Masculine traits, feminine traits and human traits

If one actually looks up on Google or some other search engine the words masculine traits one is sure to find numerous results. Some of them will be your generic "be the Alpha" sort of sites. Some will be the average dating type website. Others will be about Evolutionary Psychology an actually backed up science of human nature. Meanwhile still others will be "game" websites which preach their ways will get you the girl if you work it right. 

Sometimes you can find very useful and truthful claims about what is masculine psychologically and feminine psychologically. Other times what you find is snake oil salesmen pitches. Still further there is also a whole bunch of blatantly anti-male feminist crap online as well which calls masculinity toxic. When one is wondering what is masculine and what is feminine the net can harm as well as help your mindset. There are some really good websites dedicated to men and masculinity. There is also a bunch of junk. 

Let me state first of all I do not think being feminine actually makes you less of a man. However, I do find there to be a difference between a masculine and feminine man. These are not matters of one being worth more than the other when it comes to human worth and value. Just because people are different even within the same sex does not mean those differences have any moral or ethical weight. You judge a person by the contents of his character and not how limp or firm his wrist is. However, I do find that the differences do exist for sure. 

I have taken more than one Gender Identity Expression and psychology test on the net. I find I always get the same results more or less. I end up with either a standard or very high masculine metric on each one of them simply by answering authentically about how my brain works when presented with certain situations. Some of these situations are more generic than others. Further still some psychological testing simply uses descriptors and sliding scales of where you sit in regards to it. 

Also, one must differentiate between what ones brain thinks or responds like and whether said person actually acts in accordance with those thoughts. A person could think in a more masculine way than they act in the actual environment around them. One could also think more feminine typical than they act as well. Not every little reflex, thought or desire manifests in behavior or mannerisms. The point being that metrics do exist that are not just some airy fairy nonsense and I would never argue otherwise. 

Yet, some things that seem to get lumped into the feminine side sometimes is to me patently bullshit and not feminine at all. For example the BEM sex role inventory puts compassion in the feminine box. So, I get like 20% -40% feminine on some tests along side 100% masculine in the same exact test. Mainly due to things like compassion being coded as being feminine instead of just being a human trait and perfectly compatible with being in the masculine box. So, men whom take these tests get coded by default as some sort of androgynous being simply for being human. 

So, men are incapable of being caring of others is basically what this misandric anti-male nonsense is trying to say. The standard non-androgynous man is an uncaring, cold hearted prick? This is complete nuttiness to say that the moment you might somewhat care about anything you are becoming like a woman. There are things that are definable and masculine or feminine, but, that is not one of them. It is a human trait that manifests irregardless of what is in between your legs. Often men's compassion is shown differently, but, it sure as hell exists.

A good example would be crying and I will use myself as an example of men's feelings. If I were to be super sad about something to the point I was possibly going to have my eyes become watery I would never cry around a stranger. I just would not if I cry it needs to be around someone I trust or better yet alone with no one around. During my more depressive days at work for example I would never cry if I were to work in the center. Tears do not help me work at all it is an unproductive behavior. Now, when I got home if the issue was bad enough a small little bit of water might come down my chin, might, but, maybe not either. 

The point I am trying to make though is that just because emotions are expressed differently by men does not mean we do not have them. To argue we do not simply because men do on average have more emotional mastery in that way is to misunderstand human nature itself. It is to in essence make an argument that men are not human and never can be unless they deal with emotions the way a woman would. To argue that I see the word compassion and say I agree makes me or any man any amount of less masculine is absurd.

When it comes to myself I do not plan on dropping my masculine self-identification simply because some test tries to say I am whatever percent feminine. That would be equally absurd as some of the tests assumptions are. In the end of the day I am just going to as Allan J. Frantzen puts it Grab My Balls and own my manhood not some random testers that know nothing about me. I refuse to put the source of my own self-esteem at the mercy of people whom obviously do not think very highly of men in general.  

An old article from 2011 on A Voice For Men provides an excellent definition of manhood/masculinity.

Normally I do not actually go onto A Voice For Men, but, I was on another site which linked to it. So, I began looking through the articles by a fellow whom got into a huge argument with the Alt-Right homo darling Jack Donovan. He was arguing that the colors on the Male Studies home page back in 2011 was not Queer against Jack whom called the program a home for "sissy faggots." It was an old article, but, I was interested to see what else B. R. Merrick had written for the site.

Low and behold I came across a ton of articles over the years on various different topics of note. One of them was just simply entitled, "What is Masculinity?" I found myself intrigued as his interaction with Jack showed whatever his definition would be it would not be what the Barbarism movement of Donovan wanted to release on the world. Much to my surprise I found a very well written article all about essentials and concept formation more or less.

This much broader and yet still fundamental definition was as follows;

The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it. 

This frees up men to both have a broad brush, but, also still have fundamental differences to women in many ways. It essentializes; thus separating masculine from feminine. Yet, it does not render a man against any particular desire, interest or trait that might be within the man.

He continues on in his article after asking a trick question of whether the more emotionally contemplating music or the aggressive music above is by a man. The trick being that both are by a man writing his music about different topics and in different moods. He follows from this to explain what he means in more detail VS what he does not mean.

 ....both musical examples above fit nicely within this definition, as both were written by one who existed in manhood, and who perceived, recognized, and applied the principles of the universe in which he lived to create his music.  His contribution is different from a football player’s, from Jack Donovan’s, from mine, and from every other man who ever walked upon this earth, or whoever will, but it is still masculine.

Least you think his brush is still not broad enough he goes onto describe his Men's Group Therapy sessions which included many Gay and Bisexual men. In which he says the following;

Over the next several months, or perhaps it was longer than a year, this group of men became my lifeline, my outlet, my anchor, and my friends.  They were the genuine article..... I wasn’t the only masculine entity walking around on that campus that initially dismissed them as less-than-manly.  I’m sure I am not the last to have been proven wrong.  The masculine qualities these guys expressed were different than most.  But there was no mistaking that each of them had a penis and testicles, and that the unavoidable, external acknowledgement of the possession of those members, along with the internal surging of testosterone, had its influence on their behavior and their manly bodies. None of these guys wore a dress. None of these guys wanted a sex change. None of them was under the impression that he wasn’t really a man. 

Masculinity, whether we choose to define it or not, will continue.  It’s natural law.  What is required at this point in time is not to abandon the word, any more than I think we ought to abandon the word “honor.” What will benefit us the most is understanding, whenever we encounter it, those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood. 

I think this is one of the best descriptions of a definable, but, yet less perfectionist driven version of masculinity. It lets us men be men, but, also does not deny men access to full humanity in the name of being masculine as opposed to feminine. It also lets into the masculine club if you will lots of men that get labelled by society as womanly or effeminate even if they do not match the actual Biological or Psychological definition of that term in anyway at all.

It is both defining and freeing all at the same time. By defining masculinity as a definite objective thing. Yet, does it in a way in which one is also acknowledging not everyone that tosses around that term knows what it in fact means. The answer to the man or boy that is "different" is not to make him feel like he is less than his sex. Is not to label him "effeminate," but, to understand this might be just aspects of "masculinity" miss-labelled as"feminine," It is instead once more as B. R. Merrick put it so well;

....... those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood. 

Arron M on How To Be The ULTIMATE Alpha Male! (7 Tips To Totally DOMINATE)

Arron Moreno AKA Alpha M. on the Modern Alpha Male

The oddest moment in a game show ever (great example of how to deal with someones assumptions)

I found a very interesting new game show on YouTube called Distraction from the early 2000's. It is all about distracting contestants while they answer questions usually in very humiliating ways. Consider it like a UK version of a take on the sort of thing in Fear Factor mixed in with questions. I was quite a ways into the second season when I came across an interesting scenario I was not expecting.

Out of nowhere the host assumed that someone named Vee which looked more like an RSD trainer was gay. RSD means Real Social Dynamics a PUA group whom has some controversy among some of its people. This person reminded me more of them and their peacocking ideas about dress than gay. I am not sure if it was because he was wearing a dollar sign gold necklace. That might have been it that made me think more of a club going fellow over a gay man.

Yet, for some reason this person whom looked nothing like the gay stereotype to me was called out as being gay. He starts out by saying it was quite a feet that this fellow slept with 50 people over the course of the last year. Then out of nowhere he said that was a lot of cock. As a response to this Vee said "whom said anything about cock?" Which is an appropriate response to such an out of the blue assumption. Then he went onto simply say he was not gay. The host asked if he was heterosexual and he said, "I am." He then ignored all the following jokes at his expense. He just went on with playing the game.

The crazy response to his affirmative on his heterosexuality was to be told that he was setting off alarms. Despite him not really showing off any of the stereotypical gaydar things he said it was going off. I am still not sure what the fuck he was on that he thought this PUA-ish looking peacocker was a poof. I can sometimes see with the stereotypes that exist why someone whom has "gaydar" might mistake someone for gay, but, not this fellow. Yet, Vee just stood there and let it all fall off his shoulders. Which is the best way to deal with such a misunderstanding.

Other peoples assumptions about ones identity based on BS do not matter. It is not your problem as the person whom is misunderstood and assumed about. The problem belongs to the person making the assumption about you. One should never let other peoples assumptions control their life. People need to live for themselves and their values. They do not need to nor should they live for what ignorant neanderthals think of them. If you are not what someone assumes it is not your problem. The person should not be assuming the things to begin with. It is a case of failed paternicity and everything is eh OK.   

The Quest to Revive Macho and Machismo as a Positive Masculine Archetype -- Is it even worth it?

Every time I venture into the amazing world of The Flexuality Test I end up with the same result. The first time I took the test I identified as Bi, but, I knew what my sexual imagination always had as a mate was a woman. In my dreams at night and in my fantasies in the days. Thus it would not shock me at the time to have it come back as say heteroflexible or a lower Kinsey Bi.

However, what it gave me as a result after answers that went to my very core of sexual imagination was something different. "You identified as bisexual, but, according to your Flexuality test you are Macho Straight." Huh? OK, I am straight, sure I became a typical red blooded heterosexual/straight male as I grew older fine with me. That was not a major surprise to me as I knew I had 0 fantasies or attractions to any men in quite sometime.

What really caused me to almost faint away onto my bed I was sitting on was the macho part of the answer. What on Earth did I say that this test used such a term for me? So, I decided to look at their definition of Macho Straight. To summarize my findings I pretty much am their Macho Straight to a tea (at least in the bedroom). Without going into all the sexually explicit details it means that I am a top, or as they put it "I am the man." Which to break it down essentially I pitch I do not catch even when I have been with other men. This is absolutely correct I have never enjoyed sex any other way.

I still did not think the word macho was a good terminology despite it matching the summary of being such in their own definitions. Macho means a lot more than being a certain way during sexual encounters. By tagging me with a definition of not just Straight, but, Macho Straight it made me sound like something much different than what their definition pointed to. It was a very misleading thing to use as a description of myself. When I heard the term Macho Straight I automatically went to some Gym Rat with a 6 pack and whom was a douche with all muscles no brains. 

Yet, it turns out there is somewhat of a quest to revive Macho not to mean douches or Gym Rats. Instead they want Macho and Machismo to be simply men loving being men, but, not being douches. It is a quest claiming to want to make Macho a good term one to embrace as a man not rejected. It has been put forward by such groups as the ManKind Project and The Good Man Project. It has also been talked about in various papers and articles online. Yet, what is the new Macho? Is it a new definition? A reclaim of the original definition? Or somewhere in between? Or is it Macho at all?

Some of the things I found when I have been researching talk about the new macho are very much not gendered at all.

He cleans up after himself. 
He knows what he feels.

These things are not exclusively masculine or male traits and I am not sure why they are even being included in a new definition of an archtype of masculinity. After all that is what you are doing if you are attempting to reclaim the term you are attempting to resurrect a form of masculine archetype. Trying to carve out a place for specific men whom get with that particular sense of their manhood. A certain type of masculinity with certain qualities is a masculine archetype. Why would these not just be seen as human values or human adult traits? Why wrap them in a banner called a new Macho?

At other times I have found things which are both human and also part of traditional standard masculine archetypes that we already have. Such as the following;

He is a role model for young men.
He is rigorously honest and fiercely optimistic.
He holds himself accountable.
He knows how to rage without hurting others.
He knows how to fear and how to keep moving.
He seeks self-mastery.
He’s let go of childish shame.
He feels guilty when he’s done something wrong.
He is kind to men, kind to women, kind to children.
He teaches others how to be kind.
He says he’s sorry.

Nothing in the above list is at all traditionally not found within one of the many very much masculine archetypes men can already fall into within masculinity as it exists in history or in the modern day. What is New Macho? Is it simply traditional, ordinary being one of many kinds of men, but, not being a douche? If so, then this is not a New Macho it is plain old masculinity and manliness without being a dick in the process. Cause surprise masculinity is not the same as doucheness. Douches are douches and would be even if they were born a woman not a man. It is the persons personality trait.

Meanwhile the term new Macho is also being used by very much masculinity haters that want men to become more like women and somehow that is the new Macho to them. There is no one consensus terminology on what this New Macho is. Is it men being more like women? Is it traditional masculine archetypes repackaged in a nice bow? Or is it just embracing general human traits and niceties? Or is it being "a hunter in the sheets and a gentleman in the streets?" I really cannot find a true answer anywhere I look.

Does Macho even need redefining? I mean according to the dictionary I found it to mean male pride. Which alone is not a bad thing depending on how that manifests in your behaviors. When I looked up Machismo which is linked off of Macho it talked again about being about male pride. Again this is not a bad thing at all if one is talking about a good man. A good man should be proud as fuck to be the man he is and that includes loving being a man. I see no problem with being Macho if that is all you mean by it. Not being a douche or an asshat.

I think it all comes back to the misunderstandings around the difference between masculinity, embracing your manhood and being a dickhead. I am a 31 yr old masculine straight male and I am not a douche. I am much more masculine now than I have ever been at any other time in my life. Perhaps that is other than when I used too be in my old friends Folk Band back in the day when I was dating his Ex (a woman). I was a pretty typical man then, but, I was a nerd man. I was a certain archetype of masculinity out of the many that exist. I was the type of young man you can find in a Comic Book Shop or Gaming store. I was not the cream of the crop, but, I was sure as hell not girly.

That is more or less how I am now, but, a little more socially aware and less awkward with women. Yet, I also fit into the warrior archetype too. I am not the peace-nick I was when I was younger and naive. If someone were to go after someone I care for I would be their worst nightmare. I refuse to initiate force under any means, but, I will damn well retaliate with coercion and immense brute force if it is required to defend the innocent.

That includes defending whomever I might be watching over at the time. That includes as well any future partner of mine. I refuse to be some random collectivized "women" I do not knows protector like I am am unpaid bodyguard. However, an actual woman I am with is protected by me and if anyone thinks I will not embody that "gender role" with the right person at the right time will be in for a rude wake up call if they awaken that beast within.

I also likewise have no problem at all providing for others when they deserve the benevolence of my providing for them and if they are in need of it. Again not just some random person, but, the people in my life I value. Which includes as a high value any woman I end up with. Again you do not get my money just for having a vagina, but, if I am with you and you need it I will provide it.

These things are all masculinity and fall into embracing your manhood without being a douche. Masculinity has nothing to do with being a dickhead the two things are not the same and never have been. So, if all being a Macho Straight means is being "the man in bed," and embracing certain archetypes of masculinity without being a douche then I guess I am after all. However, is the word really needing to be saved? Is it even worth mentioning the term at all?

I think it comes down to POV actually. If to you Macho means more than male pride (which can be there and tampered by reason) I think it does not help anything to use it. However, if you want to point out "hey I am a man and not ashamed" without any extra meaning to it go ahead and define it properly in your context for other people. However, I think really all you need to say is that you are masculine and that is enough. After all Macho is just being masculine and unashamed if all it means is male pride. Or it could mean just being a man and being unashamed as well for more Androgynous men out there. After all it does define as male pride and such a person would also be all male.

In the end of the day it is stopping ourselves as men from feeling self-hatred for not being able to be perfect and the ideal for everyone in the world that we need to work on. We need to work on realizing we have worth as men irregardless of our circumstances in life. No matter what archetype of manhood we embody or even if we do not actually end up falling into one at all. We are of value, we are worthy and we are enough just as we are we do not need to be the GQ model or the Billionaire Alpha to be worthy of a good life as men. A good life as people.

The use of classification and differences to dehumanize and the manosphere

If you have ever listened to a video from the Skeptic Community online you will sometimes hear words that seem out of place. You will hear these same words in various places within the broader manosphere as well. I am referring to terms like beta, omega, cuck and among the PUA's "everyday chump." Often, when someone disagrees with someone else usually a man they will start calling them these sorts of terms as a way of saying "these men are not men at all."

Instead of saying that person is wrong or even evil as an individual and has bad ideas. Instead of rebuking their grey matter and attacking their ideas they make things personal. They make claim that if you do not think like me your manhood is in question. Or in some scenarios these folks will attack the man's orientation as if that matters. Or they will call them something like Soy Boys or such things. I am surprised they are not using the term sissy. It would do the same thing and create a similar split between men.

I very much am not in favor of using these terms for anyone you disagree with. Even if you think someone can be a beta male disagreeing with you is not the determination of that. Hell, even being a vile far left peace of shit is not being a beta male. These men are making things personal and attacking other men's very gender identity as a man by making it seem like their identity is warped or defective because of their views. To them alpha, beta and omega are not just different classifications for places in the social hierarchy they are the differences between being able to speak as a man or not.

Alpha males are not just men with specific traits which have a human constructed label placed on them based on the behavior of animals of certain kinds. To them Alphas are the only real men the only men that are not deformed and even disordered in their thinking. That Betas are the programmed and surfs of the left and or downright evil depending on the person if you have a penis. That Omegas are useless, a genetic dead end and so you should just go kill yourself. Oh, and dare not be a cuck which is not even reserved for an actual cuck as in participating in cuckholding an actual fetish some men and women have.

This is downright disgraceful and shows how little labels and their definitions actually mean to so many people and especially in certain places online. Someone not being an Alpha Male does not equal being evil, bad, wrong or disordered as a man. So, no one should be calling people with bad ideas these names. Further more it helps to push a narrative that dehumanizes men that do not fit into certain labels and definitions. It pushes the idea that men, and maleness is not simply being biologically male, but, requires more. It paints a picture that breaks up into groups that can be harmed because after all they are not human they are not men.

Dehumanization of men is already pushed by the far left progressive authoritarian groups and a great deal of the mainstream. One does not want that to continue even more into some groups of men that are human and some that are not. Just because someone disagrees does not make them evil that has its own definition. Some of the men called these names might actually be evil,  but, if they are it is their ideas that are evil. They could be adopting these ideas out of ignorance and be perfectly fine people that just need to learn the truth. However, even if they were in fact evil in their politics does not mean you are justified in dehumanizing them and basing that on their status as a true man.

You do not need to be an "Alpha" to be a real man. You do not need to be a high status male to be worth value. You have value where you are doing whatever productive work you are engaging in by virtue of producing value in the world through your production in it. Going even further a homeless man with no job and no friends whom requires help through voluntary charity to get on his feet is still a man of possible immense value. All humans that are not truly evil and even those whom are evil by ignorance have the possibility of great value in the future. A man whom seems to have no skills at all can still and often will find something that they can outright master that thing which brings joy to as the old saying goes their very soul. Men do not need to be at the top to be worth your respect.

If you find men espousing evil ideas do not attack their humanity or their manhood. Attack the fact they hold evil ideas and find out why they hold those ideas. They maybe misinformed and ignorant a kind talk might just set them on the correct path no need to dehumanize and treat them unjustly. However, if you do inform them the truth and they do not want to the right thing than you can call them truly evil. Yet, this does not mean they lack being human and that does not mean that if they are not threatening to initiate harm to others or their property there is no right to be lower case evil. There definitely is such a right it is called freedom of conscious and as long as they are evil in peace even this level of person does not deserve to be dehumanized. Call them evil and not less than a man. There are plenty "real men" that have been in favor of evil and vile ideologies in this world.

Individuals that are betas, omegas and cucks do not deserve to be tarred with the brush of all being evil and vile people by associating them with people that hold bed or downright evil ideas. Being into cuckholding is not necessarily evil you need to know the motivation behind living the lifestyle. Being somewhere other than the cock of walk at the top does not make you less of a man. Being not good with women or other men if you like them as well does not make you less than a man. Being someone that does not fit into some specific place in some label does not make you less of a man. It definitely is not the equivalent of being evil and to think you have anyway of taking others man cards because of differences between you and that individual man is thinking you can play God. Essentially you are no better than the SJW's that want to take away men's man cards for not being in lockstep with Feminists

Mystery Method Madness on VH1, pseudo-confidence and the Pick Up Conception of the Alpha Male.

Last night I watched a major trainwreck of a reality show called "The Pick Up Artist." A reality show on The Mystery Method of Pick up and the training of several men bad with women into master PUA's. They essentially took several men and trained them in techniques used within The Mystery Method. It consisted of people ranging from the overly single to no less than 3 men mistaken to be gay by women. It also consisted of a virgin as well and two people that wanted to find the love of their life not just hook up. These men I bet had no idea what they were in for when they signed up to be on the show though.

The first thing they do on the show is have them walk into a club to try and chat up women. Within 10 minutes of arriving to the show not ready at all for a night on the town the men are thrown to the fire. They are monitored via cameras setup in the club by Mystery and his wing people which changed from Season 1 to Season 2. The men are critiqued on everything from the way they walk into the bar to the way they stand. As well as their willingness to as they call it "use an opener and get into a set." The men with the worst criticism are those men whom do not try to approach women. The men whom are too scared to open a conversation with a woman are "average everyday chumps."

In one case one very shy man decided to dip his toe into the anxiety ridden waters of clubbing by chatting up some bros first. To this Mystery questions if they are sharing the same "kind of targets." Thus insinuating that said man is gay or bisexual, so, looking for other men for sets not women. Oh, women "in a set" are called Mysteries "targets." Even though approaching women and getting laid is not in anyway predatory the wording used throughout the show at times is quite unnerving. It is clear that it is because Mystery has a system and uses it. So, for him picking up women is simply using his system to achieve his goals. It is in fact a system that does indeed work as is shown throughout the process of training these men.

However, just because something works does not mean you should use it. Yes, the Mystery Method does work on at least a certain number of women. Yes, it does contain some parts within it that are not themselves bad or wrong, or anything. However, the good is covered in a lot of shit. Body language for sure can be very important. Yes, touching absolutely when appropriate can help escalate the mundane to the sensual for sure. Yes, tone and way of speaking can change someones impression of you. Yet, the first thing they do is to begin a process of complete change for these men. Starting with creating an Avatar almost like a new identity via switching how they dress. Some of the men even change their names.

From here things are beginning to ramp up for the men as they are introduced to opening, displaying higher value and getting into "a set." The first thing one notices is a stack of papers like 15 pages thick dropped in their lap. A first look at how literally systematic the method Mystery uses is. To the point of having written out what openings that can be used that work. Written down also are examples of dropping as they call it displays of higher value in a short time and the art of stacking. This leads to 5 minutes of the show with a condensed version of all the men literally memorizing all aspects of the 15 papers. Which includes reading back every single line to themselves like practicing to put on a play or a movie shoot. The audience already knows what these women will hear line for line and word for word before the approach happens.

This becomes what the audience will see every episode as the men are treated to lesson after lesson. Which they memorize like homework and are expected to play out and use with every single experience with the women they meet. So, it comes time for the Field Test as the men are going to be driven to the club for trying out their new techniques. Sure enough in they go and slowly they approach women. They begin saying the same words we have heard in the memorization faze. Mystery and his wing people watch from a van outside and critique them. However, not everyone is happy with canned lines and dropping hints of higher value that are predetermined by Mystery and the show.

Several of the men do not use the material given to them and wing it. Mystery and his people are not happy when their material is not used. They get quite agitated to see the men say what they want and not just regurgitating lines. They really get upset with men that use their own jokes or whom do not touch when they think they should. You should have rubbed her arm there, you should have kissed her there and so on. If a man gets a woman alone, but, does not escalate his desire to get a woman is questioned. Or if they decide to keep being around a woman's friends as opposed to spending time alone that too is frowned upon. Oh and too much in the comfort faze means they are just friends now.

If a man talks to a woman, has an amazing interaction, but, does not get a kiss, make-out or sexual vibes of some kind it is considered a failure to complete a challenge. Why? I guess in the minds of Mystery and his people a great and amazingly positive night of conversation without ending up all over each other is a waste of their time. So what if these men could not even talk to women without literally shitting themselves inside and now can talk up a storm and women do not scare them. Who cares that they kissed their hand or forehand, but, just not their lips and even got their number to contact them out of the interaction.

These men now have confidence and a feeling of being more than enough which is all they needed to have instruction in. They did not need instructions on how to tell compliance or escalation of Kenostetics. Although there is nothing wrong with knowing when to tell that a woman is showing indicators of interest it is clear Mystery only wants it done within his own system with its own goals. One does not need to go through all the shit infested in the half decent stuff here to be good with women. Knowing if someone is showing interest is not something that needs to be infested with Mysteries talk of "targets." The last thing that any man should have on his mind is anyone being a "target." That does not mean just women... any other individual should never be a "target."

As the series goes on occasionally the term "Alpha" shows up in things like the body language section of the show. Mystery will comment on the men sitting in an Alpha style or standing in an Alpha style. Also, there is somewhat talk here and there of taking control of the situation. The term Alpha Male in its entirety is not used all that often which was a surprise. Normally Pick Up types will use terms like Alpha Male quite a lot, and, so, it was interesting to see only certain traits called Alpha and not the man himself. It is surprisingly lax of use of the word which was a break away.

Yet, the confidence that is newly found is it really confidence at all? If these men needed to be made over to feel self-esteem and confidence did they really gain any? Every night they go out in the same Avatar outfit and eventually use the same or similar lines and get the same results. Is that really confidence? What if the lines blew? What if the woman knows all the lines? What if they had to walk into the club in their old clothes and were told to meet women? Could these men do that be whom they were and approach women? We will never know because they were in their Avatar persona every time expect one that they met women. So, is it confidence or a mask that they are comfortable acting through like acting out a part in their favorite play?

The Pick-Up conception of confidence and Alpha Males when they come up as well are often times shallow and based on a fake it till you make it sort of theme. The problem is that fake it till you make it was never intended as a psychological trick to erase your own self and replace it with a fake facade. Even in the broadest terms fake it till you make it would mean faking confidently being really you and showing up powerfully. Showing up as yourself and not going out for an entire new wardrobe to mask your insecurities with a veneer of ladies man. This is I fear a trap a lot of Pick Up men fall into and it is not healthy at all.

While by the end of the series some of these men seem to be better off we do not really know if they are as we never have any follow ups. They might have crashed and became socially anxious the moment they did not have a script and some nice clothes to wear. Mystery does teach these and other men some important skills and traits within his method. However, it is so top heavy with being fake and disingenuous. It is so filled with its own coded language that has no relevance to the real world. No one goes out "looking for sets." They go out look to socialize to have fun and hopefully for us that are into women a woman that clicks with you. I do not go out looking for "targets." Most men do not go out looking for "targets."

In fact, if I heard any man using the term "target" for anyone I was with regardless of sex I would tell them to get the fuck away from them. This is not some White Knighting; poor women being called targets by the big bad Pick Up artists. This is a genuine no one should be your "target." I would not care if women said the same thing about men I am not a woman's target either. In the end Pick Up Artistry contains a hint of OK truths, but, it is packed upon a mountain of bile that reaches the sky. I would not recommend Pick Up Artist training as a way to gain confidence. It definitely will not teach you long term "Alpha" to use a phrase traits either. It will only paint a fake coat of paint on you to make you look like something or someone you are not.