From a man's view, what can women expect?

[utopian]

I am getting close to 30, and never had a real relationship. I have had two "girlfriends" some friends with benefits, but never had anything meaningful. I kinda had a rocky upbringing, certainly skewed my expectations of man woman relationships, and I am still lost.

 

So I wanted to get here a general consensus about what people think should happen in several relationships, starting from the most "shallow" to the most deep. I want to share my thoughts about what I think I, and a woman, can expect at each stage.

 

1)

The first stage would be the one night stand. Steph has spoken at length about the traditional relationship between men and women, women giving sex, men giving money. In a more recent video he speaks about an experiment where monkeys were taught to use coins, and the females used them to buy bananas, and the males used them to buy sex. Its hardwired into us I suppose, though we should supposedly be evolving from that. In the modern day and age, it has never made sense to me why women can not just have sex for sex' sake. Despite what the media portrays, women like sex, and they like men. Sure they have the traditional problem of possibly getting pregnant, but safe practice, condoms, preventative shots, morning after pill, and if all else fails abortion are all choices a woman can make to prevent it. Knowing all these things there is no reason a baby ever has to be born, unless the woman choose it.

 

STDs are an issue as well of course, but some common sense and safety can take care of that as well. Not being a woman myself I am not sure of all the social ramifications of sleeping around more often, but it has always perplexed me how anyone could let society matter so much to them. I have never been happy trying to pander to society, and seeing as how it seems harsher on women, I always wondered why they bother trying so much.

 

So with all that out of the way, the money issue now comes into play. If I am going to pay for an expensive dinner, buy drinks and dresses and whatever else, theres no two ways about it, I feel like I am paying for a whore. I might not say that up front, but thats what it is. So if I am going to pay, why bother with someone's personality who I probably don't like if they have the whore mentality? I mean sure I'd sleep with her, but I probably don't want to know her. I am more of a bachelor in this respect and I am really fine with it, but I have never truly been able to respect a girl who expects to be paid for something she enjoys. Thats just milking it, being a whore. Women who have sex just because they like it and want to, I have more respect for. If she wants a one nighter and doesnt wanna know me so much either, thats fine with me too. But if I have to pay, I might as well have gone to vegas. 

 

So what can a woman expect here? All that makes sense to me is that she can expect a decent friendliness, perhaps a playful jerk, who turns her on. There shouldnt be any non-mutual spending involved.

 

 

2) 

Then there's friends with benefits. It makes sense to stick with one or few people, to eliminate disease risks. Its more comfortable and less hassle too. Nothing wrong with sex just for fun. Hanging out and maybe a little money spent here and there is cool too. It just has to be discussed if anyone starts having feelings. It certainly could happen, bumping the uglys. But finding mr. or ms. right probably takes a while, and just having fun until you meet them is beneficial to both parties. 

 

3) then there is probably open relationships. the "main chick" mentality, where maybe you and her are still with other people, but if one of you needs something from the other, you will drop what you are doing to take care of them. It could be equals, it could be housewife/hubby, or something else. It depends on the rules set really, for the two to decide on. 

 

4) then there is the committed relationship. Likely all planned out families are going to fall in this category. Someone is going to have to be a breadwinner. Both could do it I suppose, but if there are children, they will certainly suffer from lack of attention. Perhaps with two breadwinners a nanny could be hired. Otherwise, someone makes the money, and someone tends the house and children. Anything else makes for a broken home. This is ideal for anyone really, but I see people as fitting into "bell grade curves" all between a continuum of horrible and perfect. The people closer towards the perfect side are likely taken up, and SOMEONE is gonna have to put up with "lesser" people. Or, everyone will just be miserable and alone, something that is markedly happening in places like Japan, and even the US. This option is the most business of business deals really, where you both have to agree on a lot of heavy stuff for it to work. Or, there will be a high divorce/separation rate, as can be seen in the US. 

 

So that's what makes sense to me, and it seems to me that what is happening in the west is mostly a lot of over expectant, uneducated, unemployed people without social skills or prospects, not even trying for anything. A lot of guys are OK with more casual relationships, feeling like no one is really that special and not wanting to commit to women these days,  but women's expectations, especially for the times, are unrealistic. They want the "real man" (which actually is not a real man, but fictional story characters) who never have problematic issues of their own lives, or even their own feelings. They don't want to feel like whores but they still expect you to buy them stuff, even when youre "just a friend". 

 

And to top it all off, with feminism, they want "equality" which usually ends up meaning entitlements, never being an equal in the dating realm by initiating/sustaining conversation, paying for dates etc. but all the benefits of being the man in a relationship. What is a young guy in the US to do? I know plenty of people in online games, and they have all pretty much given up, being semi-satisfied with free online porn and their hands. At this rate however, I think the west will start to follow in Japan's footsteps, with a declining population.

[MMX2010]

As always, Rollo Tomassi gets it. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/23/the-burden-of-performance/

 

The entire article is worth reading, but this is the opening paragraph.

 

 

 

Men are expected to perform. To be successful, to get the girl, to live a good life, men must do. Whether it’s riding wheelies down the street on your bicycle to get that cute girl’s attention or to get a doctorate degree to ensure your personal success and your future family’s, Men must perform. Women’s arousal, attraction, desire and love are rooted in that conditional performance. The degree to which that performance meets or exceeds expectations is certainly subjective, and the ease with which you can perform is also an issue, but perform you must.

 

 

Your entire article reads like it's coming from someone who cannot accept The Burden Of Performance, and so is trying to tamper down women's performance expectations by philosophically arguing that these expectations are too high.  Even if your attempts were successful, (which they won't be, because women can always ignore your argument), no woman will appreciate being with a man who tampered down the performance expectations of all women, just so he can be with this woman.

 

Rollo's excellent one-liner: "Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better." is worth noting. 

[utopian]

As always, Rollo Tomassi gets it. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/23/the-burden-of-performance/

 

The entire article is worth reading, but this is the opening paragraph.

 

 

 

 

 

Your entire article reads like it's coming from someone who cannot accept The Burden Of Performance, and so is trying to tamper down women's performance expectations by philosophically arguing that these expectations are too high.  Even if your attempts were successful, (which they won't be, because women can always ignore your argument), no woman will appreciate being with a man who tampered down the performance expectations of all women, just so he can be with this woman.

 

Rollo's excellent one-liner: "Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better." is worth noting. 

Fine. If that is the way it is, fine. Women don't care, and neither will I. I will play dirty and they will have no right to complain, and that will be all I explain of it.

[MMX2010]

Fine. If that is the way it is, fine. Women don't care, and neither will I. I will play dirty and they will have no right to complain, and that will be all I explain of it.

 

 

There's a tremendous difference between Not Caring and Seeking Vengeance Because You Don't Care. 

 

Justified Vengeance requires rational expectations to be unmet, but Rollo argues that your expectations are irrational in these two articles.  Both articles should be read completely, but I will give summary quotes for both articles. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/

 

 

 

Women cannot bear to see a Man experiencing negative emotions such as extreme anger, rage, fear, despair, despondency or depression for extended periods of time. You say you want to “be there” for your Man; but you cannot do it. If it goes on long enough, it kills the attraction; it sets off your hypergamy alarms; and subconsciously causes you to start hunting for a replacement Man.

 

A woman seeing a Male go through the above will seek to replace that Male immediately.

 

Women cannot listen to Men talking about or working out their dating/mating/relationship issues or problems. Women reflexively view a Man discussing such issues as “whining” or “complaining” or “bitterness” or “sour grapes” or “well, you just chose poorly, so sucks to be you” or “suck it up, no one wants to hear you bitching about it”.

 

As to both of the above principles; when a Male is involved, ratchet up by a factor of 5 the disdain and repulsion a woman experiences when seeing a Male do or experience the above.

 

 

 

--------------------------

 

http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

 

 

OK, baton down the hatches, we’re heading for dangerous waters. What I’m getting at here is suggesting that women’s propensity for solipsism is a psychologically evolved mechanism. In other words, it helped women to cope with the harsh realities of the past, to develop a more focused sense of self-interest. To really grasp this you need to understand women’s brain function and chemistry. I’m not going to get too detailed in this, but suffice it to say numerous studies show that a female brain is hard-wired for emotional response and communication on a more complex level than men. I think this is pretty much an established point for my readers, but if you disagree, well that’s going to have be the topic of another post.

 

Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be?

 

On the face of it you may think that men’s better ability to rationally remove themselves from the emotional would make them better at coping with psychological trauma, but the reverse is actually the case. Women seem to have a better ability to accept emotional sacrifice and move on, either ignoring those stresses or blocking them entirely from their conscious awareness. Women possessing a more pronounced empathic capacity undoubtedly served our species in nurturing young and understanding tribal social dynamics, however it was also a liability with regards to a hostile change in her environment. Stockholm Syndrome is far more pronounced in female captives (the story of Jaycee Duguard comes to mind), why should that be? Because women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

 

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

[utopian]

I read your summary. What are you trying to convince me of? These summaries only go to bolster the fact that women do not care about men's feelings. Do you expect me to be married to that? To put up with a "relationship" where I only care about her feelings and she does not care about mine? Where I repress my emotions all the time? Fine, that's what I am gonna do, but if I have to do that, then its not for a quality woman I would want to marry, and only a woman I would be interested in playing.

 

Not only that, but your second summary goes to prove women are built to fuck the asshole and the asshole only. I only see more reason to be an asshole here, and I dont see how you could have a winning argument. If women have developed only far enough to play by primitive rules, they deserve treatment by the primitive rules. If they have evolved beyond those rules, they should be evolved enough to care about their god damn relationship partner. 

 

But don't worry, I dont believe in unicorns, I expect women to play by the primitive rules and will treat them as they deserve, and even wish.

[MMX2010]

 

 

I read your summary.  What are you trying to convince me of?  These summaries only go to bolster the fact that women do not care about men's feelings.

 

No, they do more than just that.  For you to find a woman that cares about your feelings, you have to live in a culture in which a large number of women already care about men's feelings.  Broadly speaking, there are five potential factors which make large masses of people think, feel, and act in a certain way. 

 

The first way is Genetics, and Rollo's articles provide lots of objective evidence that women aren't genetically pre-disposed to care about men's feelings. 

 

The second way is Culture, and I think we both agree that modern American culture encourages women to NOT care about men's feelings. 

 

The third way is Religion, which some would deem just another example of Culture, but I would deem as completely different.  Most religions do not teach women to care about men's feelings, and the ones that do accomplish this feat by placing a Strong Male at the center of authority in a young girl's life.  Does it work?  Yes, absolutely.  Does it really suck for her, as a child?  Yes, absolutely. 

 

The fourth way is Family, which can either be a pleasant experience for her (Peaceful Parenting) or a decidedly unpleasant experience for her (Religious Parenting).  Ideally, you want her to have a pleasant childhood, but look around you and ask yourself, "How many reasonably attractive women do I know who've had pleasant childhoods - NOT decidedly unpleasant childhoods that she, due to a lack of self-knowledge, erroneously frames as pleasant BUT a genuinely pleasant childhood?"  Your answer, like my answer, is probably zero. 

 

The fifth way is Magic.  Magical Thinking is usually what people resort to when neither Genetics, Culture, Religion, nor Family can provide justification for their desires, but they don't want to surrender their desires, but sometimes Magical Thinking represents a piece of scientifically-supported evidence that few people grasp, and you are among the few who do. 

 

By my count, the only thing left to support your desire to have a woman care about your feelings is Magical Thinking.  And if your Magical Thinking is supported by scientifically-supported evidence that I currently do not grasp, then point it out so that I can grasp it.  Otherwise, your desire to have a woman care about your feelings is unreasonable. 

 

---------------------------------

 

Except it's worse than unreasonable. 

 

Without going into too many details, I had passionate, loving sex with a deeply philosophical, highly emotionally-liberated woman who deeply understands my feelings.  It came into my life at a very unexpected time, and revealed to me certain crucial insights into my character and my future. 

 

What sucks most is NOT the longing I feel because she's not in the same room as me, but rather that our great interpersonal chemistry stems chiefly because Her Sucky Childhood matches (in both detail and in negative emotional effect) My Sucky Childhood.  We connect because I deeply empathize with her past, because it's so similar to my past.  And she admires me because my understanding of my childhood is so strong that I know how to be joyous, happy, and ambitious despite it - whereas she's somewhat-struggling to channel her joy, happiness, and ambition into her own future. 

 

It is wonderfully amazing to connect with her on a face-to-face, deep-person-to-deep-person level, but what I really want to do is saw off my own hand to travel back in time so that she wouldn't suffer the childhood she suffered.  How, after all, could I legitimately claim to love her without being deeply wounded by her family-induced mistreatment?

 

Thankfully, my desire to time-travel through self-amputation is just another example of Magical Thinking, so I'm stuck being her emotional rock instead.  She admires me because I understand her pain so much that I'm not rattled by it in any way.  She told me that she's allowed to feel her emotions more freely when she's with me because she knows that I can handle it. 

 

And the way you speak of marriage and romance right now broadcasts the completely opposite signal: women are simply not free to Emotionally Be Themselves because it enrages you. 

[utopian]

I feel like you are arguing my point, and it's confusing me to the point where you're making me think I am missing something. So let me see if I get this straight. 

 

You are telling me that it is unreasonable for me to expect to find a woman who cares about my feelings, who is not religiously manipulated, or the proverbial unicorn. More unicorns probably exist in other lands, so if I want to find one I have to spend my days working to move somewhere looking for unicorns.

 

I agree with this. And because this is the case, I feel justified not really investing in women and just wanting to sleep with them. If they are truly so low quality people that they cannot overcome their own hypocrisy and care about me, I would not want a relationship with them anyway. Furthermore if this is how all of womankind is, and plenty of men as well for the record, I see no reason to care about any of them. I also feel justified staying and playing, as I shouldnt have to travel the globe in search of unicorns. I don't have time for this BS.

 

You are also telling me I should allow women to be themselves emotionally, but that I should not be allowed to be myself. If this is what you are truly saying, then I hope you take your own advice, because I will not. I refuse to be seriously invested in a low quality relationship. If a woman can't care about me, I have no reason to believe she would care about kids if we had them. Unfortunately, I do believe I will not find a woman who will care about me, but I won't go without enjoying my life in every way I wish.

[MMX2010]

I feel like you are arguing my point, and it's confusing me to the point where you're making me think I am missing something. So let me see if I get this straight. 

 

You are telling me that it is unreasonable for me to expect to find a woman who cares about my feelings, who is not religiously manipulated, or the proverbial unicorn. More unicorns probably exist in other lands, so if I want to find one I have to spend my days working to move somewhere looking for unicorns.

 

I agree with this. And because this is the case, I feel justified not really investing in women and just wanting to sleep with them.

 

 

There's a problem with that, though. 

 

I've never been to China, have never been emotionally involved with a Chinese person, and have absolutely no investment in China.  So do you know what I never talk about, not even on message boards where I'm free to engage in any intellectual topic I wish? 

 

China.   

 

That you need to announce to as many people as possible how justified you feel in not emotionally investing in women is, in itself an emotional investment.  It's either in (1) women, who you hope will defend themselves against your charges, or (2) other men, who will tell you how "noble", "honorable", and "somberly disappointing, but correct" your decision is.  To seek confirmation is to be emotionally invested. 

 

 

 

 

If they are truly so low quality people that they cannot overcome their own hypocrisy and care about me, I would not want a relationship with them anyway. Furthermore if this is how all of womankind is, and plenty of men as well for the record, I see no reason to care about any of them. I also feel justified staying and playing, as I shouldnt have to travel the globe in search of unicorns. I don't have time for this BS.

 

There's a problem with this, too. 

 

Modern Americans are plagued with an ironic dilemma: it has never been easier for anyone (man or woman) to independently-develop themselves into a Truly Amazing Person, and yet the number (and relative percentage) of Truly Amazing People in America has never been smaller.  How could this be?  Because people are plagued with the "Why bother?" syndrome. 

 

As in, "Why should I, as a man, maximally develop my mind, body, finances, and flirtation skills when there's no guarantee that any woman will be loyal to me?"  And as in, "Why should I, as a woman, maximally develop my body, peace-of-mind, flirtation skills, and deep trust in men when there's no guarantee that any man will be loyal to me?" 

 

The irony is NOT that these attitudes exist; it's that both men and women believe that no one else can see their attitudes.  But these attitudes are so intensely odorous that everyone can see them, especially quality people who have no time for that odorous attitude. 

 

And so every woman rages at you because you rage at every woman, except the quality women don't rage at you.

 

They hide. 

[utopian]

bleh double post

[utopian]

 

 

 

There's a problem with that, though. 

 

I've never been to China, have never been emotionally involved with a Chinese person, and have absolutely no investment in China.  So do you know what I never talk about, not even on message boards where I'm free to engage in any intellectual topic I wish? 

 

China.  

 

That you need to announce to as many people as possible how justified you feel in not emotionally investing in women is, in itself an emotional investment.  It's either in (1) women, who you hope will defend themselves against your charges, or (2) other men, who will tell you how "noble", "honorable", and "somberly disappointing, but correct" your decision is.  To seek confirmation is to be emotionally invested. 

 

I am not saying I am not emotionally invested in women. That's part of my humanity as a straight male to have a longing for them. Neither am I saying I do not have investments in them. I have invested in several. My problem is, they were never worth the investment, and I can't see any who are. At least, for the cost to benefit ratio they tend to offer. 

 

Nor am I "announcing" anything. This thread started out as my understanding of what makes sense, and a quest for answers. You have provided certain answers, which I am grudgingly willing to accept, but if that is really the case, than I am discussing with you, you and you only, that your answer justifies a response from men. I cant comprehend how foolish it would be to behave in any other way. In what universe does it make sense to invest significantly in people that do not care about you? Is that what you yourself truly do? That makes as much sense to me as a battered wife choosing to stay with her abusive husband.

 

 

 

 

There's a problem with this, too. 

 

Modern Americans are plagued with an ironic dilemma: it has never been easier for anyone (man or woman) to independently-develop themselves into a Truly Amazing Person, and yet the number (and relative percentage) of Truly Amazing People in America has never been smaller.  How could this be?  Because people are plagued with the "Why bother?" syndrome. 

 

As in, "Why should I, as a man, maximally develop my mind, body, finances, and flirtation skills when there's no guarantee that any woman will be loyal to me?"  And as in, "Why should I, as a woman, maximally develop my body, peace-of-mind, flirtation skills, and deep trust in men when there's no guarantee that any man will be loyal to me?" 

 

The irony is NOT that these attitudes exist; it's that both men and women believe that no one else can see their attitudes.  But these attitudes are so intensely odorous that everyone can see them, especially quality people who have no time for that odorous attitude. 

 

And so every woman rages at you because you rage at every woman, except the quality women don't rage at you.

 

They hide. 

 

That it is easy to bring oneself up in America these days is arguable, but beside the point right now. The point is, sure, all women are saying why bother, and this is the only pool of people I have to choose from. Now, I want to enjoy my life in every way possible, which includes having sex. A relationship where a woman cares about me? Sure! That would be great. But you yourself are saying it's not gonna happen. So... why bother seriously investing, when there ARE NO quality women to hide?

 

Because you know what the alternative is? The alternative is to invest faithfully, with the idea that maybe you will get a return on your investment. Even when no such proof exists. I can't wait for you to see the condensed post I am planning here, on the history of money. Bankers LOVE people who invest faithfully. They are the most foolish horses, being ridden by the bankers, faithfully chasing after the carrot on the stick that the banker is holding. The only thing more astounding to me than the evil capacity of bankers to do this, is the endless foolishness of people to actually chase the carrot. You are suggesting to me that I chase women's carrots, which is really what is unreasonable here.

[A Madman Person Guy]

You are also telling me I should allow women to be themselves emotionally, but that I should not be allowed to be myself. If this is what you are truly saying, then I hope you take your own advice, because I will not. I refuse to be seriously invested in a low quality relationship. If a woman can't care about me, I have no reason to believe she would care about kids if we had them. Unfortunately, I do believe I will not find a woman who will care about me, but I won't go without enjoying my life in every way I wish.

Why should emotionality be defining for you? The whole common conception of disapproval of emotional restraint or sangfroid in our society in general appears to me as nothing but a sort of throw-in from the feminists' side of attacking stereotypically male traits and male culture. As in, they go, "Oh, and while we're tallying up this whole list of things we don't like about men, what else shall we put down? Well, they're unemotional. Yes, let's put that in too; emotionality and empathy, there's a certain link there, at least argumentatively. Let's suggest that because men tend to be competitive and stoic, they're inhumane. That they're a bit obtuse and sociopathic, maybe a bit undeveloped. Yeah, let's go with that".

 

Well, I embrace my sociopathy. I propose that what physical self-restraint is to non-aggression and business, emotional restraint is to culture and intellectuality. And I would encourage any man to be as cold and calculating as is appropriate. Because too little but with the potential to carefully adjust it up is clearly favorable to too much without the capacity to tone it down in most situations. Emotional control and selective ruthlessness are traits we ought to encourage women learn from men, rather than the opposite.

 

You say you "won't go without enjoying my life in every way I wish", and that this includes particular elements such as emotional fulfilment (whatever the hell that is)? Well, then you're selfish the same way they are. There are lots of situations where this isn't the optimal proximate strategy, but you can cash in bigger returns in the long run by making better choices, which requires emotional restraint. Either you have to recognize that you're selfish in the same way most of these women are, or you have to restrain yourself to place yourself on a higher moral ground but suffer emotionally for it.

 

Modern Americans are plagued with an ironic dilemma: it has never been easier for anyone (man or woman) to independently-develop themselves into a Truly Amazing Person, and yet the number (and relative percentage) of Truly Amazing People in America has never been smaller.  How could this be?  Because people are plagued with the "Why bother?" syndrome. 

 

As in, "Why should I, as a man, maximally develop my mind, body, finances, and flirtation skills when there's no guarantee that any woman will be loyal to me?"  And as in, "Why should I, as a woman, maximally develop my body, peace-of-mind, flirtation skills, and deep trust in men when there's no guarantee that any man will be loyal to me?" 

 

The irony is NOT that these attitudes exist; it's that both men and women believe that no one else can see their attitudes.  But these attitudes are so intensely odorous that everyone can see them, especially quality people who have no time for that odorous attitude. 

 

And so every woman rages at you because you rage at every woman, except the quality women don't rage at you.

 

They hide. 

If both sides/attitudes reason the same way (which I do not believe is the case, or at least the causal reasons are different enough to put them on different moral planes) then the one that is in the right ought to be the one that "produces the most morality" in all other instances. With economic productivity numbers, alimony and insurance laws, legal bias and cultural zeitgeist in mind, I think we can see who's in favor here. But I'm not going to make that my main argument, only mention it. In any case, I think you're basically making the "U mad?" argument here, except in finer words, and I'm predisposed to dismiss anyone who makes that mistake, as anyone should be.

 

And quality women don't hide; they exist, and they're out there. It's just that they don't have to settle for anything less than the crop of the cream of men. Gender biased sexual availability and all that. And I think you're both asking way too much when you're talking about a relationship entails being able to utterly trust a partner, seeing as we haven't completely nailed down a lot of the incentivization here...

[MMX2010]

You aren't investing in women (or people); you're investing in your ability to invest. 

 

You're strengthening your ability to want. 

[utopian]

Why should emotionality be defining for you? 

 

Your question seems broad to the point of confusion for me, so I will answer as best I can and you can tell me if I understood. Emotionality is defining for me in a relationship because it is part of my desire to live life in its fullest capacity. It is one of the reasons I often think most of the human race should be destroyed, because if the idea that a woman should care about me is so unreasonable, then it seems like there is no humanity in humans left worth saving. Furthermore, I am quite learned in the ways of banking, and if there is no humanity worth saving, I am gonna go be an evil banker. Lets leave feminism out for the moment, I am trying to get back to my OP.

 

 

 

Well, I embrace my sociopathy. I propose that what physical self-restraint is to non-aggression and business, emotional restraint is to culture and intellectuality. And I would encourage any man to be as cold and calculating as is appropriate. Because too little but with the potential to carefully adjust it up is clearly favorable to too much without the capacity to tone it down in most situations. Emotional control and selective ruthlessness are traits we ought to encourage women learn from men, rather than the opposite.

 

I must admit, I have adhered to my own sociopathy in order to survive most of my life. I have been so cold, that years after when I started getting into philosophy, I took a look back at my life, and wondered what kind of monster I had become. But that is just my problem, the question of why can't I be human? Why do I have to be a sociopath to survive these days? Is humanity still so unevolved, that it cannot yet rise above the idea of survival of the fittest? Where IS the humanity worth saving? My issue with women is, the humanity I long for does not appear in them, despite the act that women are supposedly the most sacred thing on earth. In the furthest reaches of humanity I can imagine, is the idea that I can share my feelings with a woman, and have her care about me. For a woman like that, I can't think of anything I would not do. 

 

Otherwise, women can get played.

 

 

 

You say you "won't go without enjoying my life in every way I wish", and that this includes particular elements such as emotional fulfilment (whatever the hell that is)? Well, then you're selfish the same way they are. There are lots of situations where this isn't the optimal proximate strategy, but you can cash in bigger returns in the long run by making better choices, which requires emotional restraint. Either you have to recognize that you're selfish in the same way most of these women are, or you have to restrain yourself to place yourself on a higher moral ground but suffer emotionally for it.

That is acceptable to me. I can accept every person has "selfish" needs. But it need not be "selfish" if both parties come to an understanding that we can act like civilized adults and fulfill each others selfish needs. I do believe that is known as a relationship. The alternative is the delusional apoptosisy that would get one's genes permanently removed from the pool. 

 

 

 

 

MMX that post is so lacking in logic and reason I cant justify responding to it. 

 

 

 

 

 

But guys, while I do appreciate the input here, I would like to get back to my original question, which is, what can a woman reasonably expect from a relationship? For example, a woman could expect 100% her way and slavery from the man, but that would of course be unreasonable. I want to know, what you guys think, a woman could reasonably expect in a relationship with a man.

[MMX2010]

I think you're basically making the "U mad?" argument here, except in finer words, and I'm predisposed to dismiss anyone who makes that mistake, as anyone should be.

 

And quality women don't hide; they exist, and they're out there. It's just that they don't have to settle for anything less than the crop of the cream of men. Gender biased sexual availability and all that. And I think you're both asking way too much when you're talking about a relationship entails being able to utterly trust a partner, seeing as we haven't completely nailed down a lot of the incentivization here...

 

I'm not making the "U mad?" argument, I'm saying "And quality women don't hide; they exist, and they're out there. It's just that they don't have to settle for anything less than the crop of the cream of men." 

 

In my opinion, utopia's rage is so palpable that it is the defining part of his personality.  Thus, if quality women don't have to settle for anything less than the cream of the crop of men, then utopia's rage disqualifies him from experiencing the best that women have to offer. 

 

And the reason is that "relationships entail being able to utterly trust a partner".  No one trusts a Rager.  No one ought to trust a Rager, especially one whose Rage is founded upon unjustified expectations. 

[utopian]

Yea MMX I have felt like youve been trolling but now its not just me who recognizes it. All youre doing is replacing the term "umad" with "rage" and trying to paint me as that. Forgetting the fact that now you have avoided answering my question for a second time. I would appreciate if you would not troll my thread any more as I am looking for a serious answer. 

[MMX2010]

MMX that post is so lacking in logic and reason I cant justify responding to it. 

 

Says the poster who admits, "Emotionality is defining for me in a relationship because it is part of my desire to live life in its fullest capacity. It is one of the reasons I often think most of the human race should be destroyed, because if the idea that a woman should care about me is so unreasonable, then it seems like there is no humanity in humans left worth saving."

 

 

Since when does "living life to the fullest" involve pouring the majority of your emotional energy into dreaming / hoping / wishing that THE MAJORITY OF THE HUMAN RACE BE DESTROYED?!? 

 

Since when does "saving what's left of humanity" involve pouring the majority of your emotional energy into dreaming / hoping / wishing that THE MAJORITY OF THE HUMAN RACE BE DESTROYED? 

 

Funniest of all, I'm no ladies-man, I don't have a lot of money, nor a great body, nor many of the things women find attractive.  However, if you give every woman on this board a choice between "being with utopian" and "being with MMX2010", how do you think pretty much every woman will vote? 

 

Do you know why they'll vote for me?  Because I don't think that the humanity can be saved by dreams, hopes, and wishes that the majority of people be destroyed.  In fact, I think that anyone who has these visions represents the nadir of humanity - someone who has completely lost his humanity, but idiotically crowns himself as "Height of Humanity" to excuse his homicidal fantasies. 

 

You think women are stupid to prefer being with me over being with you, but they're actually quite smart. 

 

------------------------------------------

 

You would rather Rage against the entire world than admit that you're wrong about Yourself, Your Capabilities, Your Ability to Change Others, and Your Ability to Change Yourself. 

 

And your Rage, (which you think no one can see, but everyone sees it), is why no one wants to emotionally connect with you. 

 

Your only other choice is Change.  Change your expectations.  Change your habits.  Change your desire to control others into a desire to control yourself. 

[Omegahero09]

I feel like you are arguing my point, and it's confusing me to the point where you're making me think I am missing something. So let me see if I get this straight. 

 

You are telling me that it is unreasonable for me to expect to find a woman who cares about my feelings, who is not religiously manipulated, or the proverbial unicorn. More unicorns probably exist in other lands, so if I want to find one I have to spend my days working to move somewhere looking for unicorns.

 

I agree with this. And because this is the case, I feel justified not really investing in women and just wanting to sleep with them. If they are truly so low quality people that they cannot overcome their own hypocrisy and care about me, I would not want a relationship with them anyway. Furthermore if this is how all of womankind is, and plenty of men as well for the record, I see no reason to care about any of them. I also feel justified staying and playing, as I shouldnt have to travel the globe in search of unicorns. I don't have time for this BS.

 

You are also telling me I should allow women to be themselves emotionally, but that I should not be allowed to be myself. If this is what you are truly saying, then I hope you take your own advice, because I will not. I refuse to be seriously invested in a low quality relationship. If a woman can't care about me, I have no reason to believe she would care about kids if we had them. Unfortunately, I do believe I will not find a woman who will care about me, but I won't go without enjoying my life in every way I wish.

 

Now hold on a moment,

 

Women have been hardwired by their evolutionary biology (the heart of Rollo's excellent broscience) to seek a provider for her children. Which to her, and most of us here on the boards, is our natural, wonderful, biological imperative. This means that she has natural instincts to seek the most stable provider possible.

 

Women are gonna go about that in a couple of ways- the woman who lives without self-knowledge and philosophy will react strongly to her base reaction to typical asshole alpha men- and will pairbond or become invested in some manner to them.

 

The woman who lives with self-knowledge and philosophy will react strongly to her base reaction to typical asshole alpha men but won't pairbond with them. Instead they will seek a man who has in himself balance between full alpha and beta.

 

 

 

The lucky philosophical lady who pairbonds with you, will care about your feelings as part of the value exchange for your badassery as a provider; a balanced Man.

 

Bothering about how women won't empathize with you lets you avoid becoming stronger yourself- to avoid entering the market for quality women.

[MMX2010]

Full disclosure: Omegahero and I Skype call on a fairly regular basis. 

 

I haven't seen his girlfriend (but she sounds amazing), and he hasn't seen the philosophical woman I'm strongly interested in (but I know she's amazing). 

 

If I asked my woman to take a photo of herself and nine other equally attractive women, and then asked omegahero to point to my woman, would he succeed?  If he asked his girlfriend to take a photo of herself and nine other equally attractive women, and then asked me to point to his girlfriend, would I succeed?  If we both ran the same test on paragons of philosophy (Kevin Beal, Lians, and Stefan-himself), would they succeed? 

 

No, because every philosophical woman looks like every other non-philosophical woman.  So the only way you can discover whether a woman is philosophical is to actually talk to her, over a period of months or years. 

 

This makes utopian's Frame, "Well, I've never had a satisfying long-term relationship with a philosophical woman, BUT I know what to expect from them!", utter foolishness. 

 

 

 

 

The lucky philosophical lady who pairbonds with you, will care about your feelings as part of the value exchange for your badassery as a provider; a balanced Man.

 

It's not only that. 

 

Their ability to truly care about our feelings is conditional upon our ability to care about their feelings.  I've only been close to my woman for a short time, and I already feel the admonition that Not Every Single Feeling I Have Is Worth Sharing.  What utopian would call "Censorship!" is what I would call Maturity and Empathy. 

 

So if I experience self-doubt, worry, or sadness (not that I experience either of these very much), my first reaction IS NOT, "Let's call her immediately, so we can talk about it."  Instead it's, "If you know what to do, so as not to feel that way, do that - now.  If you don't know what to do, figure it out, then do it." 

 

This symbiosis between her presence and my desire to crush ass on the regular is exactly what I've needed, (and probably what she's needed), for a very long time.  It is also something that utopian has no idea exists, yet he's trying to change our minds about the nature of women. 

 

*shakes head*

 

 

 Bothering about how women won't empathize with you lets you avoid becoming stronger yourself- to avoid entering the market for quality women.

 

 

Yeah, well, the good thing about this is that if he doesn't change, then more for us. 

[utopian]

I am glad you wasted a lot of time posting MMX cause I am not reading any of it lol. Serves a troll right. 

 

 

Women have been hardwired by their evolutionary biology (the heart of Rollo's excellent broscience) to seek a provider for her children. Which to her, and most of us here on the boards, is our natural, wonderful, biological imperative. This means that she has natural instincts to seek the most stable provider possible.

 

Women are gonna go about that in a couple of ways- the woman who lives without self-knowledge and philosophy will react strongly to her base reaction to typical asshole alpha men- and will pairbond or become invested in some manner to them.

 

The woman who lives with self-knowledge and philosophy will react strongly to her base reaction to typical asshole alpha men but won't pairbond with them. Instead they will seek a man who has in himself balance between full alpha and beta.

 

OK, I can accept that. But the former of these are mechanics of the paleocortex, the caveman/cavewoman. They are not quite the mechanics of thought of women I run into around where I live. Especially not the mechanics of feminism, which is so prevalent and expects a woman to be her own provider. But besides that, there are PLENTY of women who just want flings, especially around here. Shit, the other day I was salsa dancing and this chick's sister came up to me to ask me if I would ask her sister to dance, because she only saw how much fun people were having with me and she wanted in. I was making out with her later that night. Was that a mechanic of being a provider for her kids? Cause I certainly felt like it was very flingy. And I was fine with it really. Women do not always want kids and these days and often provide for themselves, despite what they might be hardwired for. 

 

And so I attempted to lay out what makes sense to me in my first post, to see if my expectations were reasonable in modern situations. Because while these mechanics may be true, they are not necessarily true of all women considering their emotions and logical thinking. 

 

The lucky philosophical lady who pairbonds with you, will care about your feelings as part of the value exchange for your badassery as a provider; a balanced Man.

 

Bothering about how women won't empathize with you lets you avoid becoming stronger yourself- to avoid entering the market for quality women.

 

 

How is that an equal, or even logical trade? Ok, women are cavewomen just as much as I am caveman, got it. 50 shades of grey makes sense because the guy does not care about her, smacks her around, but is a really good provider. Does that make any philosophical sense? What about care for care, sex for sex, value for value? 

 

Because if values are being exchanged on unequal terms like in the quoted example, I could be a good provider and not care about a girl, and she would care about me. Does that sound philosophical to you? That doesnt even sound like it actually happens, what happens these days is the woman bangs the caveman for kids, and then uses the power of the state to enslave him to her and the kids whether she cares about him or not. 

[MMX2010]

I was linked to this article on empathy/compassion, oxytocin (the hormone responsible for empathy/compassion), and male/female differences in the display of empathy after being injected with oxytocin. 

 

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/311.abstract

 

 

Abstract

It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. Thirty subjects participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study. Following administration of oxytocin/placebo, participants listened to recordings of different female/male protagonists describing distressful emotional conflicts and were then asked to provide compassionate advice to the protagonist. The participants’ responses were coded according to various components of compassion by two clinical psychologists who were blind to the treatment. The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.

 

 

------------------

 

Unconscious Premise Held By Many FDR Members: Men and women are equally capable of being empathetic towards each other, because both men and woman have moral agency.  Philosophy tells us so. 

 

Truth Revealed By The Linked Study:  Men and women are biologically hard-wired to have differential levels of compassion towards each other, with men being far more compassionate towards women than women are compassionate towards men.  Therefore, any man who expects an equalitarian relationship formulated on roughly-equal levels of compassion is much more likely to be frustrated than satisfied. 

[Omegahero09]

OK, I can accept that. But the former of these are mechanics of the paleocortex, the caveman/cavewoman. They are not quite the mechanics of thought of women I run into around where I live. Especially not the mechanics of feminism, which is so prevalent and expects a woman to be her own provider. But besides that, there are PLENTY of women who just want flings, especially around here. Shit, the other day I was salsa dancing and this chick's sister came up to me to ask me if I would ask her sister to dance, because she only saw how much fun people were having with me and she wanted in. I was making out with her later that night. Was that a mechanic of being a provider for her kids? Cause I certainly felt like it was very flingy. And I was fine with it really. Women do not always want kids and these days and often provide for themselves, despite what they might be hardwired for. 

 

And so I attempted to lay out what makes sense to me in my first post, to see if my expectations were reasonable in modern situations. Because while these mechanics may be true, they are not necessarily true of all women considering their emotions and logical thinking.

 

Well certainly man, deviations from the imperative are very common. However when we are talking about those hidden sexual drives that make babies happen- that's just what we are talking about- hidden sexual drives that make babies happen lol

 

A woman may provide for herself, but that doesn't mean that just because she makes money for her home, her brain will change what she is attracted to based on a raise.

How is that an equal, or even logical trade? Ok, women are cavewomen just as much as I am caveman, got it. 50 shades of grey makes sense because the guy does not care about her, smacks her around, but is a really good provider. Does that make any philosophical sense? What about care for care, sex for sex, value for value?

 

Well that's the thing. It doesn't make philosophical sense. Because it's just the body reacting to stimuli, and the head following blindly. I mean think about it, traditional monogamous marriage doesn't make sense if you want to act on every boner you get in your life. In the same way that the relationship that bimbo had in 50 Shades didn't make sense for her either.

[MMX2010]

And so I attempted to lay out what makes sense to me in my first post, to see if my expectations were reasonable in modern situations. Because while these mechanics may be true, they are not necessarily true of all women considering their emotions and logical thinking. 

 

That's a stupid approach, because my expectations of women in modern situations can easily be different from your expectations of women in the same modern situations because I am not you, and you are not me.  Hell, my expectations of women in modern situations can easily be different from my expectations of women in modern situations from five years ago, because I am not who I was five years ago. 

 

Though, I am being rather harsh in calling your approach "stupid", because it's actually "subconsciously calculated".  By avoiding discussion of the differences between myself and yourself, (or between omegahero and yourself), we don't get to analyze You as a Person, You as a Physical Body, You as a Seducer, You as an Empathizer, nor any version of You as a Something-Women-Could-Want. 

 

So we never get to pinpoint the things you could do to self-improve, which is (I think) precisely the point of your postings. 

[Omegahero09]

Because if values are being exchanged on unequal terms like in the quoted example, I could be a good provider and not care about a girl, and she would care about me. Does that sound philosophical to you? That doesnt even sound like it actually happens, what happens these days is the woman bangs the caveman for kids, and then uses the power of the state to enslave him to her and the kids whether she cares about him or not. 

 

The trade is equal to her because she values your ability to provide. Your emotions don't bring home the bacon. Your skills, intelligence, and agency as a man in society bring home the bacon. To a woman- every man has emotions, but not every man can bring home the bacon.

 

Again to my previous point- the woman without self-knowledge is gonna be like 50 Shades bimbo.

 

The woman with self-knowledge will find a more balanced man. Also this woman will be more open to discussing the exchange you mentioned before: care for care, sex for sex, and value for value. But the problem is- these things mean different things to men and women. Lol but that's a post for another time

 

We're using a broad-ass brush here but more or less, if we were to divide women into two categories that's what we get.

[Omegahero09]

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_242_Reclaiming_Masculinity_Part_1.mp3

 

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_243_Reclaiming_Masculinity_Part_2.mp3

 

Also Utopian, if it helps, here are a couple podcasts where Stef makes a similar case- regarding the nature of sexuality and bonding between the sexes. Hope this helps!

[utopian]

Well certainly man, deviations from the imperative are very common. However when we are talking about those hidden sexual drives that make babies happen- that's just what we are talking about- hidden sexual drives that make babies happen lol

 

A woman may provide for herself, but that doesn't mean that just because she makes money for her home, her brain will change what she is attracted to based on a raise.

But see, what you are trying to tell me is that being a provider will get women to care about me, which is completely untrue. Even Stef talks about how he would pay for women in his "Real time relationships", providing for them, and there would be no reciprocation. I have seen this dynamic myself, and there are no lack of "nice guys" out there who will testify to this as well, that being a provider DOES NOT get you cared about. 

 

Do you even see the trap in this logic of thinking? You are trying to convince me that buying drinks and dinner and whatever is gonna get me anywhere with girls. Its the number one thing that will get me used by women, gold diggers, and especially women who just wanna bang me and divorce me later for the alimony and such. It's a trap. 

 

I have not listened to your podcast links yet, I will when I have time, but surely you can see the case is clearly made here that providing does not get you cared for. 

[A Madman Person Guy]

The trade is equal to her because she values your ability to provide. Your emotions don't bring home the bacon. Your skills, intelligence, and agency as a man in society bring home the bacon. To a woman- every man has emotions, but not every man can bring home the bacon.

 

Again to my previous point- the woman without self-knowledge is gonna be like 50 Shades bimbo.

 

The woman with self-knowledge will find a more balanced man. Also this woman will be more open to discussing the exchange you mentioned before: care for care, sex for sex, and value for value. But the problem is- these things mean different things to men and women. Lol but that's a post for another time

 

We're using a broad-ass brush here but more or less, if we were to divide women into two categories that's what we get.

 

I'm wondering whether if you aren't overestimating the ratio of women with self-knowledge who are also actually honest and self-controlled enough to discuss issues like these plainly and simply. Ever listened to some of Paul Elam's talks on his experiences of the psychiatry and counselling business? Women today aren't oriented toward self-knowledge; they're being guided toward self-actualization, or in other words, to go for it and do and say as they please because it's a demonstration of freedom of expression and "We've had it so bad for so long; now it's time to smash the patriarchy!", with the obvious undertone that it's plenty okay to exercise your emotions without restraint and that it's fine to try to manipulate any man you come across, since he's got it so good already and can afford it. At least, that's the definite sense of things I'm getting from women of my generation. Self-knowledge? A personal experience is when I made a former classmate of mine cry not long ago, when I got into a spat with one of her friends who told some very nasty lies about me after we'd slept together once, and I refused to turn the whole thing into a relationship. She immediately took her friend's side, even though she knows me well and ought to have at least doubted the information somewhat, and when I explained how I couldn't believe how gullible she was and why, and she got defensive, I got fed up. She apparently couldn't even stomach the thought that maybe she was letting herself be manipulated by her base emotions. And I'd rate her as no more stupid than the woman on the street; the opposite, in fact.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't say this is a problem of logic or reason to start with, but of argumentation, if all you want to do is keep up a relationship without getting ridden. If most of what you want is just sex and company, and you're willing to settle for a plebeian, remember; most women are sentimentalists, and as such they are even more subject to manipulation than men are. It's just that most of us men don't know the proper way to talk. Take a couple of courses on modern rhetoric, and learn how to jump back and forth, remember particular points in the argument verbatum, and selectively interpret or ignore inconveniences. Keep a male tone and demeanor, of course, since nothing's more likely to provoke a negative reaction out of a woman than seeing male vulnerability, but use the same tactics. Sink to her level and make her feel bad, and she'll feel that she's making unreasonable demands of you, which will make it true to her. You need a bit of savvy to be able to pull this off to start with though, so it's not the strategy for the scatterbrained.

 

If you really want to make a relationship last and consist of genuine emotional attachment though, I'm not the guy to advise you. I'd tell you to tone down your expectations, and look for as much plain speech when it comes to the economics as is possible, and then to just refuse to engage in any sort of bickering over the petty little things. Such as "feelings" of being a bit overlooked or stifled or hurt because someone else wasn't able to read your mind. A successful relationship is likely dependent on two people who are "in tune" or just intelligent enough to realize when the other one didn't intend to be insensitive or unreasonable, and to be able to straighten things out without too many words or pushed buttons.

[Omegahero09]

But see, what you are trying to tell me is that being a provider will get women to care about me, which is completely untrue. Even Stef talks about how he would pay for women in his "Real time relationships", providing for them, and there would be no reciprocation. I have seen this dynamic myself, and there are no lack of "nice guys" out there who will testify to this as well, that being a provider DOES NOT get you cared about. 

 

Do you even see the trap in this logic of thinking? You are trying to convince me that buying drinks and dinner and whatever is gonna get me anywhere with girls. Its the number one thing that will get me used by women, gold diggers, and especially women who just wanna bang me and divorce me later for the alimony and such. It's a trap. 

 

I have not listened to your podcast links yet, I will when I have time, but surely you can see the case is clearly made here that providing does not get you cared for. 

 

Provider = Person who brings in money for the children. Not "brings in money and buys dinner and dresses."

 

A provider supports other people in his family unit. I mean, it'd be kinda weird to be with someone, have no kids, and all she does is stay at home so you can "provide" for her. No, the provider role is for long term, monogamous relationships, that with no question includes raising children.

 

A woman who understands this and with self-knowledge, will respect and care about you working within this structure.

 

The woman who doesn't understand this about herself and our species will just use you as you say.

 

 

 

Having the ability to be a provider is what makes the panties drop. It's still up to you as a man to bond with a woman worthy of your attention, and resources.

[Omegahero09]

I'm wondering whether if you aren't overestimating the ratio of women with self-knowledge who are also actually honest and self-controlled enough to discuss issues like these plainly and simply. Ever listened to some of Paul Elam's talks on his experiences of the psychiatry and counselling business? Women today aren't oriented toward self-knowledge; they're being guided toward self-actualization, or in other words, to go for it and do and say as they please because it's a demonstration of freedom of expression and "We've had it so bad for so long; now it's time to smash the patriarchy!", with the obvious undertone that it's plenty okay to exercise your emotions without restraint and that it's fine to try to manipulate any man you come across, since he's got it so good already and can afford it. At least, that's the definite sense of things I'm getting from women of my generation. Self-knowledge? A personal experience is when I made a former classmate of mine cry not long ago, when I got into a spat with one of her friends who told some very nasty lies about me after we'd slept together once, and I refused to turn the whole thing into a relationship. She immediately took her friend's side, even though she knows me well and ought to have at least doubted the information somewhat, and when I explained how I couldn't believe how gullible she was and why, and she got defensive, I got fed up. She apparently couldn't even stomach the thought that maybe she was letting herself be manipulated by her base emotions. And I'd rate her as no more stupid than the woman on the street; the opposite, in fact.

 

I know several woman who are honest and are connected with themselves. I'm sorry to hear that you got muddled in petty nonsense, but you have to understand- they are out there man. Hell, Stef's circle of friends are all pretty much married and with children, so it's possible to do it.

 

Just like talking with other blue-pill people, there's gonna be shitloads of these people out there, and you just have to wade through it, except with blue-pill women you have to guard your heart also. You be up front, you flex your integrity and bold truth and people shy away from your light, and others will band together with you.

If you really want to make a relationship last and consist of genuine emotional attachment though, I'm not the guy to advise you. I'd tell you to tone down your expectations, and look for as much plain speech when it comes to the economics as is possible, and then to just refuse to engage in any sort of bickering over the petty little things. Such as "feelings" of being a bit overlooked or stifled or hurt because someone else wasn't able to read your mind. A successful relationship is likely dependent on two people who are "in tune" or just intelligent enough to realize when the other one didn't intend to be insensitive or unreasonable, and to be able to straighten things out without too many words or pushed buttons.

 

You are right on the money brotha, communication and practicing RTR is key. It just takes two people mature enough to do it. All you gotta do is be up front right away, put everything on the table because dammit, that's the safest way to go about it, and if she doesn't want to do that- pull the ripcord man lol

Honestly, I wouldn't say this is a problem of logic or reason to start with, but of argumentation, if all you want to do is keep up a relationship without getting ridden. If most of what you want is just sex and company, and you're willing to settle for a plebeian, remember; most women are sentimentalists, and as such they are even more subject to manipulation than men are. It's just that most of us men don't know the proper way to talk. Take a couple of courses on modern rhetoric, and learn how to jump back and forth, remember particular points in the argument verbatum, and selectively interpret or ignore inconveniences. Keep a male tone and demeanor, of course, since nothing's more likely to provoke a negative reaction out of a woman than seeing male vulnerability, but use the same tactics. Sink to her level and make her feel bad, and she'll feel that she's making unreasonable demands of you, which will make it true to her. You need a bit of savvy to be able to pull this off to start with though, so it's not the strategy for the scatterbrained.

 

Also this is I think a disastrous plan. Who would willingly enter a relationship for sex, at the cost of living around/with ghosts?

[A Madman Person Guy]

Also this is I think a disastrous plan. Who would willingly enter a relationship for sex, at the cost of living around/with ghosts?

 

A man? That's what's been happening to most men I see around me, at least over here, and from the looks of it it's been happening the last forty years or so. A man, who either isn't satisfied with his hand or cold showers, or who can't stand to be alone or possibly have takeout three days a week, or who feels that he needs to have kids for whatever reason, or any of the former in combination. Loads of people can't fall asleep well without the TV or radio on in the background; it's the same thing. You put up with some inconvenience or bullcrap for the sake of some perks and/or peace of mind. You know you're getting used, and you use in turn. It's no less of a relationship for that, just not an emotional one (though I would rather call it "intellectual"). Hence many of the rationalizations you see, the attitudes displayed by many older men, expressions like "Women; can't live with them, can't live without them", and the easy contempt many men can throw around while discussing their families and how the boorish provider male who can't express himself and thinks he's underappreciated by his family seems to be something of a cultural trope...

 

Do take my callousness for what it is though; it's a colored opinion, stemming from my own personal experience. I wouldn't name my father as a typical example, but I'd say he got slapped with this phenomenon in a way as well, so I witnessed a form of it there. It recurred among the parents of my classmates too. But far more relevant in this case is that it's very much a personal experience for myself. I'm an anti-humanist in a stuck-up social activism-leaning, politically correct and moralist nation and culture. I quite understand how one can come to terms with never speaking one's mind outright, to keep those ghosts from making a racket and start shaking the paintings off the walls. It extends to my family too; I've given up on trying to explain my views or my personal perspective, mostly because if I really went into it with full honesty, my reasons for thinking the way I do would have to come up, and it'd destroy whatever sense of goodwill is left there. And while it'd be nice and satisfying to put down that illusion like the sad old mongrel it is, family members still do favors or act as security for you sometimes, as well as provide inheritance in time, so I'm not going to pull the plug on it just yet.

 

I like sex. I don't like some harpy trying to claw my eyes out because she can't tolerate that I'm in the right when it hurts her self-interested goals, and even less that I hurt her pride because I get how the equation goes and can thus see through her. I'm willing to pretend to care about her emotions, and that I can't see that she's pretending to care about mine, for the right payment; if she pretends, she isn't worth better. And, crucially, I don't have any compunctions or pretensions at higher morality that I can't detail, unlike most of these people who can only say "I love you", but not explain why or even show it properly in action. This makes me evil and sociopathic, true. But the crucial thing is, I don't try and lie to myself about it or excuse it, and try and make sure that if anyone else is fooled it's their own damn fault, as a contrast to the people out there who do evil things and act like utter idiots for the sake of their morality or wishful thinking.

 

Some of us can stand loneliness, so long as it isn't too bleak. In the absence of a society that's actually intellectually honest and open enough to tolerate us, the best strategy is then usually to fake it, smile, and grab what you can until things change, even if it's only because they've become so bad that people are getting shot in the street. So long as you're self-admitting in your despicableness, you're still one step above those who aren't.

[Delightful Might]

Maybe some women will say not all women are like that, but I certainly am like "that."  I have always made out the person I was with to be a parent or god who was in charge of what was right.  And when he didn't agree with what I thought I would panic and talk to him for hours and tell him he wasn't honoring my feelings.  And then I would call him back and tell him some more.  It was horrible.  Even after I read Atlas Shrugged 15 times, I was still not independent in my judgment.  It was so entrenched, even though I was trying hard to change.  I'm not with anyone now so I can straighten this out.  

 

I am so sorry that all this happened to you, Utopian.  I think good people are rare enough that, after getting our acts together, we may not find a mate that matches us.  If you are hitting your "bottom lines" (i.e. have great fitness, well-thought through, expert in your field), then that is all you can do.  It will be a good life I think!

 

-D

[Omegahero09]

A man? That's what's been happening to most men I see around me, at least over here, and from the looks of it it's been happening the last forty years or so. A man, who either isn't satisfied with his hand or cold showers, or who can't stand to be alone or possibly have takeout three days a week, or who feels that he needs to have kids for whatever reason, or any of the former in combination. Loads of people can't fall asleep well without the TV or radio on in the background; it's the same thing. You put up with some inconvenience or bullcrap for the sake of some perks and/or peace of mind. You know you're getting used, and you use in turn. It's no less of a relationship for that, just not an emotional one (though I would rather call it "intellectual"). Hence many of the rationalizations you see, the attitudes displayed by many older men, expressions like "Women; can't live with them, can't live without them", and the easy contempt many men can throw around while discussing their families and how the boorish provider male who can't express himself and thinks he's underappreciated by his family seems to be something of a cultural trope...

 

Do take my callousness for what it is though; it's a colored opinion, stemming from my own personal experience. I wouldn't name my father as a typical example, but I'd say he got slapped with this phenomenon in a way as well, so I witnessed a form of it there. It recurred among the parents of my classmates too. But far more relevant in this case is that it's very much a personal experience for myself. I'm an anti-humanist in a stuck-up social activism-leaning, politically correct and moralist nation and culture. I quite understand how one can come to terms with never speaking one's mind outright, to keep those ghosts from making a racket and start shaking the paintings off the walls. It extends to my family too; I've given up on trying to explain my views or my personal perspective, mostly because if I really went into it with full honesty, my reasons for thinking the way I do would have to come up, and it'd destroy whatever sense of goodwill is left there. And while it'd be nice and satisfying to put down that illusion like the sad old mongrel it is, family members still do favors or act as security for you sometimes, as well as provide inheritance in time, so I'm not going to pull the plug on it just yet.

 

I like sex. I don't like some harpy trying to claw my eyes out because she can't tolerate that I'm in the right when it hurts her self-interested goals, and even less that I hurt her pride because I get how the equation goes and can thus see through her. I'm willing to pretend to care about her emotions, and that I can't see that she's pretending to care about mine, for the right payment; if she pretends, she isn't worth better. And, crucially, I don't have any compunctions or pretensions at higher morality that I can't detail, unlike most of these people who can only say "I love you", but not explain why or even show it properly in action. This makes me evil and sociopathic, true. But the crucial thing is, I don't try and lie to myself about it or excuse it, and try and make sure that if anyone else is fooled it's their own damn fault, as a contrast to the people out there who do evil things and act like utter idiots for the sake of their morality or wishful thinking.

 

Some of us can stand loneliness, so long as it isn't too bleak. In the absence of a society that's actually intellectually honest and open enough to tolerate us, the best strategy is then usually to fake it, smile, and grab what you can until things change, even if it's only because they've become so bad that people are getting shot in the street. So long as you're self-admitting in your despicableness, you're still one step above those who aren't.

 

Oh shit man. Well if you are willing to lower your own standards for sex... then there's not much else I can say, other than it is possible to live with the living, and that there are women out there who are willing to keep it shallow, though keeping that kind of person in your camp has it's own dangers. As Stef says- there are no solutions, only costs and benefits.

 

At least you're being honest about being evil but you don't have to commit seppuku with your conscious like that.

[Omegahero09]

Maybe some women will say not all women are like that, but I certainly am like "that."  I have always made out the person I was with to be a parent or god who was in charge of what was right.  And when he didn't agree with what I thought I would panic and talk to him for hours and tell him he wasn't honoring my feelings.  And then I would call him back and tell him some more.  It was horrible.  Even after I read Atlas Shrugged 15 times, I was still not independent in my judgment.  It was so entrenched, even though I was trying hard to change.  I'm not with anyone now so I can straighten this out. 

 

Thank you for sharing your experience D!

[utopian]

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_242_Reclaiming_Masculinity_Part_1.mp3

 

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_243_Reclaiming_Masculinity_Part_2.mp3

 

Also Utopian, if it helps, here are a couple podcasts where Stef makes a similar case- regarding the nature of sexuality and bonding between the sexes. Hope this helps!

 

 

So I listened to both of these, and I agree with them, for the most part. I agree with a lot of the things Stef is saying. The thing is, everything he is talking about is mostly ideals. Stef himself said he will probably never live to see these things fulfilled, though he may be right about all of it. 

 

And he will not see it come to pass, because most people are still cavemen. Most people do not have the intellect to be philosophical. Most will never rise above the media rhetoric, the feminist brainwashing, the primitive paleocortex thinking. Most people will never be more than ghosts, and more than that, a lot of people DO NOT WANT to be anything more than a ghost. Its like the idea of waking people up from the matrix, who wants to realize the truth and deal with all that bullshit? Better to be asleep, and be a ghost. 

 

Now as far as I am concerned, I am angry at the fact that most people will never be virtuous and truthful myself. But I can't go through life waiting for it to happen. That will leave me living an unfulfilled life. Would you tell me also, not to pay my taxes because it supports the state? Would you tell me also, not to buy oil because it supports the oligarchy? I agree with the ideal man, but I must live practically.

[Omegahero09]

Now as far as I am concerned, I am angry at the fact that most people will never be virtuous and truthful myself. But I can't go through life waiting for it to happen. That will leave me living an unfulfilled life. Would you tell me also, not to pay my taxes because it supports the state? Would you tell me also, not to buy oil because it supports the oligarchy? I agree with the ideal man, but I must live practically.

 

Yup, weigh your costs and benefits and keep hunting the unicorn. Success is possible, are you willing to work for it?

[drkmdn]

Really enjoying this thread. 

 

When I look around me, I see people who go with the common beliefs about relationships. Follow biology. Live stereotypical lives of quiet misery and confusion.

 

Then there are those rare people who seem to be advancing in consciousness and don't wish to be beholden to biology. Don't want to play games with trading bananas anymore. Are looking for something real and fighting their biological urges.

 

I like to think I am very different from the majority of women out there who are looking for either beta bucks or alpha fucks. But I am not free from these compulsions. I feel them and experience them. But I fight them.

 

It gets much easier with time.

 

The problem is that I now almost have contempt for men who are attractive or doing well financially. I have conditioned myself this way. Do I want an unemployed man who doesn't take care of his looks, then? Well, no.

 

I want a man who sees my value unclouded by his desire for sex, just like it seems some people here want a woman who isn't wooed by dinner and dresses.

 

I don't know if this man exists. 

 

I think when you really REALLY REALLY get right down to it, the value of a woman to man, starts and ends with sex.