mr_engineer

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'! )

@Dan502 I'd say, 8/10.

If you're going to tell me that my theory is bullshit without coming up with an alternative theory and if you're just going to condescend with 'go out more', 'you're too hyper-masculine' (lol as if masculinity on a man is a bad thing), 'all of this is only on the internet and not in reality' (as if money isn't the #1 reason marriages fall apart), you might as well give us all a break. About redpill - there is one kernel of truth in it. And, that is the concept of SMV. What I'm doing here is I'm ascertaining how much money you should have in order to have enough of an SMV for the average modern woman to respect you. As much as they claim to want 'equality', the reality is that they don't respect men on the same level. Yall can put up with hyper-masculine women all you want, I say 'no thanks'. I do not stand for the misogynistic aspects of redpill, in which they name-call women or in which the only thing that matters is sex. Having said that, SMV is a reality for both men and women. If it's undeniably true for women, why would you not entertain the possibility that it's true for men?! One thing that I've noticed in more Stage Green pick-up circles is that 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are these abstract concepts that don't make any sense. (Some even say that it's all conditioning, which is ridiculous) We have to keep in mind that the ultimate point of building your masculinity as a man is to get laid consistently with a compatible woman that you're committed to and the ultimate point of building your femininity as a woman is to get a man to stick around. We have to get tangible and practical at some point with these concepts, or else it'll just devolve into mental-masturbation. Fine, it's energy, but the point of energy as a physical human is to tangibly manifest something, to tangibly create something.

Oh really?! How many dollars do these things cost in the marketplace?! If they are not wishy-washy and they are to be used as part of a transaction, you should be able to show me what its market-price is, right?! (Sex has a market-price, by the way, in red-light areas) We're talking about what women want from men here, not what qualities are healthy for any individual to have to construct a happy life. Those can't be bought, of course. We're talking about the transactional aspect here. And, a long-term relationship is very much like a business-deal. Traditionally, it was, men provide, women do the home-making. With feminism, this deal is changing. And, I'm trying to project where it's headed.

I said 'long-term relationship', not 'sex'. Their paradigm is not pragmatic enough, in that case. They could fix that if they want. You realize that these abstract concepts are very subjective, right? They could mean different things to different people. For example, to a psychopath, the 'authentic' thing to do could be to stab you and steal your wallet. Does this 'authenticity' intrigue women and turn them on?! I don't care what your ideological crusade is against the so-called redpillers. I'm trying to address a very real knowledge-vacuum about relationships that PUAs frankly don't care about.

There is a profoundly loving nice-guy in every woman's inbox, talking to himself and being left on read. Does she care?! I don't think so. Is simping 'profound love'? They think it is. What do you think? Traditionally, relationships haven't had much to do with love. At Stage Red, it was rape and pillage. At Stage Blue, it was arranged-marriage and duty-based. At Orange, this is where we find ourselves, if we want to make a relationship work. It's a relationship between two egos. Egos want what they want and we need win-wins.

What long-term relationship can last without a transaction? Practically speaking. The whole issue here is that women are talking in terms of these wishy-washy terms, like 'authenticity, confidence, emotional attunement, sensitivity, reliability, trustworthiness (add 50 more abstract concepts)'. And they're not just saying what they want as part of the transaction in practical terms. (In fact, 'independence', 'they don't need a man', 'they don't need a transaction', which is even more confusing) When that happens, you have to look at what they're actually doing and try to decode that. You also have to play 'would you rather' games to figure out their actual priorities, what they're willing to sacrifice vs what's a dealbreaker. Women, you have two options. Start being straightforward about what you want, or the 4D-chess continues. It's appalling that yall can't figure yourselves out on your own. If you don't, you will keep getting manipulated by narcissistic men. Then don't come here asking us 'where are all the good men'. So, just figure yourself out and give a straight answer when asked 'what you want in a relationship'. No more excuses. This is real empowerment that you don't have to fight someone out there for.

Fine, then, Mr. Winner. You can have the 'development', I can have the women. You happy with that?!