I define "outsider" as follows:

"guys that are disillusioned about certain tenets of society and dating. We might see the requirement for men to pay for dates as sexist and something to avoid. We're sometimes referred to as "omega" but this could sound misleading as if we have no positive traits (like being in shape physically, being career oriented, engaging in self-improvement, etc.). We can feel isolated by society and experience apathy. Some might say we over-analyse things."

In one of my previous texts, I have explained clearly how advice should be given to my sort of man:

RIGHT, I HAVE SOME ADVICE FOR YOU LOT, GET READY

Right, I have some advice for you lot, get ready

Woah, steady with the reigns their cowboy!

We are perfectly open to high quality advice and dating tips but what you have to realise is that a lot of dating advice can come across as too obvious, too condescending, in some cases it can be counter-productive and even potentially detrimental to someone's well-being (for example if someone took a suggestion to have plastic surgery that went wrong and left their face permanently disfigured then that would not be a good thing at all). Yes, plenty of us have tried:

  • online dating
  • clubs and societies
  • basic hygiene
  • getting out of the house
  • just being confident
  • just being ourselves
  • approaching women
  • having purpose and ambition in our lives
  • looking for self-actualisation in passions of ours that lie outside of dating women
  • going to bars and night clubs
  • hitting the gym
  • consuming works of art, literature or filmography by feminist women with strong female protagonists
  • seeing a therapist/psychiatrist/other related expert
  • *insert meaningless tripe*

And for those of us at who hadn't considered anything from the above list, well it is all here for them now and will eventually find this section with all the condescending platitudes useful tips mentioned above anyway. So it's not that we aren't open to dating advice. We just have high standards is all. My question to you - if you are coming here to start dishing out advice - is: can you think outside the "box" without offering advice that is potentially dangerous or counter-productive? Because that's the kind of advice we want to hear. If you want to offer a really useful insight then try to cover the following subjects:

  • a meta-discussion, a critique of the sub or how you personally see things should be here, etc.
  • detailed, high quality advice for some of the disenfranchised men that come here from your own perspective and based on some of the general sentiments that you have perceived here after reading the following.

ACCEPTABLE ADVICE

  • Meta-discussion, critique, ideology, etc.

Perspectives such as topics related to real authentic Good Men (GMs) falling behind in dating (i.e. "outsiders") versus fake zealot Nice GuysTM (NGs). Are men who talk about "virtuous traits" and the absence therein of dating success for men with these kinds of traits entitled? Or are they trying to express their frustrations or seek some sort of advice or counselling about society, etc. A contentious topic it seems that could be addressed as we are after all trying to find answers on this subject.

Another topic often discussed is the question of toxic masculinity. And that is an interesting one. For example:

"Dominance is often a turn-off.

Confidence is just difficult to fake."

To what extent are think that dominance and faking confidence are subtly imposed on young men now e.g. by traditional gender roles & manosphere ideologies etc. Or conversely, is it actually the case that it is good to be dominant and authentically confident as long as this is tapered by certain "feminist" ideals in men, such as emotional intelligence, communication, empathy and compassion? A perspective on this might be that this is a difficult balance because men have a hard time managing these two seemingly opposite roles in a society that is polarised by contradictory values (in this case feminism and traditionalism). What would happen if men just listened exclusively to feminism? Might they get the wrong idea that niceness alone is attractive, desirable enough? That they don't need to be masculine? That women don't want a confident, assertive partner who can dominate in a fun, playful way that is respectful of their's and other's personal boundaries? etc.

Is there anything else that could be a problem for men dating now? Porn, video games, technology, online dating, night clubs/the "alcohol scene", etc. If you are to focus on these things, do you think that ideologies such as feminism and sex positivity could be helping men? How would you address the arguments that women's standards have gotten significantly higher as they feel more entitled to higher status, more elite, more attractive men in the upper echelons of society? And the arguments that attribute this to sex positivity, not just technology/culture?

  • Concrete Advice

Outsiders/Sexually and Romantically Unsuccessful Good Men (SRUGMs) are open to concrete advice as opposed to nebulous inner-game concepts such as self-reflection and the other ones mentioned. For example, I have previously read Mark Rippetoe's fantastic book "Starting Strength". Since some degree of muscularity is attractive to women, that is the way I workout now, but if you suggested that literature to me (without knowing that I had read the book), I would not have considered it platitude advice. Mark Manson's "Models" and Love System's "Magic Bullets" (guides to attracting women) are two relatively inexpensive books I have mixed feelings on (the content has pros and cons) but again, I would not consider that platitude advice. Lifestyle and dating tips that discuss the severely neglected verbal game element of approaching women are especially recommended because most existing "verbal game" is either just

  1. gimmicky canned material and stupid "routine stackers" that are simply dreadful
  2. so-called "authentic" PUA that denies the legitimacy of verbal game because of number 1. but don't really consider alternatives because you should "just be confident" and let conversation flow freely or some bullshit

Anything else that deals with propinquity (i.e. specific lifestyle choices that get you closer to women and not just "get a hobby, bro!" simplified bullshit) is considered concrete advice. If you are reading this and you don't have any concrete suggestions (because not everyone does), that's fine. Just don't bother giving platitudes, or even advice really. Also, at this point most people normally say they have to know about you personally to give concrete suggestions but it's not true because the fundamentals for being attractive to a wide population of women are usually the same:

  • Virtue: compassion, empathy, kindness, generosity (just not sufficient alone)
  • Social prowess: Social awareness, communication, charm, understanding
  • Worldliness: culture, intellect, fascinating conversationalist
  • Masculine attractiveness: height, muscularity, chiselled jaw line, deep set eyebrows, thick hair, penis size
  • General social status: popular, cool, witty, interesting, entertaining, relaxed, extraverted
  • Masculine social status: masculine, charismatic, socially dominant, slow & bold movements, competitive, high testosterone
  • Economic status (virtues): ambitious, either successful or good potential, hard-working
  • General attractiveness: facial symmetry, nice eyes, nice smile, good shape, clear skin
  • Intelligence: scientific, mathematic, logical, analytical
  • Responsibility: financially independent, financially prudent, diligent, parental qualities
  • Creativity: musical, artistic, passionate, soulful
  • Belonging to a preferred ethnicity
  • Preferred ideological convictions (same politics, religion, ethics, etc.)
  • Economic status (possessions): excellent career, material possessions (house, car, etc.), excellent business contacts, large bank account
  • Appearance: fashion, grooming, hygiene, skin-care, etc.
  • Emotional stability: maturity, serenity, excellent conflict-resolution

In particular, women's biological requirements are exaggerated, in my opinion in a society which juxtaposes the requirement for men to balance the delicate and contradictory traits of the following:

  • feminist ideals (communication, empathy, compassion, social skills)
  • traditionalist gender roles/stereotypes (masculinity, dominance, assertiveness, initiative)

For that reason, you don't need to know the ins and outs of a person's life to give this advice. For example, Starting Strength is a sufficient foundation for the muscularity aspect (well the barbell training part, not so much for nutrition) - as an example. So far I have never encountered a sufficient foundation for verbal game. However there is a sufficient foundation for body language, which is SOFTEN (smile, open body language, forward lean, touch, eye contact but "nodding" not so much, I believe).

But again, I really don't want to hear about nebulous inner game concepts unless it's to do with a specific discipline like positive psychology or stoic philosophy but with stronger empirical grounding. Because that stuff is interesting by itself anyway. If you have an academic interest in virtue ethics or Buddhist philosophy, Taoism or any related subjects I would love to learn from you.

  • Personal Counselling

So here you could offer whatever details you feel appropriate from the following, blurring or omitting information if you felt it was confidential:

- general details about yourself (e.g. approximate age, what gender you identify as, sexual experience or lack thereof, orientation/sexuality)

- what it is that makes you a credible or experienced advice giver (life experience, sexual or romantic experience - but only with some sort of proof given if you were to mention you were a therapist, dating advice, marriage counsellor, fitness instructor, etc. ... I don't know if you are)

- whatever specific, detailed tips (e.g. lifestyle) you may have for single/virgin Good Men (e.g. diet or fitness regimes, education, clubs/societies, fashion, career/ambition, game)

- any literature you recommend reading on these topics (diet or fitness regimes, fashion, education, career/ambition, game)

- general details that might be useful as per an single/virgin's location (e.g. if someone is are geographically secluded, or if they live in a big city, then what opportunities could be available for them career wise, meeting people, finding new clubs and that sort of thing)

- if you have approached many men/women at all and details about the successful or unsuccessful interactions/dates/etc. that have moulded your experiences with your preferred gender/s

- anything else you want to talk about (e.g. what your feelings are about Good Men avoiding blanket generalisations or platitudes and providing any further social critique or ideological analysis (see above) that you may want to contribute that may be relevant to Good Men discussions)

  • A note about therapy/psychiatry/other related disciplines

I don't want to deter Outsiders or SRUGMs from visiting qualified experts about personal consultation matters. Put simply, my stance is this: it benefits some people, others just don't work well with therapists, psychiatrists and other related professionals. Do not tell people something like "therapy is blue pilled cuck bullshit that doesn't work". However, similarly don't go around internet diagnosing people with mental health/mental illness issues because they have a few legitimate complaints and frustrations to vent online. If they say they don't want to see a therapist/whatever else, don't keep on about it or tell them they are wrong. It's their brain, their rules.

If you want to know more about the reasons some people are adverse to therapy/psychiatry/etc. then read on. As I have stated on here before,

Psychological/psychiatric experts and therapists are also instruments of the State and the established political economy (tripartisan corporatist arrangements). Their primary function is to make sure the cog fits in the machine. If the cog is happy in the machine is only a secondary function and even when this is addressed, primarily, these people only want to make sure the cog "feels happy" with it's place working in the machine. This was my experience with the kinds of consultation I sought out thus far and it explains the platitudes:"just be yourself""just be confident""pull up your boot straps"

Not particularly helpful.

I didn't express this sentiment as softly or as in a non-generalising manner as I normally would do - I state again that therapy & psychiatry can be helpful for some people, just not everyone. However, it seems it's not just unqualified experts like me who back up this view point. A self-claimed medical resident (you will have to look into his credentials yourself) wrote in an article on his own website the following limitations in regards to psychiatry:

I recently had a patient, a black guy from the worst part of Detroit, let’s call him Dan, who was telling me of his woes. He came from a really crappy family with a lot of problems, but he was trying really hard to make good. He was working two full-time minimum wage jobs, living off cheap noodles so he could save some money in the bank, trying to scrape a little bit of cash together. Unfortunately, he’d had a breakdown (see: him being in a psychiatric hospital), he was probably going to lose his jobs, and everything was coming tumbling down around him.And he was getting a little philosophical about it, and he asked – I’m paraphrasing here – why haven’t things worked out for me? I’m hard-working, I’ve never missed a day of work until now, I’ve always given a hundred and ten percent. And meanwhile, I see all these rich white guys (“no offense, doctor,” he added, clearly overestimating the salary of a medical resident) who kind of coast through school, coast into college, end up with 9 – 4 desk jobs working for a friend of their father’s with excellent salaries and benefits, and if they need to miss a couple of days of work, whether it’s for a hospitalization or just to go on a cruise, nobody questions it one way or the other. I’m a harder worker than they are, he said – and I believed him – so how is that fair?

And of course, like most of the people I deal with at my job, there’s no good answer except maybe restructuring society from the ground up, so I gave him some platitudes about how it’s not his fault, told him about all the social services available to him, and gave him a pill to treat a biochemical condition almost completely orthogonal to his real problem.And I’m still not sure what a good response to his question would have been.

He went on to mention, the only thing a good psychiatrist or related expert can truly do in such a situation is avoid giving the bad types of responses:

“Why do rich white kids who got legacy admissions to Yale receive cushy sinecures, but I have to work two grueling minimum wage jobs just to keep a roof over my head?” By even asking that question, you prove that you think of bosses as giant bags of money, rather than as individual human beings who are allowed to make their own choices. No one “owes” you money just because you say you “work hard”, and by complaining about this you’re proving you’re not really a hard worker at all. I’ve seen a lot of Hard Workers (TM) like you, and scratch their entitled surface and you find someone who thinks just because they punched a time card once everyone needs to bow down and worship them.If you complain about “rich white kids who get legacy admissions to Yale,” you’re raising a huge red flag that you’re the kind of person who steals from their employer, and companies are exactly right to give you a wide berth.

And this is precisely the kind of response that this advice guide has been designed to tackle anyway. By promoting a healthy, constructive discussion platform for men like me to discuss conversation topics mentioned earlier without being subjected to shaming or derailing tactics from their feminist or traditionalist detractors:

  • the fact that there may be GMs falling behind in the dating world now and what can be done about it
  • what the problems are in this sort of society, and what it means for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent, virtuous and other genes that contribute to reproductive fitness
  • what roles gender politics play in this (e.g. clash between feminism and traditionalist gender politics both of which are equally harmful to GMs)
  • the biological and social conditions of men and women that may contribute to this
  • our individual experiences and struggles in the dating world for which we should be able to refer to ourselves as GMs and whatever virtuous or otherwise desirable traits we may have as it is relevant background information to our situation, not because GMs walk around in real life referring to themselves as such.
  • the warning of the Big Question which is posed by post-wall hypergamous women (not all women), a fate that no woman wants to end up with when. This is the case after years of ignoring and neglecting GMs, ridiculing us, calling us "NGs", they turn around and ask "but where have all the Good Men gone?" Essentially, these are the same GMs that already pursued and were rejected, often harshly by these same women, and the same self-respecting GMs that no longer want anything to do with these same women.