Pietro

Thank you! I was trying to understand what was wrong with me, as the more meditation I was doing the less interest I was with enlightenment, and here you go. The answer of a lifetime said as a joke.

Well, he does strike a point that it is the most silly way to throw away ones money. I mean, 90 different cars could make sense, but 90... all the same?

Yeah, like the buddha field but a tao-field. With the taoist practices, taoist meditation, tai ji and taoist ethics (i.e. personal, not externally imposed). Count me in. We should organise it for the summer. Maybe one in Europe and if the Usa bums are up to it, they should have one too.

Every now and then I receive PM. I hardly use PM, mostly I think the discussion is and should be kept in the discussion forum so that we all can participate. Strangely enough I don't get much email from the people who write many posts. We know who we are. But then from time to time I get PM's from externals. People who wrote one, two or twenty-2 posts and then start pm-ing like crazy. Am I the only one to receive them. It gets worse, when I receive them, they usually contain some questions, and once I answer them to rise the question with the community I invariably get a "no", since they don't want to raise to much spam. I mostly ignored this behaviour until today when after I clarifed that I was NOT going to pass on the famous info from David (as if they had anything remotely interesting! Wtf!), and as a response I received: When I clarified that I was going to speak about this conversation because I actually was thinking of doing it before, and he should have asked me to keep it confidential BEFORE it started, what I received was: I am actually quite perplexed. But it does give some ground to why some practices were kept confidential. In any case I am now testing the message ban system. Considering how little I use PM I might actually just take off the possibility for everybody to PM me. Am I the only having this troubles? Because if I am not, then maybe a little exchange of opinions might help the community.

I am someone who goes to Osho retreats, but does not follow Osho. I go to Osho groups mostly for the people, the celebration, and a few meditations. And mostly because I am not aware of taoist groups getting together to celebrate life, and I find their way of living is not that far from taoists. I think in some ways Osho really got some things very well. I think of a book: Why Should I Grieve Now?: On Facing a Loss and Letting Go which takes a story from Chuang Tzu and expands it into a full book of teachings. And it makes so much sense. And again how I found other stories from Chuang Tzu being exposed and become so clear suddenly. But then I think of how he attacked religion and any spiritual group without a living enlightened person, and I see his group now that he is dead. In short I now put him in the same category of Castaneda: people that said interesting things, but where the work of dividing the good part from the rest is just too long and risky, making the whole teachings now not a good deal timewise.

Hello Harry, just to understand if it was just me. or it was a general phenomena. I could have PM all the people I am in touch with, but it felt a bit weird to send a PM saying: hey, did you got any strange PM lately You see if we are all chatting in a room, and you tell me something privately, everybody knows that there is this discussion going on. But here, as we don't know who is PM'ing who, you can have someone PM'ing everybody and everybody thinking they were the only one. Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective it feels like there is some space for cheaters (no offence meant, it is the scientific technical term for people/agents/programs asking and not giving) which is missing in real life. If someone is speaking in the ear of everybody at a party we all would notice. But here?

It came out in a discussion, and I thought I would run this little poll.

sacred art no need gramar to

I can answer you on this, because I have seen them. Three works of art: Onces more with feelings: book by Victoria Coren , Charlie Skelton La parpaia Topola: giullarata (jester piece) from Dario Fo L'uomo che guarda: movie from Tinto Brass Dario Fo (nobel Prize for litterature) explains in Il Mistero Buffo (The funny mystery), how pornography is totally devoided of any humor. (I actually disagree, but that's another story). He then has recovered some ancient pieces of jester theater that use to be played in the 11? 13? century in the north of italy and south of france. The language is a mixture of the slang of those valleys, but the physical movements are so clear that jesters could go from one valley to the other and everybody would understand them. Among those stories was the parpaia topola. parpaia means butterfly, and topola means mouse. It is an ancient story where the first character is it, the parpaia topola. The butterfly mouse (i.e. the pussy). And is also the story of the "stupid husband". A character that (Fo tells us) has been ubiquitous in the litterature from then on. But in this story there is actually a good ending. That (if I am good judge), comes from the heart. So much that it is not uncommon for people who see it to get their eyes wet, at the final scenes. It took me ages to find this particular piece, but finally I found it, and although the quality of the registration is not as good as we are used to, the greatness of Dario is such that you forget the white noise that accompanies the file. I am tempted to describe the whole story, but it would take me ages, and I cannot for now share the file. It needs to be changed, and adjusted, and it is in italian (that is not going to change, although I would love to know how to make subtitles), but it is wonderful. The second is Tinto Brass in L'uomo che guarda (The Voyeur). Subtitle: le donne vogliono essere prese, non comprese (women want to be taken, not understood). Here you have a movie where sex, real sex is shown, it makes you aroused, but then the story takes you, and all that sexual energy is transformed into anger for the twist of the story. I remember leaving the cinema angry. Really angry (!) by all the sexual energy that has been transformed. We might discuss that anger is a heavy emotion, and we don't like to experience it. But there are no doubts that Tinto Brass knew his job. It is also a movie that now, with the knowledge of PU that I have I would consider a good movie to learn. Not to learn how to PU but to learn how some men have much more sex than others. The frustration that the viewer experiences is the frustartion of the AFC when he discovers how his own wife ... (but I should not spoil you the movie) The third is a book. It is not as good as the other two. The other are written by masters in their field. Dario is I suspect the best jester not just that is around now, but probably that has been around in a long time. The book has been written by two journalists. A man and a woman. Two friends. They were given the task to review pornographic movies for a newspaper. The book is extremely funny, and I remember the line from the first page: "after seing hundreds of movies, while eating tea and biscuits, you end up being less interested in where the next dick is going into than in where the next biscuits is coming from". Eventually (by page 3) they realised how there was not one movie with substance, and they decided to make a porno movie themself. After all, in what other field can you make your first movie, and have it being the best movie of the whole category? Did they succeed? Well they made a movie, and the whole book is the story of the process of making the movie. It includes sexual descriptions of the story of the movie, and how they actually did it, and so on. How they decided the story (we wanted to put any perversion that any of us liked, but no perversion that were a no no for any of them. So no women masturbating with long nails, for she really did not like the idea, while he had no problem with it, I wonder why). Now I have never seen the movie, I have also read the book which is not a porno book, although it treats about porno, and being quite descriptive at times. But the story that is described is a short porn story, and I believe a piece of art too. One line from it (as I remember it): By the way, to become pornographers, Nina and Charlie went to interview various stars in the field. Among them Nina Hartley (article). I think if you want to find someone really good in doing porn you have to look at her. But then what to say about Abby Winters. Abby is probably considered the best pornography taht is being done around. It is work of art. Her takes people who are often in love with each other, let them make love in front of the camera, and youhave those pictures and movies of real love. Something so hard to find, well in all sense. Oh, and probably I should mention ... I forgot. Actually I just realised I did had a whole chapter of Once more with feelings, that has been given to me by Vicky, when they had a website. ok, good night.

Hi Sean, do you mind if for the record we change that we all know into nearly all of us know? It makes me feel so excluded.

Bruce said to Alan (my teacher), that he, Alan, was not ready. Since Alan is a good practitioner inside Bruce school, I assume this extends to nearly everybody else in the school. And of course the assumption is that Bruce being a taoist lineage master in a lineage that claims to come from the time of lao tzu should know the practice and have done it with some level of success at least in the presence of his teacher. After all he has the responsability to bring to the next generation the fullness of the teachings of this school of taoism. From time to time, for example, Bruce might tell us: I had to do this and that, but you don't have to, because I was being trained to become a lineage master, while you don't need to go through it. Of course Bruce is then teaching personally to some (few) students the remaining practices, so that they can then become the next lineage master.

Chuang Tzu described sitting and forgetting, way before any buddhist influence: My teacher asked Bruce about this practice and he was told that he was not yet at the point that it made any sense to even try it. So not exactly a newbie practice . Agreed about the rest.

Well, of course I am not. At least fully. In fact, working in science, I don't even know what does it mean to be scientifically sure? We are not so sure about things. We tend to be quite full of doubts. But the problem with the ming is that is an ancient chinese concept, that (at the present time) is had to measure, if it is possible at all. What is the ming? In fact I am not even sure there is a ming that is independent from the body you have. Example, the amount of testosterone (free? I suppose), that a male has is correlated with the probability for him to divorce. There have been studies that has been done, and I found the data in The Alchemy of Love and Lust. Now, what is the relation between the free testosterone that a person has and his relationship ming? Are they independent or is ming just a way to pack together a series of charatteristics, that makes a person fit well into a certain lifestyle. In other words even if it was just (and why is a just?) the restless, sensation-hungry, thrill seeking mind this might be coming from some blockages in my bodies (physical/energetic/...), but it might also be coming from the fact that my body when is living in its natural state, produces more testosterone. And this, through a cascade of hormones, being activated, produces the effect you describe above. From my understanding, and from my experience, there is a difference between what you are good in doing and what gives you a deep sense of satisfaction when you do it. And I think/feel/believe/has-noticed/has-experienced that is this deep sense of satisfaction that more tells us about the ming of a person. Or at least, this is what I refer to when I speak about my ming. Not being measurable, we have to accept those descriptions as definitions. Now, I had various girlfriends in my life. Only in one case, and just for few days, did I stopped looking to other women. I was deeply inside still searching. This has happened in a time span of several years. I always felt I wanted more women. I felt one was not enough for me. Well, lately through PU I was able to be in the situation where I had more girls willing to be intimate with me. We weren't in a formal relationship, nor did they knew each other (apart vaguely knowing that they were not alone, and I had 'others'), well in that period I felt a deeper sensation of rest. Of satisfaction. Would three give me even more rest and satisfaction? Or would I feel that it is too much. I don't know (I am obviously open to try it, PM me in case ). So I cannot tell you where exactly my ming lies. And this is why I don't say: my ming is to be bigamous. But I more generally say poligamous. As I said I try to be precise when I write. Sometimes, (also to make my posts readable) I might not put all the dots on the i's. Especially in a discussion. But you might be right. I might adapt my language to my audience more than I am happy to admit. I do notice that I put an awful lot of clarifications (I think, I assume, I believe) but maybe I was exagerating when I said I did it all the time. Cat, I haven't answered your question, mostly because I don't understand it either. I shall try to read it slower, lately. Please don't take any offence, I seem to have big language issue with all the meditators communities those days.

Oops. And that's where taoist energetic lovemaking, with no touching at all, a tent between the two people and several witness comes into play. Trunk, don't feel bad if I could not follow you in your explenation. I just have some problems where descriptions incorporates terms like lower and higher. For example, I understand the term lower tan tien, and higher tan tien. But I see it strictly from a physical POV, and not at all from a spiritual -more near the absolute, etc- pov. Cat, howcome, I feel that in your response there is a bit of an agenda? As if you feel that yes, all this Pick up is nice and merry, but the real work is in monogamy? Am I being over reading here, or am I right? What about those people whose ming is to develop a poligamour relationship? What's the next challenge for them? Because for me the next challenge I see, is to develop a network of friendhips, among people I love. In short to further develop my harem into a consistent unit, of women that not only love and desire me (and viceversa), but also respect and know each other. In clarity, light, desire, and transformation. beancurdturtle: this is both an invitation and a test, if I ever saw one.

I would go for 50 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the evening. You can do a lot in 10 minutes, but you need a central time to go deeper.

So, now VeeCee has a picture, along with me Ian and Trunk. Welcome among the people who are not hiding themselves. Hello Cat, sorry if I could not answer your questions before. I think you are right the art (PU art) is just a tool, now how do you use it it depends on where you are and where do you want to go deeply. And if there is one thing that Taoism have teached me is that not only we are in different places in life, but we also want to go to different places. The one size-fits all does not seem to be much available in the taoist store. Interestingly it is way more available in the PUA store, since many PUA have grown in our common western-christian dominated world. So the curious thing is that while I absolutely agree with you that there are people who need a harem, people who need just a couple of women, people who need one, people who are happy to be single, or the third with another couple, and in generaly anything you can think off; PUA, when you go out with them, often tend to assume that many people are there looking for the one. It is funny, but many PUA are in their heart quite romantic guys who just look for a girlfriend. They have learned the leasson that staying at home wanking in front of the internet is not helping, and they made one step (actually many steps) forward. They go out, they make workshops to get better, not just in PUA, but in all. They meet people, they learn social skills. Some pick up meditation. Often PUA are more clear on one thing their later aim is to find a girl to have kids with. But until they found that women they will have sex around. Remember that many PUA are quite young. Me too when I was 19 I was a romantic. It took many years to make me the asshole hard rock heart you see now . And I think that what they are doing is correct. At least they are not going to get married to have secure sex. They are learning how to have sex from the field, and then they can decide if and when to marry from a place of strength and not a place of weakness. Funny enough this hasn't happened to me from such a long time. Maybe 25 years. Generally I always connect to the universal love I have for everybody, and this helps me make love with anybody, satisfy my need for sex, without feeling drained. Can't speak about the others. Yes, both Mystery and Style wanted a gf. But Mystery is a person very young, not very stable, and he cracked up. Style knew everything about how to bring a women to bed, but now he had to learn how to stay with a woman. And they split up after a few months. But I don't know the details. Indeed some people want a gf, some style of PU are more tuned for the one night stand, and as a result some people are unhappy. My style is slower, but it seem that the women I go with seem to be really interested in me. But I would disagree with the second part of your statement. They wanted (also) love before, during and after. When they find no love they go out socialise, and have sex. In this way they have a good time, make friends, and are not sexually frustrated. It didn't "got old" it's just that from the beginning they wanted more. It was a mean to an end. Funny you mention this. The more I am in PUA, the less I feel like a child with women, and the more I feel mature, and embodying mature masculinity. I can't speak about the others, but for me I don't go looking for wives. But sometimes wives come looking for me, and I am not always aware that they are married. From when I realised that going with married women was not ok for me, only one time did my soul gave the green light with a married women. But the situation was very unique. Ok, I hope I have answered all your questions. Trunk, I read your post, I couldn't make much of it, but I admit that it was probably my problem, it just went over my head. But other people appreciated it, so maybe one day someone will explain it to me. I hope you found the answers to the questions you asked me before, I too could not understand. Sensually yours, Pietro

Yes, absolutely correct. It's called oneitis. Actually the first three questions: And is generally the first thing AFC have to learn when they reach the site. It is described by Franco as "the cognitive distortion of the only option": While The Alchemy of love and lust will describe how when you have good sex with a person you release some hormones (oxytocine, dopamine...), and when those hormones stops being released and being in the organism a person can have withdraw symptoms like a person who has been given a drug and then took it away. How does this sum up with alpha and beta people. The alpha, having enough sex, are less prone to fall into this state of dependency, and as such are also preferred by women because they know that will give them less troubles later. Look also (again, probably) at the basic question: If ordinary guys get laid why do I need all this information?. The first paragraph: Doesn't this describe precisely what you are refering to. So the solution (tested by many people) is to put aside that one woman and try to have a lot of sex (yes quantity) with other woman. As your body start to have other options, it will be less needy for that one. Only at that point, if she is still so unique after you have bedded enough women, then you might want to consider if the insane attraction was not just chemically based, due to a lack in sex, but was deeper. For example in the Game Neil Strauss becomes really good. And immediatly he stops falling in love with every girl he goes to bed with. Eventually, at the end of the book, he falls in love with Lisa. He can't have her, so he starts to seduce many other girls to get over the oneitis. Plus by that time she has about 8 fuck buddies friends with benefits. Still none of this can make him forget her. Same thing was happening on the other side of the fence, and eventually they got together. In one of the final scene, Lisa tells Neil: "this evening all the guys were hitting on me, I was feeling like a goddess. Are you aware you have in your bed the most beautiful women of California" (or similar), To which Neil answers: "Of course, I passed two years making love with all the women in California, to be sure". So you see, also behind PU members there is a heart. P.S. Thank you very much for the links FreeForm. I shall print them out as soon as I have the possibility and read them.

Freeform, thanks for the long explenation you gave. You are obviosly much better than me in writing things in a way that can be understood and does not hurt other people's feelings. In particularly I liked the maze example; which I did not know before. Can you give me a reference to that? Not because I doubt its authenthicity, but because I would like to use it myself. naaa

What this article refers to, in my partial, and limited understanding, is not so much those long process, but the impulsive action a woman will make and then retionalise about it later. What is he saying (and I heard other player confirm me as well) is that there is a gap. A gap that women were evolved to develop. A gap that let's an alpha male have the sex he needs in the species of primates we generally refer to as homo sapiens sapiens. This is especially true if women are in a relationship from some time. (2 years scientific studies say, PU community agree that a women married from more than 2-3 years is easier to game than a single one). When this happens she will have sex, often on the same day as meeting the alpha male, and rationalise about it later. Or just forget about it. And in general keep it hidden. From his husband. Being honest about what has happened is also integrity toward your words. And integrity toward your past. As a (gorgeous , another in the "if only I knew PU early enough!" ) female friend of mine once said: Now, once you have accepted that the gap is there, the next question is, why is it so? One possibility is because in this way women are providing a higher diversity to the gene pool, giving extra chance to dominant charatteristics. A second might be because society is more stable if the alpha male gets the sex he likes, without having to "posses" the females (remember all those evolved in prehistorical time, very politically incorrect). I am sure there are other possibilities as well, and probably some of them work in conjunction. What I disagree with is that this behaviour only appears and is a sign of being unevolved. In my experience meditators are much easier to end up in bed with. While a non meditator (especially if young) will feel the desire and then either try to suppress it or being unsure about how to handle it. Meditators are quite happy when the desire arise to be complacent with it. After all they have already got themselves free from many social conditionings. And seizing the day, and living every day as if it was the last, is often one of their values. This does the mean of attraction does not happen in meditators. It might work a bit differently, though. Surely the values will be different, for once. Attraction is generated in both cases. What attracts and what doesn't has changed. But I, for once, have a much easier time in places with a lot of meditators, than in places with many non meditators. And I am not that happy about it, I wish I could have the same percentage of succes with non meditators. It would make my life much easier. So I will agree with Little1: ... or you will run the wrong kind of game

I like it because you ask the question and you answer yourself, too. Often, in science, things are not proven, but are disproven. Out of the infinity of possibilities you can sort out what is not, but this does not tells you nothing about what is. This big limit should just be enough to make you unconfortable of anyone who claims to know what is going on. But let's look at how scientific discoveries are made more in detail. But then you have two process, the inner eye, and the research. The inner eye is really important, because it tells you where to look. And it is accepted among scientists that a person that had really got himself involved with a problem will have a deeper understanding than someone that just did some experiments to prove or disprove something. (Actually just to disprove, you pretty much can never prove, but this is going toward epistemology -no you don't need to read it this time, is just the definition) So the inner eye puts all the info you have gathered on something together and comes out with a plausible solution. This is when you say "this might be what is going on". Einstein used the inner eye to guide him in understanding relativity when he started making experiments in his mind with a train going through the stars at a speed that is close to the speed of light. Still Einstein could not prove the theory of relativity. He just could present it as a possible explenation. In the years many people have tried to disprove it. And failed it. How? The theory of relativity predicted a certain number of effects we had not measured at the time. Like the way in which light bends around stars so that you can sometimes see the same star on the sky two times, or how time travels slower when you travel faster, thus when we sent one of two very precise clocks in orbit, eventually it was running not exactly in tune with the other. All this gives us hints that relativity is probably right. We still don't know it. But it is at the level that we consider it "true". But to reach this it took many years and it is still not ended. And every time we measure the speed of light, we might disprove the theory of relativity. It is enough that one time it goes at a different speed and we have to find a new solution all together. What many meditators do is, they find themself with an interesting phenomena. And meditation is full of interesting phenomena, although they areunfortunately often hard to measure. They try to use their (often scarce, and amatorial) knowledge of science to find out what is going on. Often they use their "inner eye" and meditative abilities to find something. Then with no external test whatsoever, done by other people, they come up and say that "this is what is happening". And if, god forbids, they are deluding themselves? About their sensations (since many things can't be measured, and you really should take a statisticalsample to study it), about their understanding of science (especially quantum physics, I mean, not like addition among natural numbers, it is hard stuff), about their ability of their inner eye to pull things together, or (aargh) to channel scientific explenations? The whole building of science that has been build upon their discovery crumbles. The inner eye is fine and an important element in the process of understanding reality, but it cannot be the ultimate test. Just one, admittedly important, on the way. And until the decades of tests has been done you are still not allowed to call a theory a fact. Not in science. And I would add not in any serious investigation of reality.

You, a man, find those views insulting for women. Hmm, that seem to be quite complicated. How come I never am insulted on proxy? The test of an idea is if it works to understand, and predict reality. If it is flattering or offensive this is totally irrelevant. In any case the article has an internal consistency, the idea that women tend to act on the feeling of the moment (the here-now), at the expense of their word and integrity (atleast what we male would call integrity), and men tend to act more on their word and integrity, at the expense of the feeling of the moment (the here-now). I often discuss those ideas with women I have sex with and they find the idea interesting and often illuminating in understanding their own behaviour. But this is general, there are many ideas from there and from a separate book which I suspect being of the same author (you will notice the article is anonymous). I often discuss them with my male friends, and when their girlfriends are over they often join the conversation. But of course that would not be enough for you, you are back to the idea that you need to make a full confession to a woman before having sex with her. Why? Does whe make a full confession to you about what she thinks about men? Do you think all the women you had sex with thought only nice things about men? You are stuck at the idea that you need to get along with your women. It is not a 1970 commune, your role is to fuck her, not to friend her.

You thought of me as an evolved person, how flattering. read the phrase in its context, woman. Don't read what you want. . It sais nothing about how women are in an absolute sense. But according to the standards that men hold for other men... I can trust a man. If he tells me something, I know he will do it. His name, his value, his identity will depend on it. Women tend to (I know it is a generalization, thus imprecise) act in every moment following how they feel. If they don't they'll feel they are not being true to themselves. So if I judge a woman as a man I would consider: is she trustworthy? If she sais something will she do it? They score quite low. Sorry, it's true. We are different. We might score low on your scale of being honest to what we feel in the particular moment. We are different. For the first part just look at what happens in marriages and divorces. For the second he seem to be speaking by experience. And for as far as I could check it is quite precise. Also women (the data is in The Female Brain) start to pick up the scent of a dominant male ONLY after they are in a relationship by a couple of years. Evolved to betray! denial is not just a river in Egypt I'm sorry. I try to post that link as soon as possible in a discussion to sort out who is interested and who is too evolved for it. I can't force people to read it, I just can invite. Sorry, language issue. What I meant is: you interact with her as being relationship material. It is mostly about bringing out different parts of yourself. I think I clarified this about 10 times in this thread. But I suppose if someone just wants to read something else there isn't much I can do. In any case it 's getting late. I am off tomorrow morning for 2 weeks of trips and conferences. Internet access will be spurious at best. Be evil, Pietro

But that is also who I really am. I am also that cocky and funny, playful young stud, who make their head turn, challenges them, and fucks them for the whole night (thanks to taoist practices). Most of them are absolutely aware they are being gamed. They love it. They are not that all innocent, totally unaware madonna that you guys seem to imagine. They love sex, they just cannot show it. While never having sex while desiring, and being tied to an irrealistic, impractical ethical system that does not permit you to be your (instinctive) self, does real damage. Makes you bitter, full of resentment, and anger toward those "bitches who fuck all those evil guys while not having sex with me, who am so virtuous".

Said mommy. If you only knew... I am right now slipping in a relationship with a women in Italy. I say slipping because is neither mine and her desire, but things are progressing in that direction. And yes, she knows I have other women. Plato has a very beautiful gf, while I remember how he was loveless, and protesting (his posts were historical: "are all the good ones married") before discovering PU. There is a huge number of PU who eventually find a girl they want to stay with and move away from PU. There was even a marriage where the book "the game" was recognised as being the "yellow woman" of the situation and placed on display. You, see PU leads you to a place where you are able to give wondeful sex to women. From there it is easier to find women who want a relationship with you. Most women who you have sex with will consider if you could be relationship material. But if you pose yourself as relationship material they will either LJBF you, or (if they DO consider you as relationship material) not want to fuck you to avoid you think of them as sluts.

It's painful, eh. Been there, suffered that. Somehow my ethics was changed when I started looking deeper in the issue and eventually I made peace with the fact that women are attracted to different kind of guys. When I realised (or rationalised) that it was so because it made sense from an evolutionary point of view I stopped wishing them to be different, and hoping to find the one. Some articles helped me. I'm sure you read this, I link it in every PUA post I make. It is scary how precise it is. I always thought I did not want to go with married women. A woman I met this summer, just after making wild sex at her tent told me: "I need to make a phone call, or it will be too late". So still damp she took the phone and: "Oh darling, how are you? We were just speaking, and it got late...". Then, to me, "my husband". Just as the article describe. I was seeing her, and thinking about the article. This article more than others changed my values. The others is, as Wayfarer calls it "the mechanics". Btw, you know why I eat meat? Because, although I do not like to kill to eat, this diet makes me the healthier. And I believe that being healthy is my duty. And it has a higher priority than not killing animals. Similarly I believe it is my fundamental right to reproduce (and not be tortured daily by my reproductive-hormonal system). I don't think an ethics that makes it so difficult is an acceptable ethics, grounded in this universe. And since women are perfect as they are (because they have evolved to be so), it is me who needs to change. If my ethics requires me not to lie, but reproducing requires me to say some white lies ("Me? I never even thought about having sex with you,... but you did naughty girl!") then so be it. You see, it is not that they are attracted to a different kind of Pietro, and I lie by claiming to be so. It is that they are attracted to a Pietro who can say some light lies and not treat them like mommy. A Pietro who can flirt, and make the world around them spin, and be interesting, and challenging. It is different. They like me when I lie. Even when they can see right through them -although they are not fully sure. It is a different kind of lies, that is why people call it flirting.