Women treat MEN the way men treat JOBS: how relationship goals change the dating

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Devin said:

Because I unlike postmodernists notice patterns.

Well… where are all the postmodernists spinning their heads then?

[Devin]

 

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Well… where are all the postmodernists spinning their heads then?

I just said I notice patterns, didn't say I was good at it.

[supremeyingyang]

Just now, Devin said:

I just said I notice patterns, didn't say I was good at it.

Now, one can't deny a certain degree of sympathy to a man who can make fun of himself.

 

@all

This discussion is more fun than watching youtube, anyway I go now back to reading my current book, which is about the lifestory of a Germany Democratic Republic Deep Cover Agent, who claims he were involved in the Olof Palme assasination. All in all a more peaceful story than this thread  

[Karmadhi]

11 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

This goes both ways. Some men who are "players" leave their very loyal girlfriends, so how is it even possible to make such generalizations about how love works depending on gender?

Players are too rare and not good examples.

The fact that females respond well to such pieces of shit is already the problem.

Integrity in a guy does not get rewarded much, if females picked guys based on integrity and consciousness then all these gender stupid wars would end overnight.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Karmadhi

[Jacob Morres]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

Integrity in a guy does not get rewarded much

Fair. Though, at a soul level, people may appreciate it. If that makes sense 

But a good soul isn't enough 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Jacob Morres

[Karmadhi]

3 minutes ago, Jacob Morres said:

Fair. Though, at a soul level, people may appreciate it. If that makes sense 

But a good soul isn't enough 

The issue is that the opposite of high conscious behavior is rewarded in a guy like dominance, assertiveness, not giving a fuck etc.

Meanwhile guys value looks which are not linked with low integrity, low consciousness behaviour.

 

 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

Players are too rare and not good examples.

The fact that females respond well to such pieces of shit is already the problem.

Integrity in a guy does not get rewarded much, if females picked guys based on integrity and consciousness then all these gender stupid wars would end overnight.

 

Female attraction is not a reward. It’s not merit based… it’s feelings based.

And one should not seek integrity to get a reward. Integrity is its own reward.

And players aren’t rare at all.

[Karmadhi]

23 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Female attraction is not a reward. It’s not merit based… it’s feelings based.

Females incentive guys to be players. Then they complain about being treated like shit.

 

[Bobby_2021]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

I can list more points, but that point alone is enough for women to have leverage over most men and that was my overall point

I don't actually disagree with your statement. But it's incomplete. Most men are not drooling over some 35 year old pussy while a 23 year old pussy can leverage over most men. That's true. Nuance matters.

1.

Basing woman's value on pussy & boobas is typical of red pill guys and somewhat disrespectful to women. So I was a bit surprised to see you base your arguments on a typical red pill talking point. Obviously every (real) woman has it and it's going to grow old and depreciate in value. So better have something else more valuable than her body parts.

2.

Men have to work on a lot of tangible things both for short term and long term relationships. You have to be charming and attractive, develop social skills and make money, build a network, etc. All these things are expected of men by society.

While women are under no pressure to develop these stuff. So whatever non-pussy leverage points (feel free to elaborate) you can come up with, from the average women, it's highly likely that average man has it more.

This is especially true since most women never go for the average men as you mentioned. It's usually men who is better than her, so there isn't much she can contribute that he already hasn't. (Except for a big P).

3. 

Your initial point was that women divorce men since men don't contribute to anything in the relationship and that men are bad partners.

But my point is that it's women don't contribute anything significant to the relationship, other than a pussy that deteriorates over time. A man's contribution in a functional relationship is far greater than that of a woman's. Just by getting into a relationship with him, she is indirectly stating that he is an above average man. She wouldn't obviously be with an average man for reasons stated above. 

If you ask me personally, I still think it's a man's fault that divorce happens. A man's contribution is not merely restricted to love, but an understanding of how women & relationships work. 60% of it is in picking a women who actually feels the need to contribute something tangible to the relationship and holding her to standards. A man already is of standard the moment she is in a relationship. 

[Arcangelo]

18 hours ago, Emerald said:

Women don’t need to be with men anymore to get financial support. So, they can choose freely for the sake of love and companionship.

This is how game started.

 

[Arcangelo]

First

13 hours ago, zurew said:

and has almost nothing to do with gender.

 

after

13 hours ago, zurew said:

An average women can contribute a pussy and according to the current dating dynamics that is more than enough to have leverage over most men.

and then

13 hours ago, zurew said:

Where is the contradiction?

Interesting...

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Men have to work on a lot of tangible things both for short term and long term relationships. You have to be charming and attractive, develop social skills and make money, build a network, etc. All these things are expected of men by society.

Most women have to do this too. It’s just the nature of life to have to develop yourself into a functional adult and make money, make friends, and grow yourself.

Life is challenging for most people.

Also, in my experience, most men who have developed these things in themselves don’t want a woman who hasn’t developed themselves in a somewhat equivalent way.

Look at the real world and you will see that couples often have similar orientations to career and personal development.

While women are under no pressure to develop these stuff. So whatever non-pussy leverage points (feel free to elaborate) you can come up with, from the average women, it's highly likely that average man has it more.

A relationship is not about leverage. That’s just a transaction.

And men don’t fall in love with pussy or beauty or any of the other things that men generally fantasize about.

Men like pussy like a person likes food. Good for a minute. And then disenchanted. And onto the next.

Relationship is quite a bit different.

You have an initial chemistry and baseline attraction, and that grows into something deeper if you’re both on the same wavelength. And a deeper love and intimacy grows.

And then there’s the bonds of family that eventually arise. And no leverage is needed to sustain the relationship. But it can be broken if it’s neglected.

This is especially true since most women never go for the average men as you mentioned. It's usually men who is better than her, so there isn't much she can contribute that he already hasn't. (Except for a big P).

Nonsense internet talking points that don’t reflect real life.

Most women are attracted to normal guys. Just don’t be creepy and someone will eventually be interested.

Studies have shown that most couples are relatively similar as it pertains to looks.

And it is common for couples to have similar levels of career focus.

3. 

Your initial point was that women divorce men since men don't contribute to anything in the relationship and that men are bad partners.

But my point is that it's women don't contribute anything significant to the relationship, other than a pussy that deteriorates over time.

I’m sure that that makes your girlfriend super turned on when you talk about how she doesn’t contribute anything to the relationship except her soon-decrepit pussy.

It’s that type of thing that would have a woman feeling very unwanted and crying in the shower that her husband doesn’t value her…. as she fantasizes with the shower head on it’s most high pressure setting about feeling the warmth of being in the arms of a more mature man who tells her that her how much he loves being inside her.

And then she tries to stick it out for a couple years until the divorce papers come… or she becomes so love-starved that she gets into an emotional affair with the sensitive neighbor guy she’s been fantasizing about.

A man's contribution in a functional relationship is far greater than that of a woman's. Just by getting into a relationship with him, she is indirectly stating that he is an above average man. She wouldn't obviously be with an average man for reasons stated above.

That’s not what female attraction means. It isn’t a statement about whether a man is above average or not.

Women just get feelings for a man, and they want to be close to him because they feel chemistry with him.

It’s not calculated or rational, it’s very intuitive and emotional… as it should be.

If you ask me personally, I still think it's a man's fault that divorce happens

A man's contribution is not merely restricted to love, but an understanding of how women & relationships work. 60% of it is in picking a women who actually feels the need to contribute something tangible to the relationship and holding her to standards. A man already is of standard the moment she is in a relationship.

It’s this assumption that the man has already hit the standard that’s going to crash a relationship.

And if your viewpoint is that women don’t contribute to relationship except for pussy… don’t expect many highly developed women who have things to contribute to come knocking on your door.

 

[StarStruck]

Dropping truth bombs in this one

 

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Most men are not drooling over some 35 year old pussy while a 23 year old pussy can leverage over most men. That's true. Nuance matters.

I agree that nuance matters, but in general I would say, that an average men who don't have a girlfriend would really do a lot to sleep with a women (a lot of incels are out there and the number is increasing).

7 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Men have to work on a lot of tangible things both for short term and long term relationships. You have to be charming and attractive, develop social skills and make money, build a network, etc. All these things are expected of men by society.

While women are under no pressure to develop these stuff. So whatever non-pussy leverage points (feel free to elaborate) you can come up with, from the average women, it's highly likely that average man has it more.

This is especially true since most women never go for the average men as you mentioned. It's usually men who is better than her, so there isn't much she can contribute that he already hasn't. (Except for a big P).

I would say, what I said before. For a women to be able to have sex, they generally speaking don't need to do anything, however, for them to get into a high quality long term relationship they will need to contribute, especially if we are talking about being a wife to a higher quality guy. For a high value men to get into a long term relationship with a women, that guy will have much more standards for that women.

If you want to compare average women vs men, then I would say, that women beat men when it comes to hygene, social skills (because of that having more friends and a bigger network of people in general), starting to outearn men, better educational levels, better looks and probably a better ability to take care of the house (cleaning, cooking). Yes modern women are probably not as good at cooking and taking care of the house as they were in the past ,however I still believe they are much better than modern men, because men were never pressured to learn any of those skills)

For a guy to be able to have a girlfriend I don't think the standard is that high as you and  as some of the guys are making it look like. If you look around in the world, you will see that most people having relationships in the same class, same culture, around the same educational level, roughly the same financial level etc. Yes the top 1% men are probably fucking most women, but that does not mean that , that top 1% men having relationships with all those women, in fact thats not the case (thats why we always need to seperate and analyze these stats in different contexts having sex vs long term dating) and its not like those women are actually taken, because they are not.

 

No, I don't think men are expected to be charming, attractive, having a lot of money, and having a network all at the same time, because I can see a lot of relationships, where a loser, broke, charismatic guy have a relationship with a decently looking women. There are a lot of fuckboys who wouldn't be considered a high quality men, but they are normal looking and they have very good charisma and or social skills (but they can still lack financially and in other ways).

I also disagree with the notion, that women are always going for a better guy than them, because I think that is misleading. Women and men are valuing different things generally speaking and they are looking for different things. You could say that when it comes to the current dating dynamics, women are still looking more for financies and resources compare to men (but I would say, that be careful here, because this part is not necessarily sex based either, we have never lived in a time ,where women outearned men so we will see in the future what things are actually inherent things to men and women), and men looking for beauty very simplistically speaking (more things could be mentioned here ,but for the sake of being simplictic I won't list all the things).

Now, when we are aware of those things, why would we use resources and finances as the ultimate standard to analyze all things by? When someone says "women date up, men are able to date down" that is misleading, because that person using the the variable of finance as the ultimate variable to arrive at that conclusion. If we would to use the variable of beauty, then I could make an argument, that a men in general date up, because they will almost always date women who are more attracting compared to them.

We could use other variables and we could create multiple arguments why women or why men dates up, so I think the question who dates up in general is silly, because it is totally depended on what variables you judged it by.

 

8 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

A man's contribution in a functional relationship is far greater than that of a woman's. Just by getting into a relationship with him, she is indirectly stating that he is an above average man. She wouldn't obviously be with an average man for reasons stated above. 

I disagree, what I see most of the time is that men don't really contribute much other than resources and doing his work and then expect all the other things to be done by his women (so for instance do all the cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids (helping them study, take them to the doctor, if that kid is really young ,then changing diapers, waking up early in the morning etc without a father ever do any of those things).

If we are not talking about kids, then (doing all the cooking, cleaning at home and doing work at the same time + being a psychologist to her men (who most of the time unfortunately sucks socially , doesn't have much or any friends and therefore he is offloading all his emotional problems at some point on her women or if he doesn't, he will just snap at some point or the relationship will completely go downhill).

Depending on the relationship, you could argue that men can be psychologists to their women too, but there is one big difference, and that difference is that women can talk about their problems with their friends (because they are much more social and it is socially considered okay to talk about your problems to your friend) and it is more okay to heal and go to a therapist, but when it comes to men, even if we have friends most of the time those relationships are low quality or purely business and opportunity based and healing is still considered as weak and gay.

 

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Arcangelo said:

Interesting...

Its sad, that you cant follow simple logic. Its not a contradiction, because it still has almost everything to do with leverage and I said that like 5 times now. Just because in general maybe women have more leverage right now, that does not mean ,that having more leverage is exclusive to being a women.

 

[zurew]

14 hours ago, Devin said:

https://womenwantingwomen.com/2022/11/why-the-lesbian-divorce-rate-is-so-high/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-the-lesbian-divorce-rate-is-so-high

"What I learned about lesbian divorces…

 

What I learned when I started digging around is that this isn’t actually a lesbian thing at all.

This is a woman thing.

it can say that it is a women thing, but it doesn't make the argument that you were making (that women treating men almost purely in a transactional way and always looking for a better opportunity).

This article argues, that women in average have more empathy in general and women in general are people pleasers and because of that they won't talk about their needs and problems much and  they will rather just leave, because they will find that easier that to talk about their problems. That is a wildly different from the argument you were trying to build up.

But I would say even if I take the article's claim for granted, even then I would disagree that it is a women thing, beause empathy is not exclusive to women and to make this problem a sex specific problem is misleading and not precise. Empathy in general could be developed and most people (regardless of their sex) could be brought up in a way ,where they will end up having more empathy.

Edited March 5, 2023 by zurew

[supremeyingyang]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I disagree, what I see most of the time is that men don't really contribute much other than resources and doing his work and then expect all the other things to be done by his women (so for instance do all the cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids (helping them study, take them to the doctor, if that kid is really young ,then changing diapers, waking up early in the morning etc without a father ever do any of those things).

At this point I want to thank my mother that she required me to learn to fulfill chores in the household like cleaning, cooking, wash my own cloths etc. -- I can not fathom how any man (or woman) is allowed (and proud) to reach adulthood without learning to do basic chores of any household. It's like the women won't do it, the men neither. So both parties are ignorant. What? How about both men AND women learn to do these chores? Why ain't no parents saw this coming? Do they love to raise depending children?

1 hour ago, zurew said:

If we are not talking about kids, then (doing all the cooking, cleaning at home and doing work at the same time + being a psychologist to her men (who most of the time unfortunately sucks socially , doesn't have much or any friends and therefore he is offloading all his emotional problems at some point on her women or if he doesn't, he will just snap at some point or the relationship will completely go downhill).

Depending on the relationship, you could argue that men can be psychologists to their women too, but there is one big difference, and that difference is that women can talk about their problems with their friends (because they are much more social and it is socially considered okay to talk about your problems to your friend) and it is more okay to heal and go to a therapist, but when it comes to men, even if we have friends most of the time those relationships are low quality or purely business and opportunity based and healing is still considered as weak and gay.

See, this is another point where a male political pendant to feminism (non-toxic!!) is desperately needed. A lot of people would here argue that feminism already provides this, which is laughable. These people talking against a healthy male pendant to feminism have to understand that development in a society does not needs automatically to be a zero sum game, quite the opposite, but it can be the case that life becomes better for one group and also for the other group! Better developed men => overall a better society! Why is that controversial? What people argue for in feminism is the domesticated men, not the self-actualized men, and then don't understand why nobody is buying and why it backfires.

I ask any of you: How can society come to the next level (Green) if the average male in the west is deficient in socializing, has no friends, bad hygiene, health and has no PURPOSE? Of course, the same goes for every person in a society, but if one takes side to solve men's problems it's treated like one is oppressing other people by doing that. No, you can do both. It's NOT a zero sum game. The main Question remains: "Which roles can a man in today's society fulfill?"

I come to an end. If we continue to suppress male development* we yield psychological or or physical absent Fathers, Incels, Red/Black Pillers, Peter Pan like Adult Gamers amog others --- and simplistic Videos about 'How a Women treat a men like a men treats a job'. Thank you very much.

 

*because male Development takes allegedly something away from all other groups in a society, most notably women but also all modern non-binaries, which is not true at all. It's like to argue in a society with many illiterates if everyone can read, the skill of reading is not so valuable anymore, therefore it's bad for us who can already read. We have to go together to the next Level.

Edited March 5, 2023 by supremeyingyang
correction

[Devin]

 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

it can say that it is a women thing, but it doesn't make the argument that you were making (that women treating men almost purely in a transactional way and always looking for a better opportunity).

This article argues, that women in average have more empathy in general and women in general are people pleasers and because of that they won't talk about their needs and problems much and  they will rather just leave, because they will find that easier that to talk about their problems. That is a wildly different from the argument you were trying to build up.

But I would say even if I take the article's claim for granted, even then I would disagree that it is a women thing, beause empathy is not exclusive to women and to make this problem a sex specific problem is misleading and not precise. Empathy in general could be developed and most people (regardless of their sex) could be brought up in a way ,where they will end up having more empathy.

It's not a woman thing?

 

Women Wanting Women https://womenwantingwomen.com › ...

Why The Lesbian Divorce Rate Is So High

Nov 21, 2022 — Did you know that the lesbian divorce rate is twice as high as it is for gay guys? Why are lesbians getting divorced at twice the rate of .

Edited March 5, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

4 hours ago, StarStruck said:

Dropping truth bombs in this one

 

This guy is good, never heard of him before.

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

also disagree with the notion, that women are always going for a better guy than them, because I think that is misleadin

Naah bro look at the stats. As a women's IQ increases(in the case of College educated women for example) the more she struggles to find a partner because she is effectively reducing the pool of men she can select from. 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates

A woman with a masters degree will be hesitant to marry a man without a degree at all, for various reasons that are strenuous for me to explain here.

At the same time, a man with a masters degree is more than happy to be with a woman without a degree, thus even lowering the chances for women with masters degrees. 

As we know women are graduating at higher rate than men in colleges. 

3 hours ago, zurew said:

No, I don't think men are expected to be charming, attractive, having a lot of money, and having a network all at the same time, because I can see a lot of relationships, where a loser, broke, charismatic guy have a relationship with a decently looking women.

"I Don't think".

I am not speaking of the things I think are the way they are, and neither does a few exceptions disprove the rule.

These are not the requirements for a man that he must fulfill to get into a relationship. These are just the pressures society puts on men in general. The consequence of failing these expectations is what causes men to kill themselves at a higher rate than women. These expectations also forces men to level up.

You can argue that the average man doesn't level up and stays in him mom's basement playing video games. But even an 70th percentile man is far superior in what he brings to a relationship compared to 99 percentile woman precisely because of heavy expectations put on to you by society. 

It's dead wrong to say that women have more social skills than men simply because she has a wider network of people to talk to. 

A woman can be a complete introvert, but if she is pretty and she smiles she will get accepted into almost any social circles. Women have a low barrier of entry. Who cares about a man who stands there and smiles. He would get called a creep in no times lol. He needs to work to be a Charming dude if he doesn't have that already. 

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Depending on the relationship, you could argue that men can be psychologists to their women too, but there is one big difference, and that difference is that women can talk about their problems with their friends (because they are much more social and it is socially considered okay to talk about your problems to your friend) and it is more okay to heal and go to a therapist, but when it comes to men, even if we have friends most of the time those relationships are low quality or purely business and opportunity based and healing is still considered as weak and gay.

Men have real problems that need real tangible solutions. It's met by by working on yourself and acquiring skills.

Therapy where you pay thousands of dollars for some woman to nod to the things you say is particularly of prime importance. It's nice to have, but not necessary at all. You are overinflating the importance of "opening up" which is nothing more than some wishy washy hippy value. 

If men don't have real solutions then they are happy with gym, some fresh air and some hobbies, passions. 

Men kill themselves more because of unmet expectations. Opening up isn't a solution. The solution is to reduce the expectations. But meeting tough expectations also forces you to level up significantly. It's a double edged sword.

3 hours ago, zurew said:

disagree, what I see most of the time is that men don't really contribute much other than resources and doing his work and then expect all the other things to be done by his women (so for instance do all the cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids (helping them study, take them to the doctor, if that kid is really young ,then changing diapers, waking up early in the morning etc without a father ever do any of those things).

If we are not talking about kids, then (doing all the cooking, cleaning at home and doing work at the same time + being a psychologist to her men (who most of the time unfortunately sucks socially , doesn't have much or any friends and therefore he is offloading all his emotional problems at some point on her women or if he doesn't, he will just snap at some point or the relationship will completely go downhill).

Listen, In this kind of wretched economy, staying at home washing plates and changing diapers of your kids is much better than grinding and selling your soul to some exploitative corporation for 60 hours a week.

You are making it sound like changing diapers is a huge burden and providing resources is a cake walk.

I will happily stay at home watching YouTube videos, washing plates, reading, and working on myself if my partner can handle all the financial aspects. I consider it a huge advantage. 

And it's also a steriotypes than men don't change diapers or teach kids. Even the most patriarchal men do it without making much qualms. It's not something that requires immense skill to do.