zazen

So lets rationally critique and break down the content. Facts aren't healthy or unhealthy the just are, our interpretation/feelings of them makes it so. Equally unhealthy is to not look at data, stats and to try figure cause/effect and ultimately solutions to problems in society.

Back on topic. Here Owen mentions how pick up makes him feel more spiritually alive as relationships can take a lot of work, your basically relating with another ego/psychology and the complexity that comes with it. It's an interesting way of looking at it or could be a way to rationalise more casual relationships to not feel morally bad. Time stamped 2:30:00 Found this on a reddit and found it interesting: RP teaches men they must "spin plates" / date non exclusively before/IF they marry. RP also touts data which shows women with more sexual partners are more likely to divorce (however the data doesn't show whether it is the number of sexual partners itself which causes the high divorce rate or if it is the beliefs which influence a woman's choice number of sexual partners (ie. A religious woman may be a virgin till marriage but it could be her beliefs which restrict divorce). So, presumably, for every female a man "spins plates" with, he is lessening her chance of having a long lasting marriage. He is also causing problems for another man involved in a failed marriage. What is bad for women is bad for also men, because, while the genders are different, they are linked. So while "spinning plates" is best for the individual man (I argue, his short term needs), it is bad in the long term for the community and society, and ultimately creates an unstable society which all must live in. Thoughts?

So making observations on human nature, and particularly on a certain culture / community is now considered racist. What a way to shut down discussion. Ironically Kevin Samuels has a acronym he uses called SIGN. Shame, insults, guilt and the need to be right which people revert to if their arguments don't hold up, next would be ad hominem. We shouldn't conflate making a judgment on certain behaviours (ie behaviours of men or women) and being judgmental. Judgmental is coming from a place of ego to put the 'other' down, to judge/discern is coming from a place of what could be good for you or us / our community if you acted differently. We'r all the same on a biological level, thats our hardwiring. On a psychological / social level the culture/community we're from brings out certain sides of our own nature, thats our softwiring. If we see certain behaviours or actions and consequences in one country,society, culture or community and with negative results thats equally possible in another country, society, community. So we observe, learn and avoid the bad, and emulate the good. Not good or bad from a moralistic point of view but from a results point of view ie we brings about a stable society with less suffering and more love.

You have strengths of a higher order and quality. Not to say strength of body/looks is bad but its more superficial, animalistic and was the first step in our evolution of attraction/survival. When dealing in romance and aspects of biology it is a lower consciousness realm and you can play it at that level. Women have evolved to be attracted to more than just looks in a partner, such as emotional control, stability financially, or life wise. Biologically they are hardwired towards being aroused by the alpha, so the body will respond to alpha looks and behaviours, we evolved for the longest time under harsh conditions where brawn trumped brain for survival and so women evolved attraction for brawn and raw strength. Over time and for a shorter part of our evolution we got bigger brains, allowing for more consciousness/intelligence to seep in,and to be able to think of longer term security, build tools etc so women could use their intelligence in selecting a mate. For example, she may have been aroused by the alpha with muscles and got his resources through aggression, but using intelligence and now in a more evolved society where being a jerk gets you imprisoned its the smarter guy who has social savvy and gets along with people who is better able to survive and she consciously/intelligently decides he's the better mate for long term survival. She will logically/intelligently be attracted to that mate, but can still be emotionally/physically aroused to the jerk bum with nothing. The body gets instinctually aroused, the mind gets intelligently attracted. A woman of higher quality will recognise higher quality in a guy who has developed himself and be intelligently attracted to higher quality, which can lead to her body being aroused also, but the body and our natural instincts pull on us is still stronger as we evolved for a much longer period of time in the wild where physicality / brawn is prized for survival. Women who haven't developed themselves or have lower self esteem may even not want to be with a higher quality guy as it makes them feel bad about themselves, or they don't even appreciate your qualities or are aware of what higher quality is. This can be particularly true if you just go to clubs etc. I may be wrong but Leo's advice can have a bias towards attracting these kind of women as his experience is only of Vegas party girls. Lower/higher quality isn't a moral judgement however, it just is what it is. The arousal of the body is raw/savage, instinctive, amoral, towards reproduction, without care for the survival of whats being reproduced. The attraction of the mind is refined/romantic, intelligent, moral selecting for what ensures the survival of the offspring being reproduced. The mating game is the interplay of the two, our instinctive animal nature from where we came and the intelligent human being we'r evolved into and evolving into. The appeal of romance and romantic gestures (marriage, rescuing, flowers, commitment rings etc) is it signals our commitment to that woman's long term survival. Use your development to play on all levels of life. When we develop ourselves we find it hard to relate with others playing at lower levels but part of being developed is to play the role of the below levels and integrate them,not to stay in the clouds but come back down to earth, play in the mud enjoy the roses too. For example having mental/emotional mastery, use that to let go of the logical mind and be loose and fun with girls and don't get into a mindset that its lower consciousness that your acting silly and saying certain things. Your higher conscious but playing the role of man interacting sexually with a woman, your a spirit playing as a human. One side of life is to honour our incarnation and play it impeccably. We just do it with awareness that there's more to life.

There are reasons to be concerned with lessening population. From a economic view if we don't have a younger population providing a strong tax base and consuming in a consumption led economy that provides less taxes towards the pension system for the elderly. As far as genius/talent is concerned, if we had better systems, eduction etc with less population more percentage of people could meet their potential which they currently aren't so from that angle it isn't much of a problem either. Having a big population all consuming at the rate rich western nations are would wreak havoc on finite planetary resources and the environment however.

@vizual You got valid points, but delivery means a lot ie not saying hoe etc. There must be a reason why lower body count has been prized by most men over centuries. If we look to evolutionary biology a jealous response is built in as a mate guarding mechanism to ensure your paternity and that your blood sweat and tears aren't going into raising another genetic line at your expense, ie being cucked. For men to be shamed that they are insecure because of this is to repress a shadow aspect of our instinct, of course we overcome this through consciousness/intelligence. Men shouldn't be shamed against their primal instincts the same way women shouldn't be shamed against their primal instincts. Our instincts will always signal to us, our intelligence is what we use to act accordingly upon those instincts in the modern world, environment and context. Their is a difference between judging and being judgmental. Judging is important for making good life decisions. Being judgmental is declaring moral superiority over everyone else and comes from ego. We should be glad women judged the men they slept with and had children, in fact they should judge more and not have children with bad abusive men who won't are unstable financially, emotionally etc. For a man to judge his decision on who to have children with is likewise fine. Don't let anyone shame, guilt trip you into decisions because its the 'right' thing to do and 'inclusive.'

In stage blue the society does the heavy lifting for men to get into a relationship and for it to be maintained by societal pressure. This doesn't necessarily mean that relationship is a happy one as that dynamic can lead to men being abusing their power and being abusive etc as @Preety_India points out. You could say its a planned vs free love/relationship. In a planned society everyone gets to attempt to fall in love with their paired off partner, in a free society everyone has to show up themselves and win the other persons heart. In the free society you could have people not getting relationships due to their own short comings, and you could get others who get many relationships or access to sex, getting laid is more variable.

Ancient brains with animal instinct evolved strength through scarcity, that very strength evolved society to the point we are now born into modern times with abundance. Our biology hasn't evolved fast enough with our technological / cultural evolution so these's a mis match. We aren't hardwired to do well in abundance of food, porn, machines doing our hard labour, it makes us weak. We have to soft wire ourselves to adapt and stay strong, using intelligence. We must live from intelligence more than from instinct, more from software than hardware or our own success will be our own demise.

In the past even during polygamous times where women slept with more than one man, in the tribe it would have been probably no more than the top 3 - 5 partners in her short life time, unlike double digits we have today. This polygamous structure works in smaller tribes as resources are shared and the village raises the child, everyone is a uncle/aunt to the child but at scale like in todays world of millions it's much harder to replicate. Today we live much longer, from 30 to 90, 3 times as long. Evolution and biology don't care for human feelings/psychological health, just the reproduction and survival of that genetic production. Humans created nuclear families to create emotional stability of care and love to ensure the psychological well being of each other as they aged. When a women was to live to 30 years old, she could sleep around in polygamous societies and not worry about her long term happiness. Now that we live long lives, whats the best strategy to adopt in society where we live till 80/90, and when a woman's looks decline against time, her 1 asset in obtaining security (not financially but more so emotionally from a strong man). Looks aren't the only asset of course, although feminity, the non physical is diminishing in modern times also. Her best best would be to secure one partner to give her companionship and be her legacy partner into old age, and like wise for a man to do the same as his value starts to decline in the eyes of society. More so now days where our elders aren't respected the same thanks to technology, the youth are prized as they are more savvy than the old in the god like powers that technology give us. Could it be that we are physically polygamous, but mentally monogamous for our own sanity and emotional/psychological health of having someone their to provide us emotionally well being and this was societally enforced for the stability of society and so every one had a partner (and men had access to sex, even if they were beta/average). Maybe biology only evolved us to pair bond until a baby is born and on their feet, could be why the average length of relationships is 2-3 years. But we try to bond ourselves for our monogamous ideals.

It matters for long term relationships but its not black and white. Just because a relationship lasts long doesn't mean its a success, the real question is was it a happy relationship where both partners were happy, and the ability to pair bond to each other greatly impacts this. Men can separate the sex act from emotion more easily than women, for women have far more to lose in sex ie being crippled by birth for up to a year not able to provide for themselves and wanting to provide for the child after birth. For this reason they need to be more discriminate in who they sleep with and this is good, its what drove men to improve along with civilisation. Nature evolved mechanisms for people to bond with sex, to ensure the survival of offspring, that the partners would stay around. It induces our bodies with bio chemicals bonding us to that partner like sticky tape. That sticky tape can weaken the more partners are bonded too in shorter time scales, weakening its ability to bond to future partners. Thats the biological element, then we layer psychology which is where the grey comes in. If a women is older and has less prospects, she may not bond with a certain man who's not her best compared to her past but her psychology of wanting to be in a relationship for companionship etc over rides that and she stays in a relationship out of gratitude. Some people who don't end up with their best partner end up resenting their partner comparing them to the past. Just as with anything, we become desensitised to stimulus the more we'r exposed to it. The more we'r exposed to sex with different partners we numb ourselves to the biochemical response making it less special. For men who can just have sex on a lust level it doesn't affect us the same way, hence when men may say it doesn't matter about the body count, we could be projecting our own biology/psychology onto the opposite sex, telling them to behave like men in the name of equality, fulfilling our base desire for easy access to sex, only to hurt these women in the long term on an emotional level, and they will eat it up in the name of liberal freedom. Physically they are free, but emotionally they are chained by past traumas they must deal with, and the excess baggage (carry on is okay, we all have it) they bring to every consecutive relationship that the future partner also has to contend with. Heres the nuance: its not body count per se that matters as much as emotional impact. If a woman has slept with 10 guys who were average and you come along above average and give her a greater emotional response / experience than the previous guys she will stick with you and deem her previous encounters nothing compared to you, deeming her happy in the relationship. On the flip side say she had 2 partners who were high value alphas who gave her intense experiences (in the bedroom and out) and your her 3rd partner only, but not as good compared to them, she could compare you to them and not be happy in the relationship due to that constant comparison. It's not a female thing as much as it is a human thing. Obviously, the more partners the more likelihood she been with her top guy, more likely ruining her happiness in future relationships. Why do people generally remember their first sexual encounter? It was the most intense and new experience in their lives. If we were able to die to the past and burn up that past karma, maybe we could stay happier in current relationships avoiding the comparison trap. The grass isn't always greener but greener where we water it.

True, for most people their only method of burning the desire is to live through it as most won't feel the need or be pulled towards experiencing a higher high that makes the appeal of sex diminished in comparison, such as living on your purpose, deep meditation, flow can provide. Its possible but not probable for most unfortunately. A lot of advice given has to be looked at as possibilities, of which many things are possible, but we have to deal in probabilities also. @Salvijus It is, the explanation of energy being stuck in the lower 3 chakras explains a lot. When higher chakras open up it doesn't mean we can't partake in lower desires of sex etc just that they no longer have such a grip on us. We can be in them but not engulfed by them, or partake in them but not be taken over by them.

People who haven't awakened enough to bypass their sexual desires can use reasons to rationalise why they shouldn't pursue sex as a cope, only repressing themselves and hurting themselves in that process. Spiritual work will shed or weaken such desires as a snake shedding its skin, but its not repression. The problem with sex and a lot of the studies done on it that the video talks about is not that sex is bad but that casual hook up sex can be bad, because it objectifies the other person and isn't actually intimate, the other doesn't feel 'seen' which is our most important need. To be in a crowd and still feel lonely is the worst feeling, to be so close to someone that your literally inside each other and still to feel like you haven't been seen deeper thank your skin is even worse and makes us question, ashamed of the whole act. But to add to that, knowing that casual sex can cause suffering as it can cause emotional baggage for others to deal with would be another reason to not engage in sex with lots of partners. Engage in lots of sex with a partner, but not lots of sex with lots of partners to minimise human suffering. Check this video out, particularly from the time stamp: Especially for us on the spiritual path, being conscious of the suffering sex can cause others as it attaches them to you biochemically and you become their major source of pleasure of which if you part ways causes a massive feeling of loss, yet not being conscious enough to the point you don't feel the need to have sex with others, puts us in a bind/paradox. Sometimes we can know too much for our own good.

Agreed its how we use the tools that makes them bad, but that takes consciousness. We are surrounded by many distractions and lower activities that take more than they give, yet the majority succumb to them because we aren't conscious enough to not be controlled by our primal brains and instincts. As our tools evolve and have more power, they also have more power to destroy us. We are already doing a bad job at handling the internet and social media, look at how much division, tribalism its caused and the sky rocketing depression / anxiety the youth are facing. If our consciousness hasn't handled this what about the meta verse? From a meta level its ultimately good because maybe we have to go through all this pain and suffering that our technological evolution causes to come to the point we have to evolve our consciousness / ability to have control over ourselves rather than the tools / environment tugging at our primal instincts that destroy us. More and more people are getting into mental health, meditation but is it enough and fast enough..

It is semantics and word choice, but that can have a impact as words have connotations. Cruel just has a negative connotation hence your reaction to it. Hero would be a better word than monster, one is a positive use of strength and has better connotation, the other negative and has negative connotation. His main point is to be strong but win win so that you are protected from the ones who are strong but live in a zero sum game (win lose) paradigm and will crush you to meet their own survival agenda / needs.

Everyone in life wants to feel alive ultimately. How we do that is through various means, drugs, sex, food, adventure, adrenaline junkies etc. To have someone hate or love you means at least you make them feel something, or feel alive in some way, your on their radar rather than being invisible. Your stirring some emotion in them even if it tilts to the negative, and the polar of hate is love which it can pendulum swing to. Women care more about how a mans strength and power makes them feel emotions rather than the morals/ethics of how that man uses that strength and power. This is why women can go for the bad boys, jerks, assholes. They will feel those emotions, and rationalise around the impropriety/bad aspects of such a man, in order to reap the benefits of such a man, namely how he makes them feel. Society/women tell you to be nice, then shits on you for being nice. Society/women are the ultimate shit test. Of course women don't say this consciously, what they really mean is they'd want the alpha to be nicer and give them some comfort to feel as if he is some what attainable, before they go try win over another worthy man. Value and comfort need to be balanced. They don't hate you, they hate your lack of approval, attention, affection towards them which signals you must be of value and have other options/women in your life or that you have a purpose bigger than just women. It sub communicates you have dominated your romantic life enough and had success with other women to the point you care more about dominating higher pursuits of self actualisation. Women commit to men who commit to life. Women want to win you over and feel like they've won, so when they chase and invest in you by you being a challenge they eventually want a return on that investment of time, energy, emotion. Frustration arises when their unable to get commitment from all that investment. Better a woman leave you through frustration rather than boredom. What 'dickish' behaviour have you done to cause her to argue all the time?

@Lyubov True. This video from Teal swan literally hits the nail on the head of what millennia's have had to go through and are currently going through.

Beautiful. Aren't our tools outpacing/controlling us to our own detriment now? The pace of change is too fast to keep up with. With the rise in depression/anxiety amongst the youth especially since social media from 2010, and now with meta verse coming on the biggest issue isn't lack of technological advancement but that we aren't advancing consciously/mentally to counter act technologies negative affects. We are more disconnected than ever and it only seems to get worse with meta verse, VR, work from home trends, social media. The fundamentals of being human ie human connection, tribe, community ,nature are lost and getting further away to the point of a mental health pandemic. For the first time technological and cultural evolution is outpacing our biological evolution to our own detriment. The young generation may have healthier values (green) but without a healthy body and psychology (anxiety,depression laden, short attention spans, lack of social connection/skills growing up behind screens) how can un stable individuals execute and bring those green values to fruition. I understand society evolves but once we become disconnected and unhealthy/stable due to evolution isn't that the red line. Not sure to be hopeful for the future these days or not..

Leo's recent burning through karma video has my mind really thinking. Isn't the process of burning through sexual karma by dating and sleeping with people at those peoples / societies expense? Doesn't it leave and cause emotional baggage / trauma / collateral damage ? For people struggling with dating this thinking isn't whats needed but for people who are having some success meeting new people intimately or too much success even, it begs the question of whats morally right and how much responsibility we have for others feelings and for the collective. Not as a cop out or rationalising why we suck at dating but as a genuine care for not wanting to hurt others. Knowing people are bound to get hurt when we involve intimacy causes hesitancy in wanting to date around casually to even get to the point of relationship but in 2021 thats the way people in general are getting into relationships, through sleeping around first. The cart and the horse are reversed. Could we rationalise to ourselves that it's part of their growth process to go through heart break and come out stronger, or better them selves..maybe just say its evolutionary pressure for them to strengthen themselves? Even if we are honest and ethical hearts are bound to ache in the dating process and for the conscious aware some of us can double think before we act, or put others feelings before our lower desires. Then again, if we are more actualised than the average person wouldn't those people we sleep with and maybe stay friends with benefit from knowing us in this life time and maybe us being a catalyst of inspiration to develop themselves. The mind can rationalise in many ways...Ram Dass has said who are we to take away another persons suffering, that is their path. Elsewhere he said he stopped getting involved sexually as to not hurt and cause suffering also. Just a thought experiment: could we see dating and even sleeping around as a higher consciousness activity in that knowing people only change when they have emotional leverage or pain, by being that emotional leverage for someone or multiple people your sleeping with, and stating your standards of what you look for in a partner, you help raise / actualise them selves in order to be with you or win you over into a exclusive relationship. Even if you don't accept being exclusive they would have bettered themselves in the process and for their own life / future relationship anyway..

This guy breaks down economics pretty well visually, and brings parts together of current events. Are we moving towards a stage green society and this is just people resisting that transition or should there be legit concern. Interested to hear everyones thoughts on this and whether you are optimistic about the future ..

@Jacquelope Interesting, didn't know that many women earn more than their husbands and are happy. Very contrary to the typical red pill beliefs. Men do have to look past just looks and I think thats where also society isn't doing a great job. Women are behaving in un feminine ways (cursing, sleeping around like men, drinking to excess, being arrogant loud etc) so besides looks that fade leaving much to be desired, and unfortunately thats partly due to society and them having to take on masculine traits to survive and win in the modern economy and work places as they are competing against other men. Whats your take on the below: The way people met in the past when casual sex was looked down upon was through courting each other (without sex) until they met someone they matched with, then got into a serious relationship in which sexually things happened or waited and usually lead to marriage. Now, people get to know each other whilst having sex which on a biological level bonds people and blinds them to each others compatibilities. People who maybe shouldn't be together end up being together and it not working out down the line, or they know and do end things once they come to their senses and the honeymoon period fades but this causes a lot of heartbreak in the process. In the past people would experience maybe 2-3 heartbreaks over a lifetime of long relationships, now we experience this by our mid 20's or sooner which traumatises us, causes bitterness, baggage and distrust between the genders. We'v almost objectified everything in our consumerist society, even people. Dating apps feel like a catalogue swiping through objects rather than humans and its as if we've become disposable. If everyone was to follow the casual dating approach to find the perfect one and find what we like, doesn't that process ruin the very society of people you want to have that relationship in? Meaning, the collateral and emotional damage casual dating causes, ruins our ability and others to bond and be happy in future relationships due to baggage, becoming embittered of the opposite gender etc to the point of giving up, becoming hopeless/nihilistic regarding relationships which are the corner stone of human happiness (we are social species). We bring our past to our current relationships, maybe past lovers pull us to cheat etc or the hope of what if, what next or what if theres someone better out there. Another short sighted trope in the red pill /conservative groups is marry virgin or 1-2 body count girls, not realising these girls can also feel the pull of fomo and wanting to see whats out there. Many girls marrying young end up breaking up in their later 20's to explore their options whilst their still youthful for example. Its a weird paradox I can't get my head around and don't know what the future looks like for modern relationships at this point. The way the culture/society is has people who are in a relationship who haven't seen whats out there get feelings of FOMO as @Yarco pointed out (feeling of sexual debt). In the past we wouldn't be teased by these options because casual sex wasn't allowed and dating apps, big cities where we have access to millions of people etc didn't exist. The grass isn't always green on the other side but just where you water it maybe. I can envision us becoming serial monogamist's (no more monogamy for life or very long term relationships ie over 7+ years until people get to their old age and want someone to ride off into the sunset with) with a small sub group experimenting with polyamory but most people won't be cut out for it due to jealousy etc.

True, also with inflation and spending power going down. In the past one mans income could sustain a whole family (the american dream). Technology has gotten cheaper but the essentials such as housing, healthcare, education has increased while wages haven't accordingly. Women entering the labour force doubled labour (law of supply/demand) and decreased the average value of labour with it, meaning industry got to profit from it including the government which got more people to supply the tax base. With women getting more educated than men (60/40 split in colleges) and in future out earning men, they will not as easily be able to match men lower than them either due to them feeling the man is lower than them (in status, not all women but in general) or men themselves out of ego and not wanting to be with such women feeling inferior also, it goes both ways. Also this talk about high value and extreme examples like a guy with no good qualities at all not getting anything. Of course those guys will suffer but the average guy isn't void of any positive qualities at all, average can match with average also. Red pill focuses a lot on the 1-10% of the hierarchy. The problem comes when if women out earn women at the average level, can that affect the whole dynamic even amongst the average whether its due to women feeling like their settling if the man earns less or those men fearing inferiority to be with those women. For men not getting sex is quite a big deal, in the past in Islamic societies where harems existed the left over men were used and channeled there testosterone into caliphates/conquering/wars. Now, at least their is porn/video games/entertainment to pacify that aggression and need to 'win' or 'conquer' at least in cyber space but for a lot it will still be too frustrating leading to school shooters, toxic ideologies etc. Women not getting sex isn't as big of a deal for a few reasons, one being they can make themselves orgasm with the selection of tools they have now, not being sexual 24/7 the way men are, more easily turing to lesbianism, or if they do want sex with a man sharing a alpha playboy or jerk for sexual needs. But they lack the 10x testosterone that would lead men to other outlets, some fatal. Women are also getting their ego's inflated by these thirsty men on social media / only fans like you say, its like attraction inflation and promotes a narcism/entitlement which won't serve them well in their relationships, and just makes the average woman insecure in her looks when she looks at what seems to be caricatures of women. Men need to stop fanning those flames and not put up with bad behaviour also as you mention. You have interesting insights, seem well rounded, and write well man, welcome to the forum btw!

True, we can't repress our desires and the reason for the thirst is because that desire isn't being met for various reasons, on top of being overly exposed to it and sex being glorified so its a constant tease. We are over sexualised yet undersexed as a generation. This. A lot of men complain about women but also a lot of men are slacking now days too and getting into toxic mindsets/groups online to confirm how much women suck. Combination of screen time, poor diet/lifestyle, entertainment wasting our time etc, not being as social, social media is more like a social media as it separates us and echo chambers us away from reality.

If your high quality girl is the more reserved shy conservative type of girl, more intellectual bookish type then you could cater to that, still need to be attractive but maybe not in the playerish way or attractive x100 that would attract the typical high quality girl that is more sociable and has many options. For those girls with lots of options, if that is high quality for you, then you will have to stand out from the flood of guys throwing themselves at her.

Perfect timing

@Jacquelope As Leo mentioned to even get that relationship you need experience and to be confident enough which comes from abundance and experience, and be able to attract that 'one' girl. Also, having social proof and playerish in the beginning doesn't hurt. Now days because women don't need men for survival, they are looking for the sexy genes or alpha traits in men which would be more the playerish type of guy, hence coming across too boyfriendish at the start isn't a priorty for women now. It's just where most of the culture is now day in general, of course not every girl is like this although instinctually she would react to that type of a guy but her consciousness/cultural upbringing would blunt that response and she wouldn't act on it, not anymore. In the past more boyfriendish chivalrous nice guy traits were valued because people wouldn't care for sleeping around casually but for getting into stable relationships. The way people met was through courting each other (without sex) until they met someone they matched with, then get into a serious relationship in which sexually things happened or waited and usually lead to marriage. Now, people get to know each other whilst having sex which on a biological level bonds people and blinds them to each others compatibilities. People who shouldn't be together end up being together and it not working out down the line, or they know and do end things once they come to their senses and the honeymoon period fades but this causes a lot of heartbreak. In the past people would experience maybe 2-3 heartbreaks over a lifetime, not we experience this by our mid 20's or sooner which traumatises us, causes bitterness baggage and distrust between the genders. It's fucked up. If everyone was to follow the casual dating approach to find the perfect one and find what we like, doesn't that process ruin the very society of people you want to have that relationship in? Meaning, the collateral and emotional damage casual dating causes, ruins our ability to bond and be happy in future relationships due to baggage, becoming embittered of the opposite gender. Its a weird paradox I can't get my head around and don't know what the future looks like for modern relationships, but it just doesn't seem good.