Normalization and generalization in dating.

[mr_engineer]

17 minutes ago, KH2 said:

@mr_engineer I'm not gonna argue against these rationalizations and excuses of yours, my friend. Eventually, you'll have to take some actual, real, tangible action instead of talking a bunch of bullshit on the internet. Or, you never take real action and you'll be stuck where you are right now, forever. The choice is yours

I am 'stuck not taking action' from a pick-up perspective. The way I see it, my vision is more long-term. And I'm not 'stuck'. I'm working towards it every single day. 

Pick-up focuses on instant-gratification, honestly. It's for guys thinking with their dicks. But, that's for another conversation. 

[Consept]

14 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Then, in the first few dates, you figure out love-language compatibility. And you keep going with those who you have compatible spiritual values with. It'll probably be only 1-2 women by this point. (I have done all of this in platonic relationships on my own time.) 

Then, you develop your game with that specific woman! And, final screening - for sexual compatibility. You go for the one who is sexually compatible. 

This all sounds great but im sorry from my personal experience it does not work like this at all. When I was in University, I had a lot of interest from girls, partly because they thought i looked good but also I hung out with the right people and i had a bit of a mysterious, sigma male kind of vibe. I slept with a few girls but i couldve slept with a lot more and ended up getting serious with one girl, who pushed for the relationship, it wasnt really me as i was quite avoidant lol. At the time I had no idea of what youre talking about, I was probably my least authentic self, Im much more authentic now. Point being theres 2 very distinct factors that I think youre conflating. 

1. Attraction, this is essentially being fuckable. A girl has to consider you to be this at a minimum for you to have any romantic chance with her. The conversation of anything deeper will be a moot point if this box is not checked. This doesnt mean just looks and external things btw, those are a factor but vibe, social skills, game essentially all play into this. Also should be said that just because a girl considers you fuckable she still may not want anything with you. She may want a long term partner and youre almost too fuckable where she doesnt think youll fit that for example. 

2. Emotional and deeper connections. This is what youre talking about through your posts and I agree this is very important for a long term relationship, but long term or short term 1 is essential. I think the issue people are talking about and probably why you dont seem to have had a relationship or whatever it is you want, is that youre demonising the first stage, you think it is in some way wrong or low tier, even if you dont acknowledge it you too feel this, otherwise you could talk to girls youre not attracted to and see if they match up to your deeper connection strategy. 

Youre putting attraction at the end of your strategy and this is just dishonest in my opinion, how do you know if youre sexually compatible someone if youve never actually had sex?

[mr_engineer]

4 minutes ago, Consept said:

1. Attraction, this is essentially being fuckable. A girl has to consider you to be this at a minimum for you to have any romantic chance with her. The conversation of anything deeper will be a moot point if this box is not checked. This doesnt mean just looks and external things btw, those are a factor but vibe, social skills, game essentially all play into this. Also should be said that just because a girl considers you fuckable she still may not want anything with you. She may want a long term partner and youre almost too fuckable where she doesnt think youll fit that for example. 

In the 2nd year of my university, I took a salsa-class. The masculine/feminine dynamics didn't really work, I was clueless. Also, I didn't really have a sense of direction for my career. 

But then, in my 4th year, I found my passion on the career-front. And, I decided to go for it no matter what problems came my way. This is when I started getting a lot of positive female attention! But, I was too busy to be distracted. 

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

2. Emotional and deeper connections. This is what youre talking about through your posts and I agree this is very important for a long term relationship, but long term or short term 1 is essential. I think the issue people are talking about and probably why you dont seem to have had a relationship or whatever it is you want, is that youre demonising the first stage, you think it is in some way wrong or low tier, even if you dont acknowledge it you too feel this, otherwise you could talk to girls youre not attracted to and see if they match up to your deeper connection strategy. 

I don't believe in thinking with my dick. 

And I don't see the point of talking to girls I'm not attracted to. This deeper connection strategy is for romantic-relationships, for attachment-relationships. I will check out the women I talk to! For sure. 

It's a question of priorities, honestly. 

9 minutes ago, Consept said:

Youre putting attraction at the end of your strategy and this is just dishonest in my opinion, how do you know if youre sexually compatible someone if youve never actually had sex?

I think that the order of stage 1 being about attraction and stage 2 being about the deeper connection, is male-biased. Because men feel insecure investing feelings into someone who they haven't fucked yet. Women actually invert these stages! Because they have to screen you for safety. On a physical, mental, emotional level. 

[Consept]

20 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

But then, in my 4th year, I found my passion on the career-front. And, I decided to go for it no matter what problems came my way. This is when I started getting a lot of positive female attention! But, I was too busy to be distracted. 

Right and im saying i didnt care about all that and i was still attractive to women, so in my experience its nothing do with that in terms of attraction. Im not saying being focused isnt attractive but its definitely not a pre-requisite, some of the guys a grew up with who had no ambition were great with women. 

 

22 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I don't believe in thinking with my dick. 

And I don't see the point of talking to girls I'm not attracted to. This deeper connection strategy is for romantic-relationships, for attachment-relationships. I will check out the women I talk to! For sure. 

It's a question of priorities, honestly. 

Again phrases like 'thinking with my dick' are a demonisation of a broader point. Your deeper connection strategy is great for romantic relationships but my point is that the attraction stage comes first before all of that. The point i was making is that using your strategy, girls that youre not physically attracted to should still be on the table because they could be compatible with you in all the criteria that you mentioned. Using your ideas physical traits shouldnt really come into it that much because most of them are imposed on us by society anyway, so you should get to know as many girls as you can and see if you match on the deeper levels that youre talking about. 

27 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I think that the order of stage 1 being about attraction and stage 2 being about the deeper connection, is male-biased. Because men feel insecure investing feelings into someone who they haven't fucked yet. Women actually invert these stages! Because they have to screen you for safety. On a physical, mental, emotional level. 

Yes womens screening does happen that way but most women will know whether theyre attracted to you within 3 seconds of meeting, obviously after they have to talk to you to decide whether they like you and would want to go on a date or talk more. But the point is attraction is quite an instant thing and if you dont have that with a woman you will get no where near the stages that youre talking about. 

Heres some data around speed dating stats that show the 3 second claim - https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/science-says-you-do-this-surprising-thing-in-just-3-seconds-hint-it-has-to-do-with-attraction.html

[mr_engineer]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

Right and im saying i didnt care about all that and i was still attractive to women, so in my experience its nothing do with that in terms of attraction. Im not saying being focused isnt attractive but its definitely not a pre-requisite, some of the guys a grew up with who had no ambition were great with women. 

If what they want is to do pumping and dumping, yeah. You can be 'great with women' and have no ambition! It's just that the higher-quality women will see through your BS. (By higher-quality, I mean in terms of maturity. Not necessarily physically higher-quality, they can get hot women. I'm not denying that.) 

5 hours ago, Consept said:

Again phrases like 'thinking with my dick' are a demonisation of a broader point. Your deeper connection strategy is great for romantic relationships but my point is that the attraction stage comes first before all of that. The point i was making is that using your strategy, girls that youre not physically attracted to should still be on the table because they could be compatible with you in all the criteria that you mentioned. Using your ideas physical traits shouldnt really come into it that much because most of them are imposed on us by society anyway, so you should get to know as many girls as you can and see if you match on the deeper levels that youre talking about. 

Yeah, but I put in a lot of work into this and I gotta see payoffs physically too! I need to be motivated to do it. It won't work with women who aren't physically attractive precisely for this reason. 

There is an abundance of really amazing women in the world. It doesn't have to be one way or another. In fact, the hotter women have more of a chance of being conscious than those who aren't hot, cuz they're practicing greater self-love and self-care. 

6 hours ago, Consept said:

Yes womens screening does happen that way but most women will know whether theyre attracted to you within 3 seconds of meeting, obviously after they have to talk to you to decide whether they like you and would want to go on a date or talk more. But the point is attraction is quite an instant thing and if you dont have that with a woman you will get no where near the stages that youre talking about. 

Heres some data around speed dating stats that show the 3 second claim - https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/science-says-you-do-this-surprising-thing-in-just-3-seconds-hint-it-has-to-do-with-attraction.html

I believe I figured this out in my 4th year. That is when I believe I actually became a catch for women. I didn't rely on games or trickery. Pure authentic masculinity did it for me. 

I have not had a shortage of positive female attention after that. Cuz I've always had a fundamental self-confidence after that. My issues have been with the compatibility-thing. And that in order to meet the standards of the women I was attracting, I had to lose myself and my values around money. Because that's what happened in my childhood with my mom. So, this repeated in dating. This is why I had to come back to my mom and radically change the money-dynamic with her and fix these issues at the root! (I'm not saying everyone has to do that, I had to, cuz I could.) 

[Tyler Robinson]

4 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

Pure authentic masculinity did it for me. 

And how did you show it? Strange that you never had a relationship. 

 

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, Tyler Robinson said:

And how did you show it?

I didn't really have to show it. It was like an energetic switch that got turned on when I found my passion in my career. 

1 hour ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Strange that you never had a relationship. 

I had to look long and hard for the kind of woman I want to be with. Then, the next thing I had to do, was to figure out how to have a relationship with her. Yes, I was in my masculine energy, but I didn't know how to create the kind of relationship I want with the kind of woman I want. And, pick-up theory turns out to not be good enough for it. For example, when I talk to you people about the basis of your belief in pick-up theory or redpill (if you do), I see a lot of bias and outright wrong knowledge. So, I had no knowledge-resources. I'm having to research this shit all on my own. 

The fact that most women either don't know what they want from men, are wrong about what they want from men or are outright lying to men about what they want from men, doesn't help. I have to really find the high-consciousness self-aware women who are telling the truth, then I have to verify it in practice, verify the correct way to implement it, then I have to sift through the women walking their talk on this front and develop my filters for women like this. 

Most people aren't looking for love, they don't care about it. (Because they're conditioned with a materialistic worldview that says that 'love' is a feeling-state or an illusion) I saw this from a very young age. Which is why I knew that I could trust almost no one on this issue. And, as we all know, most people don't know about non-duality, so they don't know what 'love' actually is. They have wrong ideas about that too. 

[Tyler Robinson]

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I didn't really have to show it. It was like an energetic switch that got turned on when I found my passion in my career. 

That answer is so ambiguous and has absolutely no correlation with women. Women don't care what career you're passionate about. 

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I had to look long and hard for the kind of woman I want to be with. Then, the next thing I had to do, was to figure out how to have a relationship with her. Yes, I was in my masculine energy, but I didn't know how to create the kind of relationship I want with the kind of woman I want. And, pick-up theory turns out to not be good enough for it. For example, when I talk to you people about the basis of your belief in pick-up theory or redpill (if you do), I see a lot of bias and outright wrong knowledge. So, I had no knowledge-resources. I'm having to research this shit all on my own. 

I don't know why and how redpill contradicts any of the stuff you're alluding to. 

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The fact that most women either don't know what they want from men, are wrong about what they want from men or are outright lying to men about what they want from men, doesn't help.

Men have had and have been having relationships with women despite all that. 

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I have to really find the high-consciousness self-aware women who are telling the truth, then I have to verify it in practice, verify the correct way to implement it, then I have to sift through the women walking their talk on this front and develop my filters for women like this. 

What truth? 

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Most people aren't looking for love, they don't care about it. (Because they're conditioned with a materialistic worldview that says that 'love' is a feeling-state or an illusion) I saw this from a very young age. Which is why I knew that I could trust almost no one on this issue. And, as we all know, most people don't know about non-duality, so they don't know what 'love' actually is. They have wrong ideas about that too. 

What is love and what do you think most men and women define love as? How does your definition differs from anyone's? 

 

[mr_engineer]

2 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

That answer is so ambiguous and has absolutely no correlation with women. Women don't care what career you're passionate about. 

This is why I've had to look long and hard for the kind of woman I want. The kind of women I want, do care what I'm passionate about! Cuz they understand that a boring, uninspired, zombified man will only objectify them. And they won't get love from someone who can't even be passionate about his life. 

3 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

I don't know why and how redpill contradicts any of the stuff you're alluding to. 

See my thread on redpill for that. 

3 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Men have had and have been having relationships with women despite all that. 

Not the kind I want. I prefer direct communication about this stuff, not passive-aggression when uncommunicated expectations aren't met. 

7 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

What truth? 

The truth of what women want from men. Most women just don't know this because of lack of self-awareness. And it's never even been a talking point cuz women have been historically oppressed. This is changing now because women have more freedom. 

8 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

What is love and what do you think most men and women define love as? How does your definition differs from anyone's? 

Actual love, is a recognition that both of you are One. It is a choice. And very few people make this choice because they're wrong about what 'love' is, but they think they're right. 

The way most men and women define love is the way it's defined in the movies/rom-coms. It's a 'positive feeling-state' or a state of approving of something/someone. This can be created by making shit up in your head, quite honestly. You can have an ego-agenda, rationalize it using your concepts of 'love' and then when it doesn't fulfil you, talk about 'how all human love is finite'. 

I'm sorry to be ranting about this stuff. 

[Tyler Robinson]

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

This is why I've had to look long and hard for the kind of woman I want. The kind of women I want, do care what I'm passionate about! Cuz they understand that a boring, uninspired, zombified man will only objectify them.

This is toxic Masculinity. A man can love a woman deeply and it will have nothing to do with his career prospects or his success. All the guys who are into wage slave jobs or labor jobs are zombified?  I don't find them boring at all. A person can be interesting to talk to even if they are into mundane jobs. You have invented some quirky stereotypes around men. 

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

 

And they won't get love from someone who can't even be passionate about his life. 

Maybe they're more passionate about their families than a career. 

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

See my thread on redpill for that. 

Not the kind I want. I prefer direct communication about this stuff, not passive-aggression when uncommunicated expectations aren't met. 

That's not passive aggression. It's called confusion. Women don't have clear cut theories on everything. They mostly work with instincts. 

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The truth of what women want from men. Most women just don't know this because of lack of self-awareness. And it's never even been a talking point cuz women have been historically oppressed. This is changing now because women have more freedom. 

Nothing to do with oppression. Women have emotions. Women engage in a lot of emotional logic most of the time. Emotional logic is not always crystal clear leaving room for ambiguity. 

 

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Actual love, is a recognition that both of you are One. It is a choice. And very few people make this choice because they're wrong about what 'love' is, but they think they're right. 

The way most men and women define love is the way it's defined in the movies/rom-coms. It's a 'positive feeling-state' or a state of approving of something/someone. This can be created by making shit up in your head, quite honestly. You can have an ego-agenda, rationalize it using your concepts of 'love' and then when it doesn't fulfil you, talk about 'how all human love is finite'. 

I'm sorry to be ranting about this stuff. 

Human love is finite. You can call it low consciousness but it's reality. The only form of love that comes quite close to unconditional is a mother's love for a child. Romantic love tends to fade away with time. 

[mr_engineer]

24 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

This is toxic Masculinity. A man can love a woman deeply and it will have nothing to do with his career prospects or his success. All the guys who are into wage slave jobs or labor jobs are zombified?  I don't find them boring at all. A person can be interesting to talk to even if they are into mundane jobs. You have invented some quirky stereotypes around men. 

If they're passionate about their careers, they won't be boring. Even if they're wage-slaves, they can be interesting people. I didn't break out of wage-slavery the moment I got passionate about my career either!

My point is that passion towards what you're doing is a choice. And the men who make that choice are interesting to women. Because it creates a forward-movement that is unstoppable. 

24 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Maybe they're more passionate about their families than a career. 

I feel like this argument applies more to women than men. It's more of an 'either-or' for women than for men in a patriarchal system. 

And, beware of the men who say 'I do this job that I hate for you, my family. Do you see how much I'm sacrificing for you?! Do you see how this justifies my abuse towards you?!' 

24 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

That's not passive aggression. It's called confusion. Women don't have clear cut theories on everything. They mostly work with instincts. 

I prefer women who prioritize mental peace and mental clarity like their life depends on it. Because they understand that that is the key to happiness. 

A huge trap for men is putting up with a woman who expects him to make her happy and who doesn't take responsibility for her own happiness. I want to avoid that one like the plague! 

24 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Nothing to do with oppression. Women have emotions. Women engage in a lot of emotional logic most of the time. Emotional logic is not always crystal clear leaving room for ambiguity. 

You can have emotional logic without ambiguity. I'm fine with emotional logic. But, what really bugs me is the ambiguity, not the emotional logic. 

I've met women whose emotional logic is crystal clear! That takes a tapping into your intuition and a commitment to self-love. 

This is what I call 'feminine epistemology', for those of you who have been wondering what I mean by it. 

24 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Human love is finite. You can call it low consciousness but it's reality. The only form of love that comes quite close to unconditional is a mother's love for a child. Romantic love tends to fade away with time. 

What you're talking about is not 'love', actually. I call it 'care'. Care is what happens between two humans who matter to each other. And this is transactional. And, you are right, that it's only one-way from parents to their children. All adult-relationships are two-way. 

This is why love-language compatibility is so important. It's very important to find a win-win there and a win-win in needs. And your positioning to the opposite sex has to match with it when you're dating. If you don't do this, your relationship will be flooded with coping-mechanisms for it in the future. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Tyler Robinson]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

If they're passionate about their careers, they won't be boring. Even if they're wage-slaves, they can be interesting people. I didn't break out of wage-slavery the moment I got passionate about my career either!

My point is that passion towards what you're doing is a choice. And the men who make that choice are interesting to women. Because it creates a forward-movement that is unstoppable. 

All kinds of men are interesting to women. All kinds of men get married. The only ones who get dumped and divorced are assholes. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I feel like this argument applies more to women than men. It's more of an 'either-or' for women than for men in a patriarchal system. 

A lot of men choose family and kids over careers because they want to be involved in their children's lives. In fact the biggest struggle for most men is work life balance since they really wish to devote more time to wife and kids which they can't. For most women this is not a problem as most women tend to automatically want to be stay at home moms and expect the husband to pay bills. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

And, beware of the men who say 'I do this job that I hate for you, my family. Do you see how much I'm sacrificing for you?! Do you see how this justifies my abuse towards you?!' 

A loving caring man uses his job and earnings to support his wife and child, not to abuse her. Why do you automatically assume the negative? Also just because something is uninspiring doesn't mean you have to hate lt. You could still do it as a duty. Maybe you don't like the nature of the work or it's not interesting enough but you could be having your friends that you made at your workplace and you could be spending time with them or you could be going to work because you are used to that environment. The fact that the job helps you pay bills can also be a motivator for most people. Think outside the box. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I prefer women who prioritize mental peace and mental clarity like their life depends on it. Because they understand that that is the key to happiness. 

This is a joke. It's not that women don't like clarity. It's just that their emotional system messes them up. This is like saying we should hate children who get angry and throw tantrums. 

It's feminine nature to be emotionally confused. It's masculine nature to give her a sense of order and direction. 

You're almost forcing a woman to act like a man. You have zero containment for a woman's flaws. Goodluck with that attitude. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

A huge trap for men is putting up with a woman who expects him to make her happy and who doesn't take responsibility for her own happiness. I want to avoid that one like the plague! 

All women look for happiness in men. This is feminine nature. Masculine nature is gaining approval of the female. Feminine nature is giving that approval. Men are giving. Women are receiving. 

The very first thing a woman will want from you is happiness. Feminine happiness. Sexual happiness. You can call her selfish. But mother nature made it that way. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

You can have emotional logic without ambiguity. I'm fine with emotional logic. But, what really bugs me is the ambiguity, not the emotional logic. 

No. That's why it's called "emotional." 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

I've met women whose emotional logic is crystal clear! That takes a tapping into your intuition and a commitment to self-love. 

You have only met them in your dreams. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

This is what I call 'feminine epistemology', for those of you who have been wondering what I mean by it. 

Your theory doesn't match reality. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

What you're talking about is not 'love', actually. I call it 'care'. Care is what happens between two humans who matter to each other. And this is transactional. And, you are right, that it's only one-way from parents to their children. All adult-relationships are two-way. 

A relationship is a transaction. Satisfaction of mutual needs. 

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

This is why love-language compatibility is so important. It's very important to find a win-win there and a win-win in needs. And your positioning to the opposite sex has to match with it. If you don't do this, your relationship will be flooded with coping-mechanisms for it. 

Relationships are based on attraction. Compatibility comes later. The strength of a relationship does not depend on any kind of compatibility. It depends on how willing each person is to please the other and how aligned  their pursuits are. Also depends on the nature of their individual problems and how severely these problems impact the function of the relationship 

 

You need relationship experience to speak with confidence on male female relationship dynamics which you sadly don't have. 

[Spiral]

One thing that goes a long way with girls is honestly trying. Not just with them, but with every aspect to your life.

• Workout and eat healthy food.
• Wear nice and clean clothes. Mix it up, don’t wear the same thing two days in a row.
• Get your shit together and girls will be more attracted to you.

You’ll probably end up more successful whatever you do for a living also because people can tell when someone don’t care. Some things are really shallow but you also feel more confident by doing them.

It’s not actually about the new shirt you’re wearing today, it’s caring that matters.

[Consept]

great answers @Tyler Robinson quite impressed with your clarity on the subject

[Consept]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

Yeah, but I put in a lot of work into this and I gotta see payoffs physically too! I need to be motivated to do it. It won't work with women who aren't physically attractive precisely for this reason. 

This doesnt fit your logic, you said what women are attracted to is due to the patriarchy putting ideas in their head and women dont know what hey want. So why is that different to you, youre attracted to certain physical features because you too have been programmed that way, if you want to love on a higher level i dont see why physical attributes should come into it, if youre expecting a woman to transcend her requirement for physical attributes and just go directly to love, wouldnt be incumbent on you to do the same?

[mr_engineer]

45 minutes ago, Consept said:

This doesnt fit your logic, you said what women are attracted to is due to the patriarchy putting ideas in their head and women dont know what hey want. So why is that different to you, youre attracted to certain physical features because you too have been programmed that way, if you want to love on a higher level i dont see why physical attributes should come into it, if youre expecting a woman to transcend her requirement for physical attributes and just go directly to love, wouldnt be incumbent on you to do the same?

Men and women just work differently. Especially masculine men and feminine women. Because the masculine and feminine epistemologies are different. 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Men and women just work differently. Especially masculine men and feminine women. Because the masculine and feminine epistemologies are different. 

True but your claim is that women dont know what they want and what they do want has been programmed into them by men. You're taking a higher level position and saying that the traditional ways attraction that has worked for women is essentially nonsense, so what im getting at is why are you able to keep the traditional male ways attraction that are intertwined with traditional womens attraction, but women have to change what theyre attracted to? Also do you need find it a bit hypocritical that you as a man are defining what women should be attracted to whilst simultaneously criticising men for defining what women should be attracted to?

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

A lot of men choose family and kids over careers because they want to be involved in their children's lives. In fact the biggest struggle for most men is work life balance since they really wish to devote more time to wife and kids which they can't. For most women this is not a problem as most women tend to automatically want to be stay at home moms and expect the husband to pay bills. 

If the wife is staying at home, how can the husband 'choose his family and kids over their careers'?! Don't they have to succeed to provide for a stay-at-home wife and a kid?! 

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

A loving caring man uses his job and earnings to support his wife and child, not to abuse her. Why do you automatically assume the negative? Also just because something is uninspiring doesn't mean you have to hate lt. You could still do it as a duty. Maybe you don't like the nature of the work or it's not interesting enough but you could be having your friends that you made at your workplace and you could be spending time with them or you could be going to work because you are used to that environment. The fact that the job helps you pay bills can also be a motivator for most people. Think outside the box. 

Okay. In case women don't know this, I'm going to tell you something - men have a very intimate relationship with what they do. They either love it, or hate it. Or they're emotionless zombies, in which case, they hate what they're doing. And a lot of a man's happiness is decided by whether he loves or hates what he does! 

You can't be 'loving and caring' if you hate what you do. Cuz you're going to be bitter towards the people you're making these sacrifices for. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

This is a joke. It's not that women don't like clarity. It's just that their emotional system messes them up. This is like saying we should hate children who get angry and throw tantrums. 

It's feminine nature to be emotionally confused. It's masculine nature to give her a sense of order and direction. 

You're almost forcing a woman to act like a man. You have zero containment for a woman's flaws. Goodluck with that attitude. 

It's not your emotional system. It's the patriarchy. Your relationship with your emotional-system becomes bad for this reason. And because you have been conditioned by the patriarchy into a masculine epistemology. And, feminists push women into taking on the masculine epistemology for their 'independence'. 

If your mind is open to what I'm telling you, this could genuinely improve your life. Not kidding. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

No. That's why it's called "emotional." 

I would highly recommend learning from New-Age women how to access your intuition. They can teach you how your emotions can give you more clarity and not mess up your mind. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

You have only met them in your dreams. 

Your theory doesn't match reality. 

I think it would help you to open your mind when I'm telling you about something you didn't even know existed. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Relationships are based on attraction. Compatibility comes later. The strength of a relationship does not depend on any kind of compatibility. It depends on how willing each person is to please the other and how aligned  their pursuits are. Also depends on the nature of their individual problems and how severely these problems impact the function of the relationship 

 

You need relationship experience to speak with confidence on male female relationship dynamics which you sadly don't have. 

I get to run my relationships how I want. You asked me what my modus operandi is, I told you. I respect your modus operandi but I would rather not procrastinate on compatibility when it comes to my own dating-life. 

[mr_engineer]

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

True but your claim is that women dont know what they want and what they do want has been programmed into them by men. You're taking a higher level position and saying that the traditional ways attraction that has worked for women is essentially nonsense, so what im getting at is why are you able to keep the traditional male ways attraction that are intertwined with traditional womens attraction, but women have to change what theyre attracted to? Also do you need find it a bit hypocritical that you as a man are defining what women should be attracted to whilst simultaneously criticising men for defining what women should be attracted to?

Because men have had the choice to define what they want, because men ruled women. Kings had the privilege to say 'I prefer this female servant over this one'. Men know what we want, it's no secret. But, women's truth has been repressed. 

Feminism is helping women's truth come out. And, if we want happy women, it is our job to listen and own up to the problematic male-biased conditioning that has been given to women. Women's identities have been mirrored to them in a very wrong, male-biased way. Because religion was male-dominated. 

The New-Age community has been huge in helping women discover their authentic spirituality that is independent of male-dominated religion. 

[Consept]

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Because men have had the choice to define what they want, because men ruled women. Kings had the privilege to say 'I prefer this female servant over this one'. Men know what we want, it's no secret. But, women's truth has been repressed. 

Feminism is helping women's truth come out. And, if we want happy women, it is our job to listen and own up to the problematic male-biased conditioning that has been given to women. Women's identities have been mirrored to them in a very wrong, male-biased way. Because religion was male-dominated. 

The New-Age community has been huge in helping women discover their authentic spirituality that is independent of male-dominated religion. 

I think youre fundamentally wrong on this point, evolutionary psychologists will say that the reason men are driven to gather resources and power is specifically because thats what attracts women, this has been the case throughout history and is also the case in the animal kingdom. Gorillas for example are motivated to become the strongest because if they are it would make them the most attractive to females, they dont force females to mate because they are powerful, which is essentially your argument for humans. Within many species of animals, the male has to gather resources to show that he can look after the female and kids otherwise the female will not consider him. Other species the female will be attracted to males that have what she considers good genes and mate with them. Our society is literally led by what women are attracted to, men who abuse power and try and restrict female sexuality through religion or ideology are doing that specifically because they are not attractive to women. Even if a women in the past did marry someone just because of how powerful they are, they most likely would be attracted to someone else, which is why marriage came in the first place, to guarantee paternity for the father. If powerful men did have the power to literally control what women were attracted to, to the extent that women themselves didnt recognise it why would they bother conditioning them to have traits that were hard to attain? Why condition them to like physically strong men when they could just as easily condition them to like overweight men? 

You can make the argument that marriage to someone they werent attracted to was kind of pushed on them as a societal norm but the argument that what they were attracted is enforced in them, literally goes against nature, i think would be pretty impossible to achieve this, especially within a relatively short period of time evolutionarily speaking.