LR Insane resistance from married chick

[The Byronic Man]

Holy moly, didn't expect this thread to blow up. I haven't been able to respond more quickly, and don't have the time to read every post, but I'd like to say the following:

1. The complexity of perspectives shared is exactly why it's a philosophical issue. We're all speaking from different philosophies, so until we address them, we're only speaking superficially. The objections above presuppose that the moral actor is society/religion. My moral actor is the individual. So you can tell me it's it's wrong because it hurts others all day long, but it would be irrelevant because my moral actor is different.
2. Because the moral actor is the individual, whether this is the best course of action for me, short-term and long-term, is the real question here. I considered the risks worth the long-term benefits of overcoming LMR with this lady.
3. I believe that a couple would not cheat if the relationship is healthy. She wanted to have sex with me, so I knew he wasn't the right person for her. The contract to not have sex with other people when one's partner is not right is illogical.
4. The Golden Rule is illogical.
5. So is karma.
6. Human beings have free will. That means we have the choice to value or reject logic at any given time. Neuroscience disagrees, but that conclusion is based on mistaken premises (won't get into it here, but know it's based on the pervasive trend of increasingly bad philosophy, e.g. mistaking efficient causation as the only kind of causation and misunderstanding the philosophy of mind).

For 99% of people, the moral actor is society/religion. When discussing ethics with these 99% of people, we need to at least establish why the moral actor is the individual; until then, it's a complete waste of time. And I just don't have the time to discuss meta-ethics here. But if you're interested, read Aristotle and stay away from New Atheism (which mistakenly rejects free will, which ironically makes ethics a moot point).

P.S. A common objection towards individualistic morality is that it makes people sociopaths. Illogical people, regardless of their morality, become sociopaths. The logical person understands that cooperation with other logical people is the most beneficial kind of relationship. A logical person also values a rational society, and if one shares this value, he has the responsibility to promote reason as the primary means of survival and to withdraw or halt the transference of misconduct from being irrational. A rational society is one that devises institutions that let independent individuals enjoy or suffer 100% the consequence of their actions. A rational society, then, is itself a value each indvidual has to choose for himself. In choosing it, he sees his selfish interests as being extended across his whole lifespan; he sees a rational society as serving his long-term interests and seeing irrational men as those to avoid.

P.S.S. 99% of people mistakenly think selfishness is bad. This comes from thinking society/religion is the moral actor. We can begin to see where most ethical discussions need to start. And how from a mistaken premise follows incorrect conclusions. Address the premise, not the conclusions.

P.S.S.S. For those wondering, I'm still having sex with this lady, and we talk about who to have threesomes with. I also got her studying philosophy with me! I genuinely think if everyone were to highly value reason, we wouldn't have LMR, social double-standards, etc. I think all these issues with women (and the rest of society) come from illogical thinking. Emotions are indeed automatic, but they stem from our values, and we can change our values through logic (this is why introspection is key--bad emotions prompt us to review our values, and through the power of reason, we can identify good/bad values, and subsequently replace bad values with good values).

 

[Landlord]

My moral actor is the individual. So you can tell me it's it's wrong because it hurts others all day long, but it would be irrelevant because my moral actor is different.

I said I wasn't going to reply anymore on the thread, but this is just way too over the top.
Your 'moral actor is different?' Really? Do you even see the drivel that is spilling out of the ends of your fingers on to the screen?
Does your 'Moral Actor' tell you it's ok to dropkick babies and release Sarin gas in the subway as well?

Another way to state your post is simply that "I'm the only person that matters——because I said so."
I'm not sure if that makes you a sociopath, or just a big fat spoiled baby.

I'm damn sure that the pseudo-intellectual 'philosophy' you keep using to gift-wrap excuses for being a dick is very self serving.

A defensible logical argument can be constructed for ANY course of action. But in fact Aristotle wrote that some activities (EXPLICITLY including adultery) are empirically BAD in ANY quantity and condition, and therefore not qualified to be judged in the same crucible of logic that applies to other ethical decisions. (Your little threesome will have to carry on without our man Aristotle.)

Meanwhile, here's hoping that this husband, ——who you with your solitary wisdom and superior perspective have deduced is 'not the right one' for her ——discovers you and snips your 'Moral Actor' clean off. After all——that IS his 'free will'.

 

[The Byronic Man]

Your 'moral actor is different?' Really? Do you even see the drivel that is spilling out of the ends of your fingers on to the screen?

I'm not surprised you'd feel that way. Most people do because they believe society/religion being their moral actor dogmatically. The rigorously logical man who approaches opposing views in a rational manner is a rare breed.

Does your 'Moral Actor' tell you it's ok to dropkick babies and release Sarin gas in the subway as well?

What reason do you have to think my moral actor tells me it's okay to dropkick babies or release gas in the subway? Do you even know what a moral actor is, let alone what morality is?

Another way to state your post is simply that "I'm the only person that matters——because I said so."

No. The logical person knows that other people matter because they can benefit/harm him. Did you not read the part where I said that cooperative relationships are beneficial?

I'm not sure if that makes you a sociopath, or just a big fat spoiled baby.

Since you're not sure, I'll tell you since I'm sure: That's a false dichotomy.

I'm damn sure that the pseudo-intellectual 'philosophy' you keep using to gift-wrap excuses for being a dick is very self serving.

Someone who is able to explain why he disagrees with you is being pseudo-intellectual? Do you know what philosophy is (need to ask because it has a bad rap due to the public's gross misunderstanding)? Isn't it hypocritical of you to preach against being a "dick" when you're being one right now?

A defensible logical argument can be constructed for ANY course of action.

You're not understanding the difference between soundness and validity.

But in fact Aristotle wrote that some activities (EXPLICITLY including adultery) are empirically BAD in ANY quantity and condition, and therefore not qualified to be judged in the same crucible of logic that applies to other ethical decisions. (Your little threesome will have to carry on without our man Aristotle.)

No. He is not making the tautological claim that wrongful sexual activity is wrong, but the more specific and contentious point that marriages ought to be governed by a rule of strict fidelity. Not to mention I have yet to commit adultery! You're also reading Aristotle dogmatically. You do realize he is human as well, and is capable of mistakes, right?

Meanwhile, here's hoping that this husband, ——who you with your solitary wisdom and superior perspective have deduced is 'not the right one' for her ——discovers you and snips your 'Moral Actor' clean off. After all——that IS his 'free will'.

It's a shame how much ill will a member of girlschase.com can have towards another member. Are these types of comments considered intelligent discussion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you haven't already read this: https://www.girlschase.com/content/walk-line

 

[Landlord]

Another way to state your post is simply that "I'm the only person that matters——because I said so."

No. The logical person knows that other people matter because they can benefit/harm him.

I got it now. It's all about YOU Byronic. My mistake.
Those folks who flew a plane into the World Trade center were not "wrong" empirically, nor because religion/society say so...it's just that it didn't work out for THEM in the end, so they made a small rational miscalculation. (presuming of course that the 72 virgins never materialized)

The rigorously logical man who approaches opposing views in a rational manner is a rare breed.

And the rigorously GOOD man, who judiciously chooses his actions with a balance of ambition and restraint, from both a concern for self and compassion for others—— even rarer.

Byron, I give you props for being intelligent and thoughtful, but being a man requires more than adopting philosophies as they happen to serve your own self interest, and Game is more about being the best man you can be than simply getting the best or most lays you can get. If I were a betting man, I'd put your age at around 17, guess that you read "The Fountainhead" (for the FIRST time) in the last 6-12 months and that when you look back at this string after you've actually lived a bit more, you're going to be embarrassed by the things your younger self did and said. And while I don't really hope the husband snips your penis off, I genuinely DO hope that some appropriate misfortune finds your way so that you can better learn what it means to experience that harsh level of pain and loss at the hands of a selfish third party, and then perhaps gain a bit of empathy for other human beings.

I leave you with a quote from another 'rigorously logical' gentleman:

Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself: that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring — the strength of character — to throw off its shackles. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others a “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.—TED BUNDY, serial killer

 

[TheWiseFool]

Guys,

Just let it go. Both of you have two frames of mind, and none of you are willing to accept the other person's perspective. Just. let. it. go.

 

[Chase]

This thread's fascinating.

First, I'll clarify my own position so there's no "appeal to authority" stuff going on here with me being the authority being appealed to. From a purely emotional standpoint, I personally find sleeping with married women somewhat morally ambiguous, and while I won't tell anyone else what to do here, I only do it myself if the girl's made it relatively clear that the relationship is on the outs... or if I honestly don't know she's married. There have been several instances where I've tried to escalate things with married women that I thought were otherwise happy with their marriages, and they all got aborted when I had the girl alone in my place or in a hotel room, because whatever emotional reservations I had kicked in and my sex drive dropped to zero. I don't think there's much getting around your intrinsic morality about some of these things.

Second, I'd also like to point out that arguing morals is usually a waste of time for all parties involved. Morals are either based on your childhood, or something deeper (genetic predisposition, maybe? Also, sometimes negative reactions to past traumatic memories), and trying to change someone else's morals by arguing about them is like trying to change someone else's deity of choice or political affiliation by arguing about them. On a societal level, morals tend to be enforced more by punishment (real - legal - or imagined - religious) than they are convincing, persuading, or cajoling. Take away legal and after life or karmic repercussions, and your efforts to spread morality lose their teeth; when people believe that nobody's really watching, or that nobody's who is watching will do anything about it in anyway, they're going to feel completely uninhibited to act in whatever way they personally emotionally believe to be morally justified.

Myself, I was raised in a conservative household with conservative morals. A lot of my own progress through seduction has been fighting through morals I judged to be logically unsound but were nevertheless emotionally very powerful. There are still some where my logic and my emotion are in completely different places on, and in these cases I tend to let emotion (which usually wants me behaving more conservatively) win, because there's nothing worse than doing something that you judge is fine logically, but you punish yourself over emotionally.

You're always going to run into morality clashes when it comes to talking pickup and seduction. Most of the guys who are the most prolific tend to be low / no empathy, but you'll also meet a minority that are the complete opposite, and are very high empathy, but have trained themselves to control their empathy to a certain extent, but cannot control it completely. I've had some instances where some of my friends have done things that very much offended my moral sense, but where it's been obvious that they were not similarly conflicted. These things do tend to strain your relationships with people, though - moral qualms and falling outs can often be the result of disagreeing moral frameworks, even between formerly close friends.

Chase

 

[Whizzy]

Hey Chase,

Is there any way to prevent these "moralistic falling outs" in relationships that you have found? Almost agreeing to disagree for instance and not losing respect for the other (a very key component here)

 

[Landlord]

thanks for commenting Chase.

I think it is useful to not look at it as a 'moral' issue (which has undertones of religion and conservative societal expectations),
but rather as a 'man' or 'human' issue.

I hope that we as a community can agree that:
1. some things (say—"randomly assaulting people for absolutely no reason whatsoever, as in the 'knockout' game")....are just "BAD"—inherently, archetypically, unquestionably.

2. 'game' is about "becoming the best man you can be" and not just about "procuring for oneself the most physical pleasure and personal gratification possible at any expense."

It may just turn out that we can't agree about #2----
but if there's any truth to it, then some part of 'being the best man you can be" has to involve self-discipline and judicious decision making.
I don't think it is possible to be the best version of yourself while at the same time indulging every childish whim or impulsive desire at the expense of others.
Nor do I think that the back door man is in any position to make good judgements about the quality or probable longevity of a marriage.

Show me a man who does not respect others and I'll show you a man who does not respect himself much either.
Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but I'd really like to hear more opinions about "what does game mean?" and "what does being a man mean?"

 

[The Byronic Man]

The conventional conception of morality is illogical. It's presupposes that the moral actor is either a supernatural being or society. I agree with Aristotle that morality is about living the best possible life. In other words, "becoming the best man you can be." Landlord, what we don't agree with is the action plan on how to achieve that goal. And it seems like you disagree with my action plan based on your who you think is the moral actor (i.e. who tells you what is moral). From ample experience, that discussion takes hours at best.

There's a lot of details I did not mention that would just make my LR even longer. I suspect that if you were privy of them, you would also not be as quick to judge me. Nonetheless, I appreciate your honesty.

I go to this website because it teaches me invaluable social skills...as well as helping me understanding how/why most women think/act (many of these observations of women are a statistic, and we should encourage people not to strive towards a statistical average, but towards a standard of excellence). I have this hypothesis that the key to healthy relationships is assertive communication. A lot of "game playing" is passive aggressive (especially from women), which leads to resentment and trust issues. From what I've learned philosophically, there are certain things I disagree with on the site, but just as important is that I understand how and why the advice came about, and when they apply. I stand by my position that there are parts of "game" that only work on illogical beliefs (e.g. slut shaming, social status). Remove those illogical beliefs, and those parts of game would not work. I guess at the most fundamental core, it's social calibration. And people should strive to be the best person possible, i.e. develop the best possible fundamentals, not because of game but because it's the moral thing to do.

Goodness and badness is not inherent/intrinsic. It's a judgement of something based on value. And values are not inherent/intrinsic--they are relative as it's up to the individual to find value (kudos to Chase for getting this right). And the logical person makes moral and value judgements objectively, not subjectively. Most people don't even understand what subjectivity and objectivity are, which really undermines their certainty in knowledge (something I disagree with Chase on). See infinite regress and foundationalism.

 

[Chase]

Landlord / Byronic / all -

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but I'd really like to hear more opinions about "what does game mean?" and "what does being a man mean?"

I thought this was an interesting question, and answered it to the best of my knowledge in a post up here: The Civilized Man.

The post is more interested in the disconnect between Byronic and Landlord, and the process of becoming a respected man in society, than it is in the specifics of the debate itself; hopefully it provides some food for thought, if not an exact judgment for or against this particular issue that anyone might have been seeking.

Chase

 

[trashKENNUT]

I learn a lot of things here. and to quote from, "That in the midst of one's battle with the other, The third man benefits". and that third guy is me. Hahaha.. i hope the previous sentence was taken lightly. I am joking. Interesting thoughts here, i shall note.

Zac

 

[Landlord]

Byronic, you pose that ALL morality is subjective.

If there is ANYTHING ( someone drop kicking your baby to death for fun? A random stranger knocking you out and ass-raping you? What about Genocide?)That you think is just universally empirically "bad" for a human to do to another?

 

[Landlord]

To clarify I refer to your comments about intrinsic goodness and badness.
Is there ANYTHING that you yourself (not some abstract school of thought in a book)
Think to be intrinsically bad?

 

[The Byronic Man]

Chase, that was a fantastic article (as usual)! Lots of points I agree...and disagree with. My thoughts:

As long as there are illogical beliefs/rules, there will be conflicts with reality, hence social disorder. I wish I can speak greatly on what the role of government should be, but I don't know enough about politics, but I do know enough that government should not dictate what is moral, and it should not be about control, but rather about protection of rights (oh how the U.S. government has deviated from John Locke's conception of government). The discussion about how much order is ideal is really a discussion about how much should the government control, which presupposes the following 2 beliefs derived from faulty interpretations of historical observation (which were derived from faulty philosophy):

• The "people" cannot rationally think for themselves, so they need someone else (i.e. government) to make decisions for them.
• Humans are inherently savages/brutes.

What's really at work here is tribalism vs. individualism. Tribalism serves the interest of society. It's illogical, but it has served its purpose. If we are to enjoy an evolution in the benefits of society, we need to fully embrace individualism. As I've said earlier in the thread, individualism does not threaten society. The rational understand that cooperation, rather than manipulation, is most beneficial to the individual. Tribalism stifles individual potential, and is thus immoral. Past men and women were described as "good" based on their degree of tribalism. How faulty and harmful is this thinking! Rather, we should look up to individuals who maximized their potential, and we'll see it was done through cooperation and innovation.

Again, morality is about living the best possible life. It's not about obeying rules prescribed by a supernatural being or society (although much of society's current ethos derives from religion; the new atheist movement is pushing society as the moral actor). So the moral man makes decisions based on whether they help him achieve his goals. Of course, this means one's goals ought to be logical (e.g. the goal of watching TV all day vs. going out to practice social skills). Having logical goals requires understanding your values, which requires understanding your needs, which requires understanding your nature (metaphysically). In other words, one must know onself; most people truly do not! Morality is not a list of rules. It is a moral map, which is an organized body of knowledge to guide human choices/action. And logic is our moral compass. Not what the Bible, Koran, Buddha, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, neuroscience, psychology, history, or society says. And experience is another data point, not a requisite, for logic.

I slept with another man's wife because it ultimately would benefit me in the short- and long-term. It was cooperative, because it's what she really wanted, and it's obvious her relationship with her husband is unhealthy (i.e. she should not have a marital relationship with this man). Her emotional health benefits me because I value her in my life, as a friend and as a lover. Ever since she met me, she has grown incredibly, which benefits me psychologically. Are there risks involved? Of course--risk is inherent to all choices. But the pros outweighed the cons here.

It's not about restraint. In fact, if something helps you achieve your goal (and it's a logical goal), you should go for it passionately. What's really at stake here is when a goal or action plan conflicts with another. Conflicts stem from a logical error, so the moral person must introspect to root out this error, and adjust his goals and/or action plans.

 

[The Byronic Man]

Byronic, you pose that ALL morality is subjective.

If there is ANYTHING ( someone drop kicking your baby to death for fun? A random stranger knocking you out and ass-raping you? What about Genocide?)That you think is just universally empirically "bad" for a human to do to another?

Good morality is objective. I think we need to define what subjectivity and objectivity are.

Object = reality external of individual consciousness
Subject = individual consciousness
Objectivity = content created from object
Subjectivity = content created from subject

In other words, an objective belief is one that is based on reality. A subjective belief is one that is not based on reality (e.g. emotional thinking like believing that there are flying pigs despite the absence of proof in reality). Good morality looks to reality as the standard to judge by. Morality concerns action (not reaction in the technical sense, which is automatic and not volitional). Will this action benefit me in the short- and long-term? Our knowledge on and experience with reality are data points for us to make decisions (which is a type of action). Certainly, some people see morality subjectively, and they have a mistaken (and thus unhealthy) process (if you can even call it that).

Badness is relational to the individual. Something is bad if it works against an individual's logical goal/value. In most situations, drop kicking a baby to death for fun would be bad for most individuals. But given enough imagination, we can concoct a fantastic enough scenario where drop kicking a baby to death might be moral.

We can morally judge others by examining how logical their goals and/or action plans are. In most situations, I would criticize the individual who drop kicks a baby to death for fun because he is not cultivating a character that is conducive to respect from others, which would prevent him from achieving other goals, not to mention putting himself at risk with the law, and deriving fun from killing is unhealthy. Life is also something to value because people/society benefit me (through cooperation, division of labor, sharing of knowledge, their help with me better understanding myself through accountability, feedback, etc.), and this individual is violating that value. All of this affects me because it sets a bad precedent for others, and others affect me. I also value a rational society, and this individual's behavior works against that value. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, and is why that behavior is typically vile--because there's so much more to criticize.

To clarify I refer to your comments about intrinsic goodness and badness.
Is there ANYTHING that you yourself (not some abstract school of thought in a book)
Think to be intrinsically bad?

Nope.

 

[Richard]

To clarify I refer to your comments about intrinsic goodness and badness.
Is there ANYTHING that you yourself (not some abstract school of thought in a book)
Think to be intrinsically bad?

Landlord,

To be fair, I think you may have asked the wrong question to Byronic because nothing, and I mean nothing has any value innately. Sleeping with a married woman has one value to you (and I'm in the same belief as you), while Byronic gives it another value. Sleeping with a married woman wouldn't have any value at all unless you or him gave it any.

So, to be fair, nothing is intrinsically good or bad at the start, things become intrinsically good or bad (even after a millisecond mental process).

So Byronic, I think the better question to ask is, after giving something value, is there anything you've come to view as intrinsically bad, or is there anything you'd see as intrinsically bad?

 

[trashKENNUT]

To all,

I hope the question to The Byronic Man isn't portray him as the "bad guy" or trying to "corner somebody". I believe that as a member here, I have to at least voice out somewhere i feel i read the comments here and it's looks like an attack on somebody on his values.

I know that's is NOT what some of you guys trying to do. So i hope the discussion stays healthy and constructive for the boards.

Zac

 

[Landlord]

To clarify I refer to your comments about intrinsic goodness and badness.
Is there ANYTHING that you yourself (not some abstract school of thought in a book)
Think to be intrinsically bad?

Nope.

Well at least we finally have a place to end this discussion.
If you don't find "drop-kicking babies" intrinsically abhorrent, I can't imagine any common ground we could ever find.

Ridiculously concocted potential scenarios where drop-kicking a baby could be considered 'good' notwithstanding,
if you allow that ALL value judgements are exclusively in relation to the benefit they bring YOU, then I refer back to the quote from Ted Bundy.

It is always possible to devise logic in support of an argument which serves ONE'S OWN INTERESTS or excuses one's own actions in reverse.
This is the language and logic of sociopaths.
If everyone on Earth thought like you, Byronic, what an uncivilized, miserable, dark and hopeless world this would be.

While it's possible that your target's husband is a selfish domineering asshole who beats her and diminishes her as a human being——I'm doubtful from what you have shared with us that you are the savior you paint yourself to be. You're doing this because it serves your selfish, childish interests, and it would not matter one lick whether her husband was the model of a loving supportive man or Mr. Bundy himself. You'd STILL do it if you had the chance.

"Game" and this type of thinking really make poor bedfellows.

 

[Whizzy]

To clarify I refer to your comments about intrinsic goodness and badness.
Is there ANYTHING that you yourself (not some abstract school of thought in a book)
Think to be intrinsically bad?

Nope.

Well at least we finally have a place to end this discussion.
If you don't find "drop-kicking babies" intrinsically abhorrent, I can't imagine any common ground we could ever find.

Ridiculously concocted potential scenarios where drop-kicking a baby could be considered 'good' notwithstanding,
if you allow that ALL value judgements are exclusively in relation to the benefit they bring YOU, then I refer back to the quote from Ted Bundy.

It is always possible to devise logic in support of an argument which serves ONE'S OWN INTERESTS or excuses one's own actions in reverse.
This is the language and logic of sociopaths.
If everyone on Earth thought like you, Byronic, what an uncivilized, miserable, dark and hopeless world this would be.

While it's possible that your target's husband is a selfish domineering asshole who beats her and diminishes her as a human being——I'm doubtful from what you have shared with us that you are the savior you paint yourself to be. You're doing this because it serves your selfish, childish interests, and it would not matter one lick whether her husband was the model of a loving supportive man or Mr. Bundy himself. You'd STILL do it if you had the chance.

"Game" and this type of thinking really make poor bedfellows.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume Byronic thinks drop kicking babies is a terrible thing to do. I could be wrong but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Franco]

Hey everyone,

I generally don't participate too much on the Field Reports board (as many of you might have noticed), and this usually has less to do with anything other than the fact that the posts are usually quite lengthy, and my time is better spent answering questions on the other boards that are more direct and to the point. While I can spend time answering ONE lengthy field report post, I can use my time in a more valuable way by answering 5-10 questions in the same amount of time on the other boards.

Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but it also explains why I hadn't seen this whole thread yet. If it wasn't for Chase's article, I may not have seen it at all.

So now, my input. And I'm going to come at this from a very different angle than what has already been addressed here so we can get to the actual source of the problem (since the debate about morality, as Chase has mentioned, is pretty endless [other than the fact that we find people have different views of morality as was discovered in the progression of this thread between Landlord and Byronic]).

Now, based on what some of what Richard was getting at, some members have mentioned that they would sleep with a woman in a relationship that otherwise seems unhealthy to them. This includes, but may not be limited to: a relationship that is abusive; a relationship where the woman feels 'trapped'; a relationship where the woman isn't getting what she truly wants (but feels the need to hang on to it for other reasons -- children, career, reputation); etc. There's a huge problem that arises here: how do you actually determine whether or not a woman's relationship is in turmoil and that you are actually the man that can free her? Minus a handful of tangents, this seemed to be what the post was ultimately getting to before it became derailed on other topics (including morality).

Well, I'll start by saying that one's ability to recognize the actual feelings and desires of another person depends almost entirely on their ability to put themselves in the other's shoes -- in other words, I'm talking about a person's level of empathy. I happen to have an extremely high level of empathy, and women are often surprised at how often I'm capable of conveying what they are trying to convey about their own emotions before they are able to fully realize it themselves (or at least convey that realization). But not everyone has this ability; and as a matter of fact, I'd say that there's only a small fraction of individuals who are capable of doing this with high accuracy in their analyses.

Knowing this, I would like to move on to the examples that are laid out here. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that Byronic does not mind me mentioning this about him since he has already mentioned it about himself before on the boards, and I appreciate his honesty and openness about it since it helps us understand not only him better but also how we can help him (and even other members on the boards) better. Byronic has what is known as Asperger's Syndrome. Many of you might already be familiar with the term, but if you are not, one of the most prominent features of this syndrome is the inability to feel what other's are feeling -- in other words, an extremely low level of empathy. It is because of this low level of empathy that Byronic, and others on the boards with Asperger's or low empathy, have actually had largely successful interactions with women once they have learned the process behind bedding women and getting lovers and girlfriends and so forth. There is usually an initial wall that is difficult to climb for low empathy individuals because it makes it more difficult to key in on women's emotions, but it also helps you drive past boundaries without the usual fear of "what she will think about you" when you make an aggressive move.

This is where the disconnect occurs between what some deem to be "immoral" or "unmanly" and some deem to be "completely logical." Now, as was also brought up (by Marty I believe), I stand by my premise that "no woman is any man's property, regardless of contract." No woman will ever tell you she is bound to any man by a contract; if you were to ask a woman why she is married, then her answer will almost always be because she "loves" her husband. But then that brings up the question: what happens when she stops loving her husband? Here's where the dilemma occurs... she has said her vows to a man she probably once loved, but now she no longer feels that way about him for one reason or another. Regardless, at this point, the reason she entered into the contract is no longer being fulfilled, and she may desire to feel that "love" again from another man, whether that love be sexual or otherwise. So she is emotionally torn as to whether or not she should follow her desires or abide by a contract (which she now feels was a mistake). This is where I feel there is a moral gray area as to what another man can do with her -- does he have the right to "save" her? I believe so... IF he can recognize that this is indeed the situation and that this woman is truly going after something she deeply desires. But in order to be able to make that call, you have to have a solid level of empathy (or at least a high understanding of relationships and women) to know whether or not that this is an appropriate scenario for you to take action.

So what am I saying here, exactly? Well, I guess I am saying that you should not go after married women if you are incapable of recognizing when you are doing more harm than good. So the question becomes less then about whether or not it is right or wrong, or logical or illogical, but then more about whether or not you're capable of realizing that you are bringing good emotions into people's lives. Now, the argument can be made here that no matter what, the husband (or boyfriend) will be emotionally distraught if he were to ever find out what happened (which is what Landlord was saying about a third party being involved). To that, I have to say: had the third party been fulfilling the part of the contract that the woman expected of him, then this would have never happened to begin with. So yes, the third party is at fault here IF the woman is truly unhappy with the relationship.

However, in Byronic's case, I would argue that there is a very good chance that he is incapable of recognizing when a girl is giving him "token" LMR for something she really desires, or if she's giving him LMR because she is unsure of her emotions and whether or not she actually loves or does not love her significant other. And since Byronic has been progressing in seduction exceedingly well, I would advise him to make a rule that he not engage with married women (or women with boyfriends) because his abundance mentality is good enough to the point where he doesn't need to risk hurting others because of his (probable) lack of empathy. He is learning at an exceptionally fast rate, and I doubt that his level of satisfaction with women would decrease if he were to pass up a few women who happen to already be engaged in relationships -- healthy or unhealthy.

So, to summarize, I believe that my advice to guys about whether or not they should engage in sexual relations with married or boyfriended women would be on a case-by-case analysis. Ask yourself these questions: do you have a high or low level of empathy? Do you think you can differentiate between token resistance or resistance to other factors? Can you tell when a woman is in love (or not in love) with another man? If you are incapable of making these judgment calls about a specific woman, or at the very least, if you are incapable of answering any of these questions for a specific woman you are thinking about sleeping with, then I advise you NOT pursue her. There are plenty of beautiful, single women out there who would love to sleep with you with no strings attached. I only advise those who can recognize when girls are in an obviously unhealthy (or abusive) relationship to push forward with a seduction. That is my stance.

EDIT: Like Chase, I do draw the line at engaging in sexual relationships with friends' girlfriends or wives. Regardless of how unhappy the girl may be, leave it to another man to be the one to save her from the relationship. Although the girl may deserve someone "better," your friend does not deserve to lose a friend in the process. If he truly is a friend that brings value to your life, then losing him will be much worse than going after a replaceable girl.

In regards to the tangent about whether or not what is taught here is manipulation, Drexel pretty much nailed it on the head when he mentioned that seduction done correctly is about the woman CHOOSING to sleep with you, not being manipulated into it. There are indeed tactics to manipulate women into sleeping with you, but those are not tactics we discuss on this website because manipulation is not something a genuine man uses against women. The techniques and approaches taught here are geared toward making women love you for the man you have become; they are not techniques taught to "trick" women into sleeping with you. If you are looking for that, then there are plenty of other websites on the web that will do that for you, and GC will never advise you use them.

I hope this gives some insight to everyone on this topic.

- Franco