Show some sympathy for the poor alpha male trainee confused about how to flirt with women without inadvertently making them feel good about themselves by telling them they look pretty or something.
“How do you flirt without validating,” someone called Lanaskillet wonders in a post on the Ask the Red Pill subreddit. He knows the general Red Pill stance is “to avoid validating and kissing up to women but,” he asks,
how do you even show interest to begin with. Talking to them without any sort of compliment will just have her thinking of you as just a man without a penis right? Push/pull to me seems like the only answer but even then it’s some sort of validation for them since you still give them a feel good statement. I’m trying to comprehend this part of the red pill
The trick, I imagine, is to figure out how to compliment a woman without making her feel good, about herself or about anything, really.
You’re beautiful — like the precious lives so cruelly snuffed out on 9/11.
If you were a fish, I bet you’d be a cod.
Your head shape appears to be within normal parameters.
You have a sister? Let me guess: she’s the pretty one?
Your makeup really makes your eyes pop … I mean, bulge.
You look better than you smell.
You’re almost as pretty as my mother.
You remind me a lot of this bug I once saw.
Are you a national park? Because you look like you’re open for drilling.
Are those your actual toes?
Use any of these suggestions and you’ll be in like Flynn.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@Pie
Sounds like that idiot troll we had a bit back on one of the Miggie cooking threads – the real wordy sod who’s prose was more ultraviolet than purple. He was convinced he could train his system to deal with the nasties. Which would be a neat trick. (If it were possible the military would be using it. They don’t – the only thing they train out of you is your sense of taste – so it’s not possible.)
Squirrel stew is rather nice if it’s done right. Nan used to make a wonderful one, but she never shared the recipe. She were a bit ashamed of some of what she called her “poor-house dishes.”
@Jenora Feuer
This attitude, which persists to this day, leads to some rather unstable alliances. For instance, many different sects of Christians have come together to form the religious right yet each one seems to think that once they get their theocracy that all their former allies will suddenly convert to their specific sect.
Fie, my friend, on such a lack of epistemological rigor! Fixed it for you. 😀
@Jenora Feuer
Yep. I’ve occasionally wondered what Great-Great-etc.-Grandfather was thinking when he wrote that the Dunkards were “very hospitable people.” Was he noting something that surprised him? Was he simply reporting the facts as he found them? It’s one of those times where the text alone doesn’t say very much, and in any case he was more concerned with mapping than with anthropology or sociology (though as a doctor of the time I’m assuming he was a bit of an amateur naturalist).
@Naglfar:
Oh, I’m all too well aware it persists to this day. I was mostly just noting that the attitude has been around since the founding of the U.S.
And before, really. The Puritans in particular were quite well-known for having left for North America not so much to escape religious persecution but so they could be the ones on top when engaging in it. That’s why Rhode Island was officially for freedom of religion even before the U.S. came together as a thing, because the Puritans had chased the Baptists out of other parts of New England.
@Victorious Parasol:
Who knows? Certainly there are people to this day who firmly and loudly believe that atheists cannot possibly be good people without a belief in God to keep them on the straight and narrow. (Often while explicitly breaking their own commandments.) The idea that someone would be surprised that members of another religion were hospitable has an unfortunate amount of historical evidence behind it.