He even released a sequel book (the rules of the game) about how to be a healthier, fulfilled PUA - like him and not Mystery - and, of course, a later book about how it all left him a broken sex addict in therapy.

Anyway, I at the time thought it was bizarre how "progressive" people criticised the PUAs by saying their lives were empty and soulless, because they were having casual sex. Isn't the same thing said about women slut-shaming?

I tried to ask some online feminists I knew at the time, and they just said (what seemed to me a hasty, spluttering) "oh but its different because when men have casual sex its because they want trophies but when women do it's because they want to, and anyway women who sleep around are rebelling against social rules", but that doesn't really suffice as an answer to me.

I always see feminists and people who want to help young men/give them advice, saying that casual sex is empty, unfulfilling, and done by immature men who can't handle relationships. Yet these same people would never dream of saying the same thing about women who have casual sex. I think there's something...odd to be sorted out there.

Personally I think sleeping around a lot into your 40s show some issues for any gender. whether its "too immature", or just burned out on trying to make relationships work. But ...I just can't get over how so many cool left wing people reflexively say that men who have casual sex need to grow up. When they'd never say the same about women.

sevendaughters

Quote from: Huxleys Babkins on August 17, 2022, 11:20:43 AMI'm always amazed The Game spawned a mainstream PUA industry. I can only presume people got to the bit with the waitress and thought "yup, that's the life for me" and didn't read any further. The ending, where Mystery loses the love of his life because he can't sustain a serious relationship as all he can do with women is chat them up, is about as bleak a thing as I've ever read.

yeah the last few chapters of that book where it's basically a house of grifters in a sad mansion all getting absolutely played is so dark.

weirdly that book was bought for me by a girl I was dating, what a weird move, possible powerplay?

Kankurette

It's still more acceptable for men to have casual sex than it is for women. Unless there's a male equivalent of the wifey/sket dichotomy out there. Women should like sex, but we shouldn't like it too much, you know? Hence why purity balls are still a thing. But having casual sex isn't the issue, it's the way PUAs treat us like a hive mind, or characters in a role play game, not people. They assume we'll all respond a certain way and that we all go for the same type. Although to PUAs I'm barely a woman anyway, I'm more like a piece of furniture.

You also get PUAs like that cunt Zuby who think women should all be super ladylike or men won't want us.

Quote from: willbo on August 17, 2022, 11:36:16 AMAnyway, I at the time thought it was bizarre how "progressive" people criticised the PUAs by saying their lives were empty and soulless, because they were having casual sex. Isn't the same thing said about women slut-shaming?

It's not the having of sex that's empty and soulless, but the means by which that sex is obtained. When you boil flirting down to a series of tick boxes, as PUA culture does, empty and soulless is all you've got.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Kankurette on August 17, 2022, 01:37:57 PMIt's still more acceptable for men to have casual sex than it is for women. Unless there's a male equivalent of the wifey/sket dichotomy out there.

In my personal experience I have only ever been treated negatively for having casual sex and also only ever heard women spoken negatively about for having causal sex by women (perhaps they have been a couple of weird men but it's like 10-1).  This makes a lot of sense as in a largely heteronormative world women having casual sex are in more competition with other women that they are with men.  The adage "why is it men get called players and women get called hoes" is exactly because of a man having lots of causal sex is a rarity, women are somewhat just expected to have more sex - hence why we have all the depictions in US media about men getting weirdly uncomfortable about their female love interest (shock horror) being more experienced - this is why it works, because men are under pressure to have more sex and be the man but in reality they don't.

Male chauvinists and sexists call women whores and sluts because they are sexist pieces of shit that want to control women and they know women are sensitive to sexual insults and whilst a real problem we really need to stop comparing most men to these men with clear agendas and problems.  I worked in a office of mainly women and because I was "sexually liberal" I was seen as untrustworthy, a himbo (was literally called that), not "marriage material" etc.. by the women there, and it was same thing as women find i.e. that these people that are appalled in public are interested in private.

Being a man and "a player" isn't even seen in a purely positive light either, the people that call men "players" are other men that want to be like them and gain from them, lots of other men will hate you for it, women thinking why are they "not players" need to look to other women about this, why are they seeking approval from men who are just morally supportive of other men? are women not morally supportive of women having causal sex? Do men expect women to be morally supportive of men having causal sex? (because if that is the case 99% of female commentary about men and sex is negative).

Men of CaB seriously when have you ever in your life heard a man that fancies a woman go "oh I'm not sleeping with "x" because she has casual sex", 9/10 (that aren't weird) will most likely think maybe "x" will have sex with me because they like causal sex.  The point here is (and believe it or not I've experienced this myself) is that being known as a sexual person can lead people to think that is all there is to you, creating expectations, this absolutely happens regardless of your gender (though it occurs in different ways because in a patriarchal system men are tasked with always approaching women for sex/relationships).

Anyhow if we are talking tropes how about "men will sleep with anything", "men only think with their dicks" why is this never considered as stereotyped negative sexist commentary?

machotrouts

After Alison Hammond, Adele Roberts, and Sam Pepper, probably only the fourth civilian Big Brother housemate to be primarily famous for their post-Big Brother career. Congrats!

Paul Calf

Quote from: willbo on August 17, 2022, 11:36:16 AMAnyway, I at the time thought it was bizarre how "progressive" people criticised the PUAs by saying their lives were empty and soulless, because they were having casual sex. Isn't the same thing said about women slut-shaming?

I'm not sure I've ever really heard this. Personally, I think people like Tate, Russell Hartley and to a lesser extent, Tony Robbins lead empty and soulless lives because they're empty and soulless people.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: willbo on August 17, 2022, 11:36:16 AMAnyway, I at the time thought it was bizarre how "progressive" people criticised the PUAs by saying their lives were empty and soulless, because they were having casual sex. Isn't the same thing said about women slut-shaming?

I agree with PC here, PUAs are not ridiculed because they have causal sex it's because they are virtually to a man are complete misogynistic arseholes preying on and in many cases purposely trying to deceive vulnerable women into sleeping with them.  That is soulless.

Quote"oh but its different because when men have casual sex its because they want trophies but when women do it's because they want to, and anyway women who sleep around are rebelling against social rules", but that doesn't really suffice as an answer to me.

These are two well known generalisations and they might well be true in some cases, certainly men are under pressure in a patriarchal society to prove their worth by sleeping with lots of women, this is what Tate is flogging.  I'm not sure why men and women don't recognise this as a bad thing, society pressuring you into doing things is generally bad but in order for men to be considered in this way they have to be emotional beings and that is not part of patriarchal doctrine either (something that is ignorantly upheld by women all the time sadly).  Women rebelling? I dunno surely women and men can just have sex because they enjoy it, the problem is if you are doing it for any other reason than that then it is going to be soulless and suggestive of insecurity (not exactly the sexist thoughts during sex to being thinking "wait till the lads here about this" or "take that mom and dad!")

QuoteI always see feminists and people who want to help young men/give them advice, saying that casual sex is empty, unfulfilling, and done by immature men who can't handle relationships. Yet these same people would never dream of saying the same thing about women who have casual sex. I think there's something...odd to be sorted out there.

both are shit depending on how they are approached, I think relationships and sex are two different things.  One of the bug bears of my life has been women assuming that sex equals relationship and this has worked both ways with women thinking they can't just have fun without it leading to more or having fun and then thinking it is leading to more.   This though is really more to do with our ridiculously shit views on sex and relationships in this country.

Relationships take time, effort, trust, respect, and you need patience and understanding - it is shared loved.

Sex is a brief (eh) visceral act that basically amounts to rubbing to parts of people bodies together than have evolved to create the sensation of pleasure - it is shared passion. You do not need to understand someones soul to have sex with them ffs.

It's this over-valuing and under-respecting of sex which has made Brits so utterly repressed and awkward about it all.

Kankurette

I thought there was something wrong with me when I was 11 years old because I was a virgin and didn't have a boyfriend. 11. Years. Old.

Trenter, I wonder if they were jealous. I would have been.

BritishHobo

Quote from: willbo on August 17, 2022, 08:24:24 AMI got into PUA in my early 20s because all the girls I liked dated boys who did "teasing/play fighting banter" with them, all my male friends who were popular with girls did "jokey insults" and "teasing play fighting" with the girls they liked, and I just felt totally out of my depth in that world.

Spot-on post - I've always felt this is key to the whole nice guy/douchebag friendzone dichotomy thing that's been around for so long online. 'Girls don't go for nice guys, they only date assholes!' Like you I always felt massively out of my depth when it came to bantering, and used to wonder why all the lads who seemed to be being rude were doing so well, when I was being nice. I think so many of these guys started out thinking of girls at school as special things you could attract by dialling respect up to 11 and treating them as perfect, supernatural beings, to be protected at all costs. What appears to be 'asshole' or 'douchebag' guys are (excepting actual scumbags), largely just guys willing to engage girls as actual human beings by having a laugh with them, and playfully taking the piss out of them. It took me an embarassing amount of time to learn what should be such a fundamentally obvious fact, that OF COURSE girls are human beings, and NO SHIT they enjoy being affectionately ribbed, the same way most people do with their friends. I think I could quite easily have slipped down a PUA route if I'd picked up a certain book or clicked a certain link at the wrong time. Scares me sometimes, that.

The deeply frustrating thing about these manosphere pricks is they don't teach this objectivdly correct fact (women are human beings!), they just leap straight over it to the other extreme, telling these lonely guys that women are actually awful, and so contemptible that there is no point in engaging them as another human being, you should instead manipulate them and lie to them. Which creates the abhorrent toxic feedback loop of men whose single drive in life is to spend time with women, despite being filled with an absolutely terrifying hatred for them.

willbo

My fave PUA book back then was by a guy called Richard LaRuina. He was against the "cocky banter" style of the "Game style" PUAs and was more into creating "deep connections in conversation".

For example, he said that, if you meet someone, you should ask in emotional terms what their interests are like. If you meet a lady into rock climbing, you could ask "what's it like when you're up on those high rocks, how scary is it?" or someone into ballet, you could ask "how does it feel when you're dancing on stage, it must be amazing to be able to express yourself like that?"

Thing is, I genuinely do want to get to know new people I meet and hear what their hobbies are like, so I found his advice helpful for getting to know people and stimulating conversation.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Kankurette on August 17, 2022, 03:15:16 PMTrenter, I wonder if they were jealous. I would have been.

They were I suspect, also one in particular saw me as a threat her friendship with a colleague i.e. if she was spending time with me there was less attention spent on her.  Completely understandable and normal human behaviour.  I was never a PUA type "player" though, I'm just really genuinely interested in other people and liked going on dates/having fun - we are going back a bit now but I used to see myself as kind of a host, for myself (if that makes sense) I'm a complete people pleaser, but not a shrinking violet one an extroverted one which made me quite fun to be around I guess.  That is basically what most people want, someone to entertain them and make them feel special (and there is nothing wrong with that).

This causes problems though because lots of women actually want to own men just like lots of men want to own women (there are some differences here in that for misogynist owning means having sex with whilst for women it means dedication and formal companionship - both have problems with them). This means it is very hard to actually have causal sex with someone for any length of time because people become attached and self-perception/worth becomes entwined with this interaction with others - it's natural to a degree we understand ourselves by what is reflected back to us by others. 

I've been on both sides of this where I've wanted more and felt the pain of being rejected and vice versa - one girlfriend I had really gave me a rough time for breaking up with her, then when she got into another relationship that she ended she said she realised then actually it pretty nasty for the person ending a relationship also - I think you have to live, learn and survive this stuff to a degree.

Anyway back on topic of course a way of getting round all the emotional stuff with causal sex is keep encounters brief and detached which leads to shallow and souls interactions.  It's game theory in that both sides can not get hurt.  Once you are in that mindset it's not hard to see how interactions devolve to basic levels of ego, looks and power, and it's in this environment that the Tate's of this world come into play.