Christopherscience

I appreciate the help. I don't see a way out in inherent meaning. But perhaps I'm missing something, so what is inherent meaning? I'm working through some things - the following is subject to error: Worth while, or worthy, endeavors are a matter of value. I can't see a value which is not subjective. The lure of objectivism, for me in the past, was that the primary value was in the mind/value-setter (that minds were inherently valuable). However, it seems to me that, too, is subject to mind in question. Objectivism seems subjective; I know it sounds "bad" but what says human minds are valuable? A worthy endeavor starts in the mind, yes? And the mind is the thing that assigns worth, right? I know it sounds bad when I jump to conclusions, but... just because brains exist, does that mean they should exist? Either you assume brains are good, in order to get around the is/ought (the "is" is an "ought"; i.e. inherent value)... or there is a loop of minds saying minds are good because minds say minds are good, ad infinitum. Minds are good because minds say minds are good (plus however many steps one wants to add). Or... is there an outside standard of value and meaning or purpose (what is the correct word?). I'm not going to assume there is a god or gods to resolve that, because that just adds an obfuscatory layer that resolves nothing (but pushes the problem upon a higher realm). ... On a tangential note, the self seems like a teleological assumption. "I" means a bundle of nerves and flesh, subject to various, innumerable inputs (which "I" have no causa sui control over; there is no self-caused self in a universe bound by the laws of conservation)... I can't resolve the existence of freewill so long as the laws of conservation are in effect... It is as though I am a kind of mirror which reflects that which went into making me, so to speak. To separate me from the inputs that go into making me seems... arbitrary. Even self-reflection is subject to input. I'm not sure I create anything in a conserved universe; I am a remix, just an echo. Accepting or rejecting my fate seems inconsequential, but I am at a point where I am leaning toward accepting my fate because it fits "me" (my inputs aggregated). I tried out the mantra I remixed, "I accept my fate, unreservedly, even if it means that someday I will die." And I was very happy. I feel compelled to do things. Is that what they call choice? Feeling compelled to do (or not do) something, then acting it out? Do machines choose? Am I not a machine? I have a pump, electrical conduit, biochemical engines, etc. Holding onto freewill felt like holding onto god and other superstitions; it was an exception I was making against physics. It is time for me to close this. Thank "you" for the sounding board, and I appreciate your sentiment.

[i refer to myself in the second person and first-person-plural in journals and in thought] (something to listen to while you read: your choice) (Creepy music) (Bittersweet music) This is my zombie madness. Don't expect a mentally healthy, rosy, outlook. These are my dark thoughts, after all. The cold, eternal, dark... Journal entry: 2/4/2016 1:05 PM I had another zombie nightmare. Why is it always zombies? I tell myself that it has something to do with conformity. This time it was at a mountain lake with a swampy characteristic and a large central island in the bowl of the mountain. There were two people I was watching scraping zombie teeth against a rock, seeing if simply getting cut by a tooth would cause infection, both young men were daring the other, trying to gauge what would happen, seeing if the other might turn. Meanwhile there was a rock conveyor that was making land fill, expanding the island. However the island was made mostly out of driftwood, and when a rock (slightly smaller than the old woman meteor, and sharper, and whiter, like a shark’s tooth) reached the top of the conveyor (and hung, for a moment, like the Sword of Damocles) it dropped, crashing into the island – all the driftwood sank and dispersed, dredging up the undead. The survivors of the island panicked, now that they were no longer safe in their mountain lake hideaway. They tried to swim to the shores but the waters were thick with zombies. No one survived. I spent some time in the dream as one of the survivors, the rest of the dream was in third-person. As a survivor, I hesitated to enter the water as the zombies crawled up the raft and flotsam/debris which other survivors were quickly abandoning. There is nowhere safe in these zombie apocalypse dreams of mine. Not underground, not in the mountains, not at sea – nowhere. They will swarm and hoard you until you are the last man alive. And then you will die and become mindless. The dreams recur sometimes, but they all have the same theme. The first was in Jr. high school. The magical amulet of the locker room didn’t dispel the hoards and I ended up getting surrounded and bitten (then going to a zombie school dance with a blonde zombie). Hiding underground worked in one dream, surviving off of mushrooms, but the species died and there wasn’t enough to eat without the sun. The hills and mountains have continued to fail to stop the hoards. Being at sea doesn’t work because the zombies float, like bloated corpses. They are slow but they will always surround you, and fighting only exposes you to their infection sooner. I understand the metaphor at play here; it’s too obvious to ignore, and my subconscious is not giving me an escape – these are the people all around me, mindless cannibals, that won’t stop until everyone becomes... one of them. I’m surrounded by mindless people no matter where I go. There is no escape. No escape. Freedomain Radio was not an escape, no bastion of hope that could clear a path through the innumerable hoards. There is no cure. I think that in one dream I even caused the outbreak and was one of the first to die. I’ve become a zombie on a few occasions. Starving to death underground was the longest that I lasted. … The Last Man is coming. And if we don’t do something soon, there will be no survivors. I am not equal to the task of ushering in the superman. To believe that I could be the superman gives me hope, but hope is the enemy – last of the blights upon humanity hiding at the bottom of Pandora’s Box. [end of entry] Strangely, a lot of zombies are irrationally exuberant. Hope... Hope is what makes people think that there's a heaven - the ultimate in wishful thinking. The "realm of pure reason", divorced from cold, hard facts; Platonism - surrounds me. The undead deny the fact that they die, even though they fester, and rot away humanity (in these nightmares). The denial of death is central to the mindless hoards. They infect people with their ignorance. ... I fail to see how they... No... That's not true... I know exactly why they ignore death and act like their rotting away doesn't matter. Every philosopher tries to overcome radical skepticism; Cogito ergo sum; life is absurd, embrace it [ignore the dissonance by being consumed by it]; there is a higher realm and revealed truth, believe; the wonderful thing about man is that he is a bridge; truth at any cost, Socrates?; empirical, often reductive, "sciencism"; noble lies, all of it. The noble lie is infecting people, like a brain disease, spread through the mouth. They will not accept the leveling of death; the absolute nothingness that awaits all things. They "create" for themselves "meaning" - ex nihilo nihil fit. The universe is meaningless (the referent "universe", not the word "universe"). "What is the meaning of life?" is a syntax error - a question wrongly asked... And, yet, it drives people onward in the search for a wild goose or red herring. Everywhere around me people are walking around like they were above the laws of thermodynamics - perpetual motion machines. There is a leveling, an obliteration, that you can ignore, but which will hunt you down, surround you, and drag you to your death - and it is an immutable feature of existence. The zombies are like Egyptian Pharaohs trying to escape their "second death" (to be erased from historical memory). After high school, Marvel Comics published their zombie universe, and I had to turn away, as I saw heroes devoured on comicbook shelves. Iconoclasm forces me to watch everything I hold dear being destroyed. Nothing is sacred, god is dead, and there are no heroes, nor villains, no ideals, and no idols. I wanted to be a scientist, a biochemist, to study life (which I had held sacred)... but, like so many people, I had no idea what science really was - skepticism an confidence intervals always lower than 100%. I wanted to be a "nercomancer" and cure death with the chemistry of life, in a sense. Life has become a machine, a simple engine, governed by principles. I studied medicine and saw gore. Engine parts... Nothing is sacred. Nothing has "inherent value". These emergent properties people take for granted (ghosts in the machine, like freewill) are illusions. They are willfully ignorant of what makes them tick, and the universe around them. Dr. Josiah Gibbs must have been a lonely man after James Clark Maxwell died. Einstein called Gibbs the greatest mind the United States had ever produced, and I agree. We've seen to the end of the universe, and it is cold and dead. People think science is something great (when they are referring to technology, in fact, not science), and they know nothing about how it destroys everything you hold dear. I am alone. Worse than alone - I'm surrounded by people who don't know and don't want to know. Zombies, who want me to conform to their way of thinking so that I can un-death myself. To any survivors out there... Survive as long as you can, your engines are failing, and whatever you do - don't feed the dead.

I was going to write a long response, but decided not to post it. Here's a taste, though: Don't take this the wrong way, but I laughed when I read your response. Mostly I was laughing at myself because I've been in similar situations in the past, and I would never do that again. I'm not you, obviously. And just because a pattern exists does not mean it will persist. I'm thinking about what the long-game is here, and I don't want to prognosticate. Frankly, I don't know the future, no one does. Maybe you'll both live happily ever after. I can't see it, though. Do your sources tell you how these relationships play-out? If you're following a formula, then I assume you have some idea as to how these things end. I think you already know because you say; "[...]I actually studied what was going on, and realized that was what I was doing all along." "[...]I know she does not actually love me, despite what I feel. I know the mechanics at work, and which button to press for which outcome. I know this is all me loving myself, except instead of masturbation, I am masturbating myself with a biological human robot. With this woman also comes a challenge I have never even considered before, and actually, it is a philosophical challenge. We are indeed two voids, colliding in an abyss. I have done much more work to free myself from it. Perhaps a part of me is still inside, but while I might not always be going down the right path, I am always seeking it. And you see, as far as this girl is concerned, I am given a new challenge, one that questions the integrity of my own mental health[...]" "[...]I am fairly certain of her change, although it is aggravatingly slow. It may be the case one day that she can go no further, and I will have to decide if I want to continue along this path. I might have to leave her, and I will certainly be very sad. I really did put my heart and soul into this girl. I feel like I am actually getting a return. And while the truth of the situation is painful, the lie is beautiful enough to dull all pains. One day, I hope it will cease to be a lie." ... I don't think you need me to read you back to yourself, though. At this point I could become sententious, and tell you that what you're doing is wrong (or even that it was right, and good-for-you for trying to rescue this woman). I'm not going to be sententious and I'm not going to make a moral argument (except for holding up a mirror for you to reflect upon). If you want the moral argument, then I really want to refer you to Stef's argument against prostitution (there were a whole series of podcasts in the 500s dealing with the topic) because I see a lot of overlap. Replace "money" with "the perception of love and security", though, because you're not giving her money from what I've read. That's the extent to which I'll be sententious here. After all, what would be the use of finger-wagging, and judging you from on high? Giving you conclusions is not very philosophical. ... Then I decided against posting the rest of it. I was kind of trying to talk you out of what you're doing. I decided against it because I became philosophical after that point, asking you questions, and going on at length, trying to lead you down a guided line of questioning... The philosophy you're rejecting. I don't think there's much to say beyond 4 points and a (hopefully temporary) farewell: Asking where else a man can find fulfillment beyond [masturbation] is something I can't answer for you. You're "loving" yourself, according to your view on your relationship with your meat-puppet-robot-whatever. A point of clarification; I wanted to point out that I don't think you understood what I meant by saying You say, yourself, "With this girl I am given the illusion of love beyond reason"... I don't think you reasoned yourself into the NEED you feel (nor your LACK of empathy [as opposed to your belabored empathy]). ... I mean... you're going to do what you're going to do, and you think it's healthy. I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise; even though I'm skeptical of your desired outcome - I humbly admit that I don't know you, nor do I know the future. Plus, it would be silly of me to try to reason with you, ask questions, and use a philosophical method of elenchus-seeking. You can't justify philosophy... that's why I quit writing the rest of my response. I realized I was being philosophical in it... so I didn't post it. ... In closing, I'd like to leave you with this idea: It's not my responsibility to save the world, nor anyone in it; it is a delusion of grandeur that I could save anyone. As Dr. Nathaniel Branden might say - this kind of [survivor's guilt, and assuming impossible responsibility] is an attempt to gain a sense of control where there is none. I don't know if you can save this woman (whatever that means). It's possible. And I don't know the future, and I barely know you. But I do question if you have as much control (over yourself or others) as you think. I question it because it's possible that you're being manipulated by her, and by your previous abusers, into assuming an impossible responsibility. That is the role of a whipping boy, after all. I think your wanting to save this woman relates to a pattern in your life of being a whipping boy, assuming impossible responsibilities, and the search for control where there is none (as painful as that can be). (farewell)Again, I wish you both good health, and happiness. I hope (against my skepticism and personal experience) that things work out for you (even if wishful thinking amounts to nothing... which it does - it amounts to nothing, and I'd rather have my skepticism and experience/empiricism/philosophy). Your username... it's fitting.

(I'm taking heavy poetic license) I came here because someone mentioned Nietzsche... So... going to live for a lie, huh? A woman, no less? After essentially calling them vapid, and (later) saying how you have a hard time with empathy... Interesting. The female void (what I like to call the flighty nymphs and sprites... or "manic pixie dream girls" ) ... it sucks you in, if you let it. The imprinting, lust, dopamine, vasopressin, oxytocin, endorphin-opioid-receptor binding, love-drug is the opiate of choice for the abandoned boy. Love - it makes you blind, doesn't it? And the light of truth is harsh (whatever "harsh" means). The fantasy is a reprieve from reality. Nietzsche says that only those with an over-abundance of health are reckless enough to go searching for the truth. The sick simply don't have the strength and "freedom" to venture into the abyss. Granted, man (the sickly animal, as Nietzsche calls us) is interesting precisely because he will lie to himself and, in that moment, create. To create is imaginative. In a sense, to make a "lie" into a reality is an act of creation and visionary (perhaps "invent" is a better word, or "abstraction"). Happiness is your justification for things? Ha! I can't blame you for hedonistic tendencies. You want a woman who wants you and you're willing to " inject philosophy into a situation discreetly where applicable. He advocates pretending. He advocates a philosophy of indirect philosophy. That is what I am advocating." Pretend, if you like. You need no one's permission here to do so. A girl with daddy issues who runs from harsh truths, and just wants your love, and who will make it very easy for you (so long as you don't press the issue of truth-at-any-cost)... Well... if that's what makes you happy, then... From an amoral perspective, it's fortunate for you that there is such a wealth of women harboring daddy issues that you found one to fill your own void. Two voids meet in an abyss... Where do you start and where do you end? And where does she? Certainly, there are physical lines of demarcation, but there are still various forms of interaction between bodies (double entendre, and physics allusion intended). Cause and effect (action, reaction, equality and conservation of forces) still exist, whether you choose to live in a fantasy or not. You are still subject to reality, and (as Ayn Rand might say) you can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality... Things will still come up, and it becomes a twisted web the more you avoid reality (and this "truth" that people keep mentioning, whatever "truth" is). " I believe the reason none of you can convince me, is because the position is correct and there is no rational way to argue against it. " You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into. You did not reason yourself into a lack of empathy, a void, and a lust... Naturally, reason won't help you. You can soak up some therapy; you can stare at your navel; you can read a book; you can change your stimuli - but you will never be able to justify philosophy (this love of wisdom) if you are so sickly that you need pain-management (a morphine drip in the form of a desperate woman. "Endorphins ("endogenous morphine") are endogenous opioid neuropeptides."... you want to be "happy"... you're in pain, any fool could see that. You, the doctor of yourself, have prescribed pain medication... it's not a cure. "Physician, heal yourself: then will though also heal your patient. Let it be his best cure to see with his eyes him who makes himself whole." Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche) Your pain management may aid your convalescence, I don't know. You may become strong enough, one day, to venture out again in love of wisdom (after you heal). But until then, you will be sick of the far-sight (wid; the proto-indo-european root of wisdom, meaning sight; philosophy being a kind of love of sight)... As for the people attacking your position; they forget their Plato; "Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den." - Republic ... Enjoy your rest. Tell your girlfriend "hello" from the philosophers at Freedomain Radio, and that "we hope you both an over abundance of strength and a happy future." For what it's worth I'm sorry you two were neglected as children in the way that makes people this way... My hope is meaningless, however, and it is, of course, contingent upon you both to heal your respective selves. Hope will not complete work, hope (and happiness) are abstractions (removed from reality). But I hope you great health.

I like option 3B with the variation; don't complain about so much as view them objectively, and, if you want - state your observations. Look at the incentive structure for most women, and I think you'll see why there are fewer women in philosophy and strive for virtue in a libertarian kind of framework. Women are rewarded by, say, coercive redistribution programs - why (from their perspective) should they challenge those systems? Or, why should a mother give up spanking when it can produce withdrawn children which easy to manage before teenage rebellion begins? Both examples are meant to underscore the short-term gain at the expense of long-term gain... and the incentive structure is such that virtuous women get a pass. I mean - how many people can see the connection between the economics of the socialist schemes and lower quality of life, and; the spankings of early childhood with the rebelliousness of teens? Few people see the long game... especially without philosophy, and especially without a direct line of cause and effect. The distributed cost vs concentrated benefit of bad behavior obscures cause and effect for many bad actors. So, why can't a woman, say, punch her significant other? She was taught that real men don't hit women, and you never hit a girl... so... no direct cause and effect, no consequences for actions. Sure, her relationships might suck, but a hypothetical woman may never make the connection between vice and suffering. In fect, she may be rewarded by getting whatever she wants by going quick for power; using violence is very expedient... evil, but expedient. So... 3B - don't reward bad women. Change the incentive structure of your immediate surroundings. Perhaps that will not change the world, but your little garden/corner of the world will be nicer. I have to make a plug for MGTOW; stop making women so important to your life, especially the bad ones. Put yourself first. Do not center your life around women (gynocentrism) and that will change the incentive structure of your immediate surroundings... So that bad women get less reward from being around you. And if you're lonely because you have no bad women around you, then perhaps look at the nature of your loneliness; why are women so important to you? Babies? Sex? The narrative of female virtue and the princess-to-be-saved? Perhaps maternal neglect which left a void in your life that you try to fill with romantic love to compensate for parental love (as was my case)? I often say to people who ask "aren't you afraid that you'll die alone with this MGTOW/bachelor lifestyle?": "No. And here's why I'm not afraid of loneliness; so long as you like yourself, then you are always in good company. Most people fear dying alone, but everyone dies on an individual basis, and dying in groups doesn't change the nature of death... therefore, unlike most people who seek external validation, and, necessarily, die individually - I will be one of the few people who dies in good company. It bears repeating; so long as you like yourself, then you are always in good company."

It occurs to me that fear is a limiting factor. I've never read Dune, nor seen the movies, but in it they say, "fear is the mind killer." I'm going to agree; fear tends to shut down higher-level thinking in favor of primal drivers (fight, flight, freeze, and fuck... strangely. The parasympathetic nervous system is integral to fight-or-flight and arousal of the sexual kind... and... to be perfectly honest, I've noticed that, in times of high stress, I have a higher libido, which is not at all helpful apart from making a save file of my genes in case I die... Though I can see the evolutionary advantage to having sex before going off to battle, I find it less than helpful). The equivocal mind is undisturbed by fear and the mental disruptions of the primal instincts... Fear makes you choke, and is oppositional to clear thinking. So then, courage grants a kind of freedom: The freedom to do something perceived as dangerous. This is neither good nor bad, and depends on the context and situation. Some risks are worth being courageous for, while others are not. I find that freedom itself is a risky proposition, and having grown up a kind of slave - freedom scares me sometimes. The best way to break a slave - is to make them yearn for bondage. (On a side note, the popular, polemic MGTOW-themed book The Manipulated Man, by Esther Vilar, opened my eyes to a kind of reversal I didn't want to even entertain the possibility of; that men love being slaves to women... because they fear freedom... And why? Perhaps it has something to do with the people who raised them. And the people who raise children are, overwhelmingly, women. I know that my mother was a teacher of terror, personally, but that's anecdote, and perhaps some good mothers instill a love of freedom in their children above conformity, and respecting authority.) I find it difficult to commune with my child-like desire for adventure sometimes, but I have good self-control, and can recall the state of mind of excitement and decisiveness. I then inhabit that state of mind sometimes... and savor it - savor the feeling of decision and excitement. But fear... Fear is the mind-killer, and, thus, it is anti-freedom. Yes: not all freedoms are preferable, and fear serves a purpose... but it is an excellent servant which makes a horrible master. ... And the adrenaline often serves no purpose; I have no bears to run away from, and, thus, the extra blood-glucose is quite unnecessary. My mastery of fear requires a silencing of specific thoughts... It's more of a feeling that I switch, really. I imagine it is something akin to what actors do; embody a state of mind, or channel a set of behaviors and feelings. This is what I meant by self control. ... But really I just wanted to make the observation that courage can grant a measure of freedom, because courage can override the fight, flight, freeze, or fuck instinct. I'm trying to perform thought-experiments to test the limits of the claim that courage grants a measure of freedom, and that the antithesis [of fear] reduces personal freedom. ... When I decide something I tend to do things in full measure... so, if I decide to be courageous, then there's really no turning back. I think the implications would be interesting, and I'm very close to making some very large life decisions*, but I will think about it a little more deeply. And I will relax to optimize my ability to think on these topics (or "meditate" if you prefer). In some sense, I've already made my choices, and simply need to continue following them through and not choke under pressure. Sometimes the mind is too quick, and takes a while to parse the underlying motivations... but, so help me - the motive forces are strong, and I want to steer them well (a thousand horse-power car is almost useless without a steering wheel). Because notifications are not great, don't assume a fast response if you post to this topic, but thank you nonetheless, and hello moderator(s). *The instances are unimportant - the principles (for the sake of discussion) are what are important. The life-decisions have to do with moving, career choices, and improving my lifestyle (Ha, maybe I can donate more if I earn more disposable income. But that's not germane to the discussion).

(Hopefully this isn't a double-post from clicking review then post accidentally) What is the nature of a tattoo? Or a piercing? Or heavy makeup? A tattoo is a permanent or semi-permanent alteration of the skin pigment. It is done through the repeated stabbing of a needle and dye below the basal lamina or subcutaneous tissue. Primative tattoos (like scarification) were done by making cuts in the skin and stuffing them with dye. When a person elects to be stabbed repeatedly with a needle, or cut and have dye shoved into the wound... one has to wonder, "what is the underlying motivation for that behavior?" Let's hold the common claim of a tattoo as "artistic expression" to be true. What does it express to make the skin the canvas? Why not use a canvas as a canvas? If you like a particular artist's work, then why commission them to stab you with needles? There are many justifications given for tattoos; "I want to carry it with me, forever."; "It's a reminder..."; "I want to make myself more beautiful [or some generic aesthetic justification]."; etc. Electing to be stabbed with needles is an [artistic] expression of a form of masochism. Full disclosure: I have one tattoo, on my chest, and was a cutter in the past. Similarly, a piercing is done for similar reasons as a tattoo; [artistic] expression. A woman with ear piercings is making an aesthetic choice to put an extra hole in her head for beauty. At the very least, a piercing is a pain/annoyance and requires additional hygiene routines (cleaning out the dead skin at least, otherwise it will, eventually get inflamed). Full disclosure: I've had four (very private) piercings in the past. And I viewed it as highly masochistic, and a damaged-I'm-tough-signal. Dyed hair is, at a minimum, saying that one's natural hair color is unsatisfactory. Heavy make up is, at a minimum, saying that one's natural face is unsatisfactory and needs to be covered up. So, linking these all together; why does a person feel their natural features are unsatisfactory or deserving of a masochistic expression? What is natural? The natural function of pain is to cause aversion to a stimulus. The hair and face are naturally indicators of health. The face is naturally used for expression (I think the eyebrows are noteworthy hair/face things... good for expression, but often shaped, plucked, painted, or altered... which greatly change a person's expression ) ... Naturally, people avoid pain, but will bargain with pain - taking less pain if it means avoiding greater pain. Hopefully you can fill in some of the gaps as to why a person would feel the need to alter their self in such a way, and at such a cost. The trauma theory certainly fits within my own experience (though I would have denied it at the time, while getting my piercings or tattoo). Hopefully I'm not projecting, but it seems very logical that trauma is the explanation for the majority of tattoos and piercings (and perhaps dyed hair and heavy makeup, as well). Stabbing one's self seems illogical otherwise.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Chairman Mao I think a "truth about" on Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping would be illustrative of the power of liberalization vs state control. I know that the liberalization has slowed down since 2005, but I imagine there are a number of Chinese people who could be receptive to the message of freedom, through the object lesson of 1978-2005's growth. A "truth about" might miss the mark with English-speaking people, and it might be preaching to the choir for those who lived through the reform period, but... it's hard to tell if it would be a successful presentation. Regardless, it would be an interesting video. I would take this as inspiration: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/05/14/312488659/episode-337-the-secret-document-that-transformed-china

Because it was concise, and written. Unlike spoken words, you, or he, can point to a thing and ask questions. Maybe there's benefit, or maybe it's extraneous. If he thinks it's helpful, then good, if not, then you or he can crumple up the piece of paper and toss it out of the way of something more helpful.

Thank you for the information. The fact that he was having an affair is new information (but not surprising... a guy who travels, works a lot, and is in a sexless marriage - there's a common enough occurrence of infidelity in those cases). So he was honest (as an attractive trait when you met him), and now he isn't? That's a curious thing. I'm curious what kind of maintenance of trust and honesty took place. I'm guilty of the "one-and-done" approach to honesty and trust: have initial vulnerability, and openness... then let it sit and decay... When, in fact, it requires regular maintenance - a kind of Real Time Relationships honesty and doggedness (which, let's face it, most people don't have the emotional fortitude to maintain). Having kids, moving, doing business - they're all token exercises of trust and vulnerability. The in-the-moment honesty is where the meat of the trust and vulnerability comes from. It's far easier to look back at things than to be strong in the moment (with your feelings... and by "strong" I mean the emotional fortitude to be honest - in the moment). That's kind of weird sounding: to say that having kids with some one can be a token trust (but that the real trust is in real time)... but I can't help but think of all of the women (not you, necessarily) who have kids to lock-in a man's vulnerability... as if to say "I've got your kids! Now you have to trust me." But... as weird as it is... having kids is not actually an exercise in trust. Maybe it can be, but there's nothing essential in the act of having kids to the act of trusting. Hmm... Thrusting vs trusting... It sounds like your husband is dissatisfied... But it also sounds like he wants to protect you (otherwise, I imagine that you'd be gone, beaten, poor, or something). So he's in the impossible position of being dissatisfied but unable to voice his dissatisfaction (perhaps out of fear for what you might have to say about it?). Have you tried encouraging his honesty even in moments where it hurts or pisses you off? I mean, your husband has a problem... now it's your problem - it's going to hurt, but what are you going to do about it? You don't have to do anything about it. In fact, you're in a sexless, emotionless marriage... I can't even say "this is the man you love - he's unhappy, how do you show your love (ideally so as to help them to be happy)." I can't incite you with love for your husband if you don't have love for your husband. So... you asked "if he felt like we had something salvagable" and put the responsibility on his shoulders and asked six times in six months if he had salvaged your love. You put the responsibility for your emotions onto someone else. And now you're unhappy... Or "frustrated", rather. I imagine that you have an internet connection... and, despite the desert where you live having few marriage counselors, didn't take proactive steps online? I can imagine marriage counseling via skype... I don't see why you put the onus on your husband to solve your problem. You husband is going to carry himself however he's going to carry himself - you are going to do what you're going to do (and that's what you have power over). If I were talking to him (which I'm not) this would be a different conversation, and he and I would be talking about different things, and I would ask him different questions. I'd ask him about his affair, because I'd want to know. I imagine he's a complex human being, and (judging from his isolation) I imagine my questions would be like an oasis in the desert for him. Plus I try to be refreshing and not brackish to drive people away (generally). So... you own your emotions. You've got a problem. Yeah he has problems, but I'm not talking to him at the moment. Right now you are the only one who can solve your problems. I would be dialing up that self-knowledge, and general knowledge as much as possible until the problem (your problem) was solved. And that might entail being more proactive and kind and gentle with a man who has fallen out of trust with you... or it might entail dropping a nuclear bomb on your nuclear family... or not. You could always let things stay at the status quo - emotionless, sexless (for you, not necessarily him), and whatever. Maybe there's nothing to salvage - I have no idea. I'm not your husband, so I cannot definitively say. ... On a clarifying point: I did not believe that you felt an ownership of his libido. I just wanted to remind you. And I'd like to remind you that you own your own libido. ...Self-knowledge... yeah... you can look into your psyche and explore why you're not sexual anymore. Hey - there's nothing wrong with being asexual (from a moral stand point. Ignoring biological voluntary imperatives [low priorities]). I'm celibate. I mean - sex with women (or men) sounds like a hassle to me. I've had all the sex I wanted and wasn't satisfied. So I think I'd rather focus on other things (like work)... So... you can be sexless. But that falls to you - not your husband. Don't expect him to suddenly become sexless because you've become sexless... Especially if there aren't strong emotional connections threading you two together. What do you bring to the table? ... well... "honesty" is nice (although that's a bullshit answer, especially when you don't express yourself; when you put the onus on him; when you are talking to an internet stranger and not your husband; and so on)... but do you resonate with him at all? Resonate... Ha! does he vibrate when you speak? hahahah... no, I mean - does he resonate with you or does he become dull or quiet? Does he ring or doesn't he? Are you his bell? Are you two on the same frequency? Do you do what he likes (and vice versa)? ... Here's a thought experiment, tell me which one sounds better: "I'm going to nag you until I get what I want." Or "How can we both get what we want? I want you, and I want you to want me." ... Man, I love being a MGTOW, and not dealing with nagging women. Wouldn't it be great if men like me and women could have mutually beneficial, emotionally healthy, empowering relationships? But, alas, I'm generally dissatisfied with women. None of the women in FDR are bitchy. I like you - you haven't bitched at me... but soooo many women are bitchy... I'd be dissatisfied in a marriage, too (no offense to you or your husband). My point is that cooperation is a mutual choice. You can "defect" as game theorist say (infidelity, divorce, ratting out the other guy, etc.) or cooperate... but cooperation requires a desire to cooperate. And how do you entice someone toward cooperation? I believe the saying is "you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." But who wants flies, right? Is that too cryptic? How else can I ask "what do you bring to the table"? So that you'll understand? "What do you bring to your husband's table? And by table I mean his general satisfaction?" Ok... here's something else to consider; people who earn something appreciate it more (even if it is a token victory). Psychological studies show that people are happier to win nothing when, to lose, it would mean losing two dollars, instead. They are no better off, but the perception that they some how earned two dollars feels like a victory. "a penny saved is a penny earned" as they say. So... have you said, "you earned it" to you husband? You want him to thank you for mowing the lawn... have you tried saying, "you earned this mowed lawn. With all your hard work and sacrifice - I'm willing to cooperate in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Wherein, you earn money and I take care of you in return for provision, through the division of labor."? Maybe he would be more appreciative if he was aware of the benefits of cooperation. I don't know. Maybe when he says "we're building" he means "we're building a mulch garden in the back yard". I have no idea how inclined to cooperation he is, nor the incentives you provide to make him more willing to cooperate. Again, what do you bring to the table? And I don't mean that as an insult - I genuinely want to know; what does your husband think you are good at, for him? Why does anyone keep anyone around? Does he want you raising his kids, for instance? Have you asked him how he feels about your parenting? Again, what resonates for him. ... We talk so much about empathy on FDR... and I want you to understand your husband's emotional state of being. I'm not asking about your state of being - I know your state of being already: you're frustrated, angry, unsure, and a whole host of other things which you've mentioned here. Have you, regevdl, empathized with your husband lately? Let me know if that question is, in any way, unclear... I'll try to ask it again more creatively... and I recognize that when there's a failure of communication (and when I'm not understood), then that is entirely my fault. Let me try asking it in one new way; what did your husband feel when he turned away from his marriage? And what did it feel like to find comfort and sexual release in the arms of another woman? And how does it feel to provide for a family that you don't get to see because you're too busy? And how does it feel when your wife makes a stink about things when you're tired? And how did it feel to grow up without close male friendships? And how did it feel to grow up with all the cultural expectations of what it means to be a man and what it means for a man to love? I understand that you feel abandoned. Perhaps feeling connected to another human being will help you to not feel abandoned... perhaps with empathy you can have such a connection, if such a connection is possible. For fuck's sake (literally) there exists mutual masturbation and hand jobs and oral sex - even if you're not feeling sexual you can give your partner a massage (and maybe ask for a massage in return, "I'll take a back massage, if you would like a 'front' massage" for instance...). Fuck, I know (of) asexuals (and have been one) who do that kind of negotiation all the time. "AND years before (when his work kept him on the road for 3-6 weeks at a time) we had an open and honest discussion about fulfilling our sexual needs with other people and made up cerain 'dos and don'ts' etc. Once he left that job, we ended that arrangement with an open and honest discussion. " Maybe that's good maybe that's bad. I don't know. Maybe that's what opened the door to his infidelity, and he thought you gave approval. I don't know I'd have to ask him. Spending time alone? 5-8 hours a week? Sure, I guess that might be good - I'd want to spend time with my wife and kids in a relaxed atmosphere, but that's me. I'd go on tons of hikes in mountains with 'em, but, again, personal preference. Heh... kids would have to get their own tent, though... Maybe that's the alone time you speak of. But, again, you don't have to do that. You can do whatever you want. It's your marriage-part-ownership-stake-whatnot. Granted, maybe taking marital advice from a MGTOW grey-ace is not the best idea. I could be wrong. I could totally be wrong. Heck, I don't know; call Stef, get your husband on the line, and talk it out - that's what call-in shows are for. "I really do love him and I know he still has love for me." Well... then that seems pretty clear-cut. My question is answered; I'd say put in the work... and stop saying it's an emotionless marriage if it is not "We've had ups and downs but overall it's an emotionless and sexless relationship." Don't contradict yourself, otherwise resolve your contradictions. "No, he insisted on working in the yard." Perhaps he wanted to work on the yard. I find certain activities to be meditative and necessary for my mental health. Having contemplative moments can be good, and gardening can be one such activity. "My son helped in the yard, which is good father/son time." That, too. "he didn't mind but later came back and threw it in my face. It hurt me, I told him and explained that it hurt me he chose to mow the grass over going to the private spring and I understand he was disappointed that I didn't go to the pool but I was forthcoming and he didn't protest at the time, only came back to complain, rather than communicate from the front that it would mean a lot to him if I came. If I knew that of course I would have gone. " See, this is why you have to be in the moment, and address things in real time... "My comment about the therapist is that I FELT a screaming voice inside because to tell a therapist 'everything is fine' made me feel even more hopeless that he is withholding." Yep, I had gathered as much - you didn't scream when you felt like screaming, even while you were in a mediated environment, and the expectation was to address problems that make you want to scream. I'd call that emotional constipation. Just get it out (in a constructive, and appropriate way). Good bye and good skill to you.

I have a suggestion: Print this out, take care of the necessities of life, sit him down, hand this print out to him (possibly hold his hand), tell him that you'd like to answer any questions he might have after he's done reading, ask him questions, discuss things (and avoid polemic language or hyperbole, such as "you never listen", instead be humble and patient and recognize the limitations and unseen biases of your commutation by asking if he understands), be direct, go for a long walk and grab a bite to eat. Possibly edit out the references to ragevdl, otherwise give him the full context. That is what I would do, but... I'm not you. Good job on the progress - hopefully you have yourselves a mutually beneficial arrangement in the works. And a quick reminder: you don't own his libido. Sorry for the semantic argument (which I'm guilty of) you don't "have" sex - you share sex. You can persuade his libido, but you cannot own it (this is coming from someone with a history in BDsM - you cannot own a person's sex... you can share it with them - but never own it. The BDsM contract is a lie - no one owns another person). And vice versa. "good skill" [good luck as people say] with the sex (and the underlying foundations that lead to it).

You are part owner of your relationship. You could say it's a partnership. I'm not sure why you got into this partnership, but, apparently it had elements of "mutual decision and carefully planned and considered" in some regards. Moving to a foreign land? Learning a new language (which, I presume, means that you didn't speak your husband's native language)? Having two kids? hmm... What else do I know? I know he was a great swimmer (which I presume means that he was fit and athletic looking). I know that he was in the military, and, as you relate, a "legend" (I assume at swimming). I assume he has manly secondary sex characteristics because he was a high-level athlete, and thus, I assume that he is conventionally good looking (steeped in testosterone), or, at least, not ugly. I also know that he works a lot, travels a lot (at least in the past), and is not having sex with you. I also know he (and you) own(s) a date farm. And he says things are fine to your marriage counselor. Ok. Ah, yes, and he isn't expressive of his emotions (or perhaps stunted emotionally)... either way - you call the relationship emotionless... So... how much of this do you own? I do not know how long you courted this man. Was it a brief courtship? What did you do to woo him, and for how long? "Anyway, I feel like his work is his priority and he equates it to his input to the relationship as a whole. I hope that makes sense." -Yes. That makes perfect sense. He works hard... for you... and his children. While I understand that you're not (probably) looking for a vibrator attached to a bank account - you have to understand where he's coming from. You say that he wasn't even emotional with his brother(s) [biological or not]. Well then, what can you surmise from him saying things are fine, and not having emotional connections, while working non-stop (for someone who he, ostensibly, has no emotions for)? -He's a robot. Wait, no... That's ridiculous - robots aren't that advanced yet. -What can you surmise from his actions (assuming he's not a robot; has, in fact, produced offspring, and; works very hard to support you and them)? Perhaps there's something that you're missing? What was his childhood like? Does he know how to express his needs? Can he listen? Is he charming but only superficially? Is he scared? Is he scarred? ... So... Basically, I hear that you married (and had kids with) a man with few (if any) emotional connections in this world, and you chose him (and you sound shocked that " He has a friend who is like a brother and I was shocked that he has never discussed this stuff with him! ....so I guess he IS like a brother..just not in the way I thought or he thought me meant. lol As he is not close to his biological brothers.") I don't know when this shocked you, but, I assume (from the flow of the narrative) that this was after you learned his native language to some degree (which was after you were married). ... You do not own your husband. You are part owner of a marriage, but not the an owner of a man. Do you want him to change? Do you want your legendary swimmer to suddenly become; an emotional; highly sexual; romantic who mows the yard (why you have grass in a desert in beyond me) ; takes his kids swimming on his scarce time away from work (I presume that, if he isn't a robot, he needs rest) ; yet provides for you and your children, and; greater yet, is receptive and proactive in marriage counseling after years of reticence with such emotional perceptiveness, and acuity of your emotional state - that he just "gets it"? Do you want to change him? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, because I don't know you (and, thus, must genuinely ask), but what do you bring to the table? It sounds like you want to scream, as I understand it. "I want to walk out of the sessions screaming 'then why in the hell are we here if everything is fine?!'" I sympathize that you're not getting the validation of your emotions that you seek. And I understand that it must be difficult - being in another country, without close friends, a language barrier, children to raise, and, on top of that, the rock - that emotional foundation on which you agreed to marriage - seems slippery. It is... unfortunate... that you married a man who is not curious about you and your satisfaction enough to ask "I'm fine, but my wife is dissatisfied in the marriage. Counselor; wife; how do I address the concerns of my wife? I'm not fine, now, because someone I love has a problem - how do I deal with it? What is my wife thinking?"... But, for whatever reason, you deigned to marry him and have kids with him. I'm curious about your... experience. I can only guess as to why you chose him, and what that says about you. I'm curious about you... but that's useless as far as you're concerned because I'm an internet stranger who is taking a critical view of your marriage problems on a philosophy website. Critical... that which is vital... Your critics are the ones who want to see you do better... And, apparently, your husband is not calling you on your ********, either... It's a shame that he isn't calling you on your **********, or, as you put it; he "Can't call me out when I relapse", and that you relapse. Whatever co-dependency that entails. I'm also saddened to hear that you relapse - I assume drugs? Or emotional relapses? Perhaps depression? Something else? What do you relapse into exactly? It must be difficult to hear that everything is fine when you're struggling and, objectively, there are problems in the marriage (e.g. sex). But... I'm still left asking; what do you bring to the table? I assume that you want to persuade your husband to trust you with his emotions, and to be more emotional himself... Do you scream "I'm an emotionally healthy and well-adjusted individual! I have solutions, and models of behavior which you can learn from! Emotions are wonderful tools - let me show you how to use them to enrich your life!"? -Because I don't know how you convince a man in the middle part of his life to suddenly become expressive and emotional and trusting. I don't know what skills of persuasion you have. I know that women can, generally, persuade men (especially with sex, although I find that somewhat detestable... and a bit of a cheap and underhanded move as far as persuasion goes)... but, then again, you say the marriage is sexless. So, perhaps, you'd have to appeal to his better nature by some other means. Or... You could divorce him. ... I didn't hear one word about physical abuse... but... you can still divorce him, especially if you're dissatisfied. You do have an obligation to your children, however, and being a single mother divorcee carries consequences all its own. ... I don't know why you married him. I assume he was exotic... and erotic (enough to give you two children). I assume he's a good provider because he tends toward work (as opposed to idleness). Good looking (or attractive in some sense) and a provider... I can see the appeal, if that was the case. I still don't know why you married him, though. But... you are subject to the consequences of your actions, and, as far as lives that I would choose go (if I had such choices) ; a stay-at-home mother who occasionally mows the lawn would not be a bad life. It is, evidently, leisurely enough to post on the FDR forums. And, because I already do house work for myself, and enjoy the company of children, it would appeal to me (again, assuming that being a stay-at-home wife/mother were something that I could choose). Yeah, granted, there are better lives and I'm not going to go out of my way to become a stay-at-home spouse, nor would I get a sex-change so that I could inhabit the role of wife and mother (frankly, I enjoy who I am). I am not you and cannot make your choices for you (neither can your husband, and, conversely, you cannot make your husband's choices). ... You can only try to appeal to his better nature with persuasion (which means knowing him and his wants, and also working on your communication). So... In closing, you're trying hard to save your marriage from your own dissatisfaction (or because your husband thinks things are fine - on that point I am unclear... Are you trying to save your marriage from the fact that your husband doesn't understand your dissatisfaction? When you do not scream that which you desire to scream [in a mediated counseling session, presumable out of your children's view]? When you and your husband do not have the requisite skills [language?] needed to communicate?)... and you're not sure when you should call it quits. I don't know either. I will likely never have enough information to tell you when you should call it quitsies... and by "quits-ies" I mean unilaterally dissolving your family as it stands, and, most likely, entering many life-shattering difficulties. "quits" -It sounds cute when you say it like that... calling it quits on breathing sounds cute, too, even though it would likely leave me with severe brain damage from killing vital brain cells. "The path to wisdom begins by calling things by their proper names." As Confucius said. I'm inclined to agree. Call it like it is - tell your husband you what the sex back, and that you understand that there are reasons that need to be addressed so that you can have your hanky-panky... such as his childhood, his isolation, his urge to work hard to provide for you (which is probably a mute's way of saying "I love you"), the things you can do to pique his... er... "interest" on your end, communication barriers, the logistics of now having children, and many other things. Are you interested in him? And I don't mean that in the idealized sense - I don't mean him as a legendary swimmer and exotic lover - I mean him... as a person... with frailties, with interests, hopes, desires, fears, a history and a future? Is he just an idea? Do you know your husband? I know that sounds harsh in its flippancy "do you know your husband?"... but... Again, I don't know you - I don't know the circumstances of your life beyond what you've stated here, in this one forum post on this one website... It is conceivable to me that you might not have tried hard to get to know him. I don't even know what you mean when you say "trying hard"... could you define that for me? I hope that it means more than housework and yardwork and jewelry and babysitting (if I had kids, then I might just call what I'd be doing "playdates for the kids", but, again, I don't know you). I have every reason to believe you when you say that you are frustrated, and I can imagine the difficulty of moving to a foreign country (I already live in a desert, and know what 130 degree weather feels like - I'm in the Mojave - which is South of Death Valley) - heck, my swamp-cooler is a piece of junk and I'm surprised my computer hasn't melted yet, hahahah But, yes, I believe you when you say you're frustrated and have problems. But, truly, what is the nature of your problems and frustration? And how do you get what you want (and give your children a good life, more importantly)? "making a stink" about things doesn't sound like high-level negotiation skills. Absent answers to my wall-of-text questions: I suggest working on your communication skills. That's something you have power over. You could also go nuclear-bomb on your nuclear family and ass-launch your husband out of the family (as MGTOWs like vention would say)... and probably teach your children that it's ok to marry an exotic lover, take 'em for a ride, drain them of their hard work, and generally make a stink about things, in the process of divorcing your husband... I would be curious how your children would view you later in life (personally, I hold my mother in low[er] regard for ass-launching my father, but at least I was 19 and not 4)... I'd be curious what their teens would be like for you if they were taught such a formative lesson at such an impressionable age. I would also be curious how your children would turn out if they bore witness to a flowering of parental love and the cautious, tender steps of forming a loving bond between a husband and wife. Regardless of what happens, I remain a curious creature. Hence the philosophy and the science... Good luck, in case I don't hear from you - I, too, am a busy man (and I may have unintentionally pissed you off... or you might not feel like answering for whatever reason - hopefully because you'd be having a beautiful life, busy with a loving family, and preferring developing communication with people who are not strangers [such as myself]). Wait... no... I hate wishing people "good luck"... luck is dumb. I'm a scientist - luck is meaningless in most regards... I mean to say: Good skill. Good bye and good skill. Final edit: t+ 45 mins (10:40pm )

With that definition, I agree that intelligence (as you've defined it) is amoral. It doesn't seem like it incorporates mutation, synthesis, recursion, feedback loops, and rational hope. Being rational about when to be rational is something that (I think) adds to my intelligence. Check back in a few years after I'm a better programmer, and I'll let you know what I think about machine learning then. In the meantime: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-867-machine-learning-fall-2006/

I'd like a bit of clarification on "As more intelligent humans are not necessarily more moral" proposition: I suppose I'd ask for a definition of intelligence. Do you mean raw data that a person can recall? Do you mean useful data that a person can recall? Do you mean capacity for critical thinking (to see the vital aspects of a thing, i.e.; to derive principles)? If intelligence is defined as the amoral recall of facts and data (for instance, I can recall the names of various [bio]molecules and what their functions are), then I agree that "intelligence" is amoral. But if intelligence also contains agency, then I'm not certain of your claim that intelligence [in humans, or anything] is decoupled from morality. In fact, I would suspect that morality could be directly linked to intelligence (and, likely, vice versa). I'm a little unclear on the meaning of the word intelligence (I think it might be too imprecise of a term for it to be useful for my understanding).

"There are still men out there who do have the balls to take a risk or make a sacrifice for a special someone." Men who have balls... Who take a risk, who make sacrifices... For someone "special". Does this even deserve a critical reading after such a gynocentric sentence? Hahaha... sure, why not? I've got a bit of time (a half an hour) before I'm scheduled to talk to a friend from biochem... Inadequate? Compared to what? Why "inadequate"? What "inadequacy issues" does she allude to? That's an interesting word... why not "unfulfilling" or "bereft of deep and mutual empathy"? There's some interesting neurolinguistic programing with her phraseology... google doesn't even suggest female inadequacy issues... only "male inadequacy issues"... a euphemism for impotence, erectile dysfunction, or a small penis. "Instead of relationships, it’s non-relationships that we’re condoning." Denying the antecedent must not have come up during any of her English classes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent "The path to wisdom begins by calling things by their proper name" - Confucius Does she mean that people are not having intimate, compassionate, empathetic relationships in the general population? What is a "non-relationship"? Is that the same thing as "not having a relationship"? Why doesn't she say that there's a lack of empathy? "Participating in today’s hook-up culture is easy and fun..." Well at least we know where she stands on hook-ups... "but is it getting our generation anywhere? What are we gaining?" Excellent questions - I look forward to her rigorous study of population dynamics, socio-economics, philosophy, and statistical analysis; this should be a good article... truly important questions, let's see how she deals with them: She starts out with, barely anyone seems to be willing to do anything about [feeling unfulfilled through hook-up culture]. Well, fundamentally, no one can do anything about someone else having a desire for fulfillment. That's subjective... Subject to the person (who, in this case hypothetically enjoys casual sex but feels unfulfilled by it). What does she hope will change things? Not accepting vacillation from men, and only accepting a strong commitment with lots of decisiveness. In exchange for? Not hooking up? For "10,000 points"? ...Are the points redeemable? Or does a man commit to Erica Gordon in exchange for points which don't matter? ... So Erica has a passive man named Dick in her life... That "inadequacy" verbiage is starting to make a bit more sense. [sigh... my friend said he'd be a bit longer, let's keep this rolling...] Men will join a cause they believe in. The things that electrify their souls will get them to stand up and assert themselves for that which is important... Perhaps she should ask "why are the men I keep running into and giving my number to not interested in me? What interests men? Other than hooking up, what do men find important? And how can I be a woman of value that men feel is worth "having the balls to take a risk or make a sacrifice for a special someone"?" This generation needs to start dating again? I fail to see how she makes the case for needs. No mention of family structures, divorce, family in the culture, biological reproductive urges (as distinct from needs), food, shelter, water, etc. Then she basically implores people to take risks for the sake of taking risks. Or some nebulous "reward"... again, do the points matter? Or is it just for show? 10,000 points from my creditcard rewards program is worth $100... is she saying she'll pay for an expensive night out? You know, "traditional dating"... where the woman pays (like women have traditionally held themselves throughout the history of courtship). Man, I miss those old days where the cost of dating was born out by the women... hmm... interesting word choice. EndTheUsurpation brings up a good observation; birth control... The cost of dating, for women, is not born to them... The costs they incur are voluntary and small. Traditional dating typically involves the man buying lots of stuff (with the promise of future... marital... bliss? Ah, euphemisms). Sex for stuff... I'm not buying it... I'm one of those MGTOWs; I'm not looking to exchange cash (once removed in the form of gifts, perhaps, or twice removed with the promise of gifts)... for sex. No. Women want equality? Then start acting like it. I'm 100% for "gender equality", I'm all for feminists telling men to get some balls, and man up, and shaming men - perhaps when men "man up" (as the feminine gender suggests) - the men will actually have some standards and some self esteem. ... Unfortunately for feminists, yelling at men doesn't endear them to you. And threats and the shaming language of personal attacks - does not appeal to the rational man's sense of virtue and value. I don't think many men love being men, and that makes me sad for them. They, too often, internalize the shrill women telling them they're not good enough. I love being a man. I'm un-apologetically a man. And I also have no desire to become a woman's plow-horse This paragraph from Erica is shrill. I can imagine her telling her partners to take more risks and grow some balls (and go be traditional... slay me a dragon or something). Have you tried going somewhere without loud music, and using a medium of communication that allows for more that 140 characters? Who is "we"? Does she not initiate the phone calls she wishes to have? Also, what does this have to do with the thesis of the hook-up culture being unfulfilling? What's the link? Yes, communication can reduce uncertainty, and that can be good. Wow. Erica and I agree on something, and she made a solid case for something. I would only add that; communication is distinct from expression, in that; communication requires the person expressing themselves to check in with the recipient to make sure they understand. A failure of communication belongs to the person trying to express themselves. If Erica wishes to express herself, then it falls onto her to do so. And I agree. With the spirit of the first quoted paragraph. The last part, I think, is about aloofness. Aloofness is a personal standard of communication. If she hangs out with aloof people - that's her fault. If she acts aloof (like many women), then she condemns herself to men who allow their partners to be empty. You can't make others do anything against their wills'. No one has to cure your loneliness, Erica Gordon of Elite Daily. Your standards belong to you. I suggest that you learn to love yourself - that way you'll always be in good company. And, when you have company, make sure to be on your best behavior. Be the change. Stop looking for others to solve your emotional inadequacies. I know this is a semantic argument, but... I was told that hook-up lead 20-somethings nowhere... now I'm told it leads to heartbreak. Heartbreak hotel, population: 1 Ha. Again, standards. Have standards for your heart and who you give it to. Quick tangent, I wanted to copy/paste a poem I enjoy: Playground of fleshNeil carathios Playground Of FleshSummers home from college I workedwhere corpses were kept on steel cotsin crinkly plastic bags. I baby-sat bodies,assigned each a name and numberfor medical students who came in spattered coatsin clots of three around each slab,unzipped their bag and said hello.They'd read the tag tied with string to a toethe name I'd given as carefully as any parentnames a child: Orpheus-80, Galatia-67, Demeter-22 --names a corpse deserved, I thought,then with scissors they'd snip skin above the breasthanging over the corpse's armrevealing meat, a neat hole cut for the nipplewhich satlike a cherry on a sundae.They'd saw ribs the way you woulda log, taking turns, arms tiring,then pried open the chestwith vice-like screws. Mist shot out --the corpse's soul,or body's belch of air and heat --as from an uncorked bottleof champagne.Up to their elbows in muck,like children slopping in mud,they'd dig out organs, dump in a metal tub.They'd catalogue each part we pass throughthis life with, all of itsloshing inside our clothes.I'd imagine spirits of cadavers hoveringnear the ceiling, looking down, amused at usin our playground of flesh. I'd sit in the cornerpretending to read but pictured my head attachedto the bodies, my eyes closed, faking my deathjust to have someone's hands cup my heartlike a prize tomato. ... Like a prized, muthaF***in' tomato. ... But, first, standards. And I mean standards for your self, not for others. Don't expect from others. Be worth something - then, maybe, someone will treat you like a prized loved one. (but, really, is anyone in good company when they're alone, if they're already in a hook-up culture? I think Erica's asking people to move mountains before they even know how to crawl... empathy starts at home...) (isn't there a fortune cookie tradition to put "in bed" at the end of fortune cookie wisdom? Empathy starts at home... in bed... No... that goes against my thesis. Empathy should start before going to bed.) The good ol' days fallacy. Or is it phallic-y? I can never remember... "You can be a willing participant in the hook-up culture" Yes... and, judging from the author's legitimate lived experience, I assume that she knows what she's talking about. People can take part in hook-up culture. Usually women.... Usually attractive women with few scruples. And men... men who are attracted to that, and have money, charm, and few scruples (it doesn't hurt to be attractive, too). In closing I'd like to take a swing at her question: "what happens when one day you decide you want to be in a relationship?" If you're looking for love but "ride the carousel" til you're 30: You'll have none of the value, capacity for empathy, disciple of delaying gratification, patience, [emotional] fortitude, inner life of interest - that would be necessary for a relationship - if you dehumanize an entire gender. Ha! Wouldn't it be ironic if I said I dislike women, now? And call them names like solipsistic, disloyal, materialistic, or vapid? Or that women tend not to take an interest in the inner lives of men... that would be harsh... to say that women are lacking empathy toward man-up-tty-men... But... if you're a MGTOW, "what happens when one day you decide you want to be in a relationship?" is that it is your own way. Most MGTOW do not do traditional dating, and some don't even see the value in relationships. And some... don't even see the value in sex. That depends on the MGTOW. There are few women that I would ever accept as an equal or a partner. I tend not to like the same things as the average woman. I have a dislike of the shallow, make-up-deep "beauty" of women. I see more beauty in the natural sciences. Science is my mistress; she has an open mind, you can do her anywhere, and she never sleeps. I am slave to one and only one - nature. I subjugate myself to natural laws - I accept them as the only laws. Naturally, N.A.W.A.L.T., and all that B.S., but I just don't see women as worth my time in a romantic context. I see too little empathy. and 10,000 point is not worth it... (I don't even get out of bed in the morning for anything less than 5 billion points... naturally.) Well, I enjoyed criticizing Erica Gordon's article, but I don't enjoy doing things like this often... it gets repetitive. MGTOW have heard this song and dance a hundred times before. Good luck out there. OP, and other thread participants; all the best, and I appreciate you taking some of your finite, precious lives to read my ramblings. Thank you.