Quote:
Originally Posted by WordKeeper  Tony, what I think about the article and your support of it is really a kind of "so what" value but I posted it anyway because I was startled by the unabashed self-centeredness of it and of many of the reactions posted on this thread.
I was deeply moved by RTWolf's posts and his(?) clear but unemotional responses but as a person for whom the value of true community, caring about human connection and support, I felt the need to express my concern.
The unbridled individualism is disastrous for any society. As in most aspects of human life there is a need for balance.
As I wrote what struck me most was the phrase "doing better with women" which I initially expect to mean "doing better in building relationship with women." So I was, quite frankly, appalled to realize that what you meant by that was merely getting permission to perform a bodily function with some/any/many/as many as possible females (and the assumption would be without having to pay for it - at least not more than the price of a drink.)
I'm wondering why you would use a phrase as vague as "doing better with women." It could mean many things. Why not be clear and specific? Why not say, "It is a must for men who want to **** as many women as possible"? |
Why do you assume that the women involved get nothing out of this?
What is wrong with a man wanting to sleep with as many women as he wants?
Why does doing better with women have to be something negative?
There is some good info in that article. Also, for the women who read it and want to get better with men, they can take Paul's methods and simply switch it for them.
For instance, they can use his number method to approach men they like and get their numbers. It works both ways.