mr_engineer

Well, you talk about relationships like they're candy-bars. 'Just go and have one or two, then you'll know what they taste like. Then you talk about the taste'. You don't sound like you know much about relationships either. So, this whole point of 'you don't know about relationships' sounds very rich coming from you.

Yes. This is me setting those goals. I did some pick-up, saw what hooks women and got disgusted and disillusioned with the whole hook-up scene. It's very shallow and objectifying towards women, I never wanted to get into it. I just couldn't ignore it because of how normalized it's become. I am very scared of casual-dating, actually, because of the possibility of learning the wrong patterns with the wrong women. If you fall into the habit of 'not being logical' and 'not thinking about the consequences of your actions to yourself and to others', if you just 'go with the flow', this does not improve your selection of women. The biggest advice PUAs give is to 'let go of rejection' and to 'not take it personally' (which, by the way, contradicts the advice of working on your game and getting better with women, which implies that rejection is personal) and to approach indiscriminately. What this will do, in the best-case scenario, is it will attract low-quality women. Because, when you do no selection on your end and you have no standards, you give off a 'douchey' vibe yourself. So, the high-quality women will pass. Fine, congratulations, you got laid, but at what cost?! Selecting high-quality women and making things work with them takes a lot of brains, from what I've seen. These women don't settle, they're not in the casual dating-scene for entirely logical reasons. They have relationship-visions, strategies, foundations, plans, execution, positioning. They know their worth, they think very hard when it comes to selecting men. So, why shouldn't we think hard when it comes to selecting them?!

I'm 27.

I stand by what I said when it comes to LTRs. And 'talking to girls' is very different from being ready for an LTR. Again, fine, you can talk to girls on the side and sleep with girls on the side. You don't have to neglect your needs.

No, and this is why. I'm just not old enough for it yet!

This doesn't read like someone whose priority is relationships has written this. And, I disagree that artists need isolation-time. I'm an artist and I create the best when I'm teaming up with compatible people. They shouldn't clash. And you sound like you haven't put in the work to make sure that doesn't happen.

Right. So, your priority wasn't relationships. You're not the woman I'm talking about in this post, in that case. I'm talking about women who are fully ready for relationships, whose priority is relationships, who understand the gravity of commitment. Also, artistic growth can happen while being with the right man. It doesn't have to come at the expense of relationships. In fact, it can happen because of being with the right man! You have the luxury of talking in abstract terms like 'wanting to love and wanting to be loved' cuz your priority is not relationships. Those of us who value relationships don't have that luxury. How we go about this really, really matters to us. And we don't waste time prioritizing other stuff over relationships, relationships are it for us.

Why did those relationships end?

I don't know which rom-com you got this character from lol. The reality of guys who drag soy milk packages, for the most part, is that they have the IQ of a fruit-fly. They do not, in fact, have an interest in spirituality/philosophy/personal development, they're too dumb for it. You develop those interests after you have a comfortable amount of success. That's when you have the time, energy and brain-cells to think about this stuff. The only realistic possibility is that he knows that this is not what he's going to do all his life. But, he'll still be a dumbass for the most part. He will have to work his ass off, educate himself, put himself in more sophisticated environments, learn how they work, become more cultured, encash on that, develop some intellectual self-confidence and maybe start watching TED-talks before he actually gets an interest in philosophy.

Yeah. He's in his basement and intends to narrate a tale. That's why!

Would you date a guy who works at McDonald's? He's very loving, very good in bed, emotionally sensitive, good listener, even good with kids. Even pays his own bills. Just doesn't have ambition. You good with that? Oh, and by the way, because he works 10 hours every day, he has a boring personality. That's a side-effect of working at McDonald's and having no ambition. Okay?! Does it work for you?!

@hoodrow trillson Very original.

Than her boss. Please don't show your reading-skills.

You promised me a tale from your basement. Why are you quoting what I wrote?!

I'm listening.

Don't you think that it's important to figure out the right way to do it? And, don't you think that a part of this process of figuring this out, is to figure out what the other side wants and needs? Good intentions can pave the road to hell, if we're not careful.

Right. So, my point is - there were loving relationships and not-so-loving relationships in the middle-ages and there are loving relationships and not-so-loving relationships in today's time. We figured out the difference between the two back then and we evolved accordingly, such that the dysfunctionalities of the past don't exist anymore. Similarly, right now, I'm attempting to figure out the difference between the two as it applies in today's times, so that we evolve out of this culture-war nonsense. And, we need the right ideology if we are to construct a long-lasting system.

Do we go back to the way things were in those times, then?! You talk about 'treating her with love' in today's times, that we're failing to do that, then you say that 'those were the loving relationships'.

Wait. Didn't you say that money was the biggest reason that marriages fall apart on another post?! Don't you also need compatibility to make things work?! Or do you figure that out before sleeping with her?! Cuz I don't remember you talking about compatibility in your 'How to get laid' series.

How do you think relationships worked in the early 1900s, then? They weren't 'loving'. But, they survived, right?! Traditionally, LTRs haven't had as much to do with love, as much as they've had to do with survival. Ironically, since dating became a thing and since people started dating 'for love', the divorce-rates have skyrocketed. The whole point of LTRs, which was to raise children in a nuclear family, has been undermined, one could argue.

That's 'toxic masculinity' nowadays, if you haven't noticed. Haven't you noticed the 'you aren't entitled to what you want' brigade?!

In theory. In practice, you gotta use logic to figure out the right way to offer it! Or else, you will take a fish out of water, cuddle with it and kill it 'out of love'. Look, 'setting logic aside' is perfect advice just to get laid. However, making a long-term relationship work takes a lot of wisdom.

No, you are talking about attraction. I'm talking about long-term attachment. (Read the first line of my first post of this thread) The transactional reality for a long-term attachment is different from that of a sexual interaction. What do I think about your How to Get Laid series? I think you're right, I agree that game is everything when it comes to attraction. Is that the case if you want a relationship?! Nope. Why? Because a lot more is on the line in a relationship. It's a lot more than just sex. You have to fundamentally respect the other person, you have to find value in spending time with them. And, if that's what you want, you gotta figure out the right way to position yourself to people looking for the same.

Here's how - every ego has a finite, limited and different form. So, the way they receive 'love' will be different. For example, a cat will receive love in a different way from a fish. If you remove a fish from water and cuddle with it, it will not feel loved. It will die. This is the whole point of asking women what they want. Another way of putting it is - how do they receive love? From whom do they receive love? Who matters to them, in the context of dating and relationships? Who do they consider high-value vs low-value?

There are a lot of women who are very competent and deserving of the best salaries. They will rise to the top, for sure. More power to them. I'm not against that. However, there are also a lot of women who aren't that competent, who are one-trick hacks at what they do and who just ideologically hold onto 'independence' as a show of a middle-finger to men, that 'you can't control me'. Some of these women are humble enough to realize that they have work to do on their competence, some don't. The majority of modern women fall into the category of being 'independence'-minded, not being super-competent and being humble when it comes to knowing that they have work to do. This is where the idolization of the 'high-value man' comes in. Here's my theory - these women, who, understandably so, aren't very competent in today's hyper-masculine hyper-competitive professional world (because they're not built for it), would much rather play a supportive role at home for a high-value man. This is the energetic exchange they try to achieve with their boss at work. So, the next step-up for them would be to date a man who is more competent than their boss, who can mentor them into a role that aligns more with their creative-capacities. It probably will be a low-pressure role. This, let's say, 'sugar-daddy figure' would have to be more powerful and masculine than their boss. This is possible because the role under their boss is clearly higher-pressure. And, the reason for this, let's face it, is that it benefits companies to put women in more masculine roles, cuz it drives down the labor-cost for male-dominated workspaces. The men in that space are just going to be more depolarized, less masculine. We could see the resurgence of harems, formally speaking. Distant possibility, cuz it's against Christianity. But, if Christianity becomes the past, and if Stage Green PUAs get enough of a God-complex to start sex-cults, it could happen! (Especially watch out for the David Deida fans, who get really lost in the 'divine dance between the masculine and the feminine'! )