I'm done accumulating knowledge on the structure of LTRs\Marriage and the SMP, here's my braindump

[wifehunter]

That was such a BIG dump, I didn't get through all of it!

 

[SadoMasochrist]

'Rational epistemology' leads to two things:

1] Knowing you don't know [the point of the poster you replied to]

2] Utter freedom which is ultimately vacuous.

This is why anyone concerned with marriage should not go the rational way but the historical [and more imaginative] way. It is a cultural form which evolved over time. You are either into the values of marriage, and the culture it entails [even perhaps even the religion] or you are not, and stuck in individual limbo land.

Disagree on #2. It actually constrains your freedom. Insofar as you realize your options are truly finite, and to try and reinvent the wheel will likely involve failure, a suboptimal choice.

You are either into the values of marriage, and the culture it entails [even perhaps even the religion] or you are not, and stuck in individual limbo land.
​

Well I'm not advocating against your stance honestly. The outcomes here are in this case

1. Tradcon (Adopting the values of marriage & its culture) but understanding the possible outcomes.
2. "Purple Pill" (trying to hedge against the risk, the rational choice)
3. Red Pill (Spinning plates) (Rejecting or stalling)

The point of the post is to allow someone to make the decision properly IMO. Lot's of guys get red pilled, and start working on algorithms to "game the system." I was guilty of this to an extraordinary degree.

Would I have done it differently? Sure. What I would have done differently in terms of a way I could lay that out that isn't individual to me, is the outcome of that post.

I wasn't truly red pilled.

I wasn't operating with an end goal that was congruent to my wants.

I was naive and unaware of my charting path in life.

And this is as someone who was more informed than the vast majority of people in this area. All of us as DJs are way past the curve. But it's still an infinitely complex problem.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

I used to eat these types of posts up.

I don't think you were shadow banned, most likely no one bothered to read this massive info dump. Considering you are basically presenting a thesis, it could have been structured better and more concise. I read the entire thing and at times it was difficult to follow because your thoughts ping ponged everywhere. Not to mention you offered barely any background and wrote a lot of assumed knowledge and terms.

I don't believe this level of analysis is necessary for social success. I also don't believe that the game is lost because the honeymoon period of a LTR is over. Social exchange theory and the like suggest that successful LTRs transition from passion filled endeavors to a more deeper companionship. You also failed to consider investment, comparison level of alternatives, time, shared values and other variables that influence relationship behavior. By and large, women nor dating are not something you can present such strategies for because said dynamics are fluid, not static. Dating a woman who makes more money than you does not negate marriage/divorce issues. Your theory fails to view women as individuals with different values, personalities and agency.

The post was removed before hitting new. I know the post was removed, I just don't know if it was a shadow ban or not. Mods won't answer. But it was removed. I suspect because there is a degree of bluepill acceptance.

I don't believe this level of analysis is necessary for social success.
​

Not at all a post about social success. It's really a planner for a guy who is asking himself "what is my goal with this?"

LTRs transition from passion filled endeavors to a more deeper companionship.
​

I don't disagree, but I agree with the red pill notion that this is becoming extremely rare. As in, 7/100 rare. And there doesn't seem to be any real way to make sure you are part of that select elite, even if you do everything right. A large part of the problem here IMO is the attack on a preference, in society, for long term pair bonding. The message isn't on the surface, it lurks beneath. Cheating is barely taboo anymore. That "deeper companionship" is still suboptimal in terms of a female's breeding preferences. So you're still exposed IMO.

By and large, women nor dating are not something you can present such strategies for because said dynamics are fluid, not static.
​

This is the basis of "NAWALT." Listen, no one is saying "if you do this, 100.00% of the time, this happens." But by in large, you can find that perfect unicorn, do a couple things the red pill tells you that you shouldn't do, and then, hey, I guess they do all act this way. I'm just giving a heuristic that someone can use to make informed choices. If you think women are more complex than that, no biggies. But I think a lot of guys have learned the hard way, over a long time, that if they cross some of the immutable lines (for instance, having a woman who believes herself to be of higher status) trouble is going to come up.

Dating a woman who makes more money than you does not negate marriage/divorce issues. Your theory fails to view women as individuals with different values, personalities and agency.
​

That's because it's honestly not important. That's the basis of "the hamster" in theory here. She may say "the problem is xyz" but if you undress it, it's because she thinks she has higher status etc. And for instance, your choice to choose a mate who makes as much or more was significant in that domain. As Rollo says, hypergamy doesn't care.

Now I'm not sure exactly what you're debating in terms of the money issue, but my point was this. It's a sub-optimal pairing arrangement, but in terms of mitigating alimony and child support, that was the purpose. So for risk-averse guys, who primary concern is not getting taking through the cleaners, that would be their choice. Basically, you either have to be willing to lose large sums of money or have a sub-optimal pairing arrangement (non-tradcon) if you want a family.

If you don't care about kids, it doesn't matter honestly. Then the world is your oyster, LTR and STR at your hearts desire. Because if the relationship fails, who cares, big deal.

Kids are the variable that changes everything IMO.

 

[Tenacity]

The post was removed before hitting new. I know the post was removed, I just don't know if it was a shadow ban or not. Mods won't answer. But it was removed. I suspect because there is a degree of bluepill acceptance.

I don't believe this level of analysis is necessary for social success.
​

Not at all a post about social success. It's really a planner for a guy who is asking himself "what is my goal with this?"

LTRs transition from passion filled endeavors to a more deeper companionship.
​

I don't disagree, but I agree with the red pill notion that this is becoming extremely rare. As in, 7/100 rare. And there doesn't seem to be any real way to make sure you are part of that select elite, even if you do everything right. A large part of the problem here IMO is the attack on a preference, in society, for long term pair bonding. The message isn't on the surface, it lurks beneath. Cheating is barely taboo anymore. That "deeper companionship" is still suboptimal in terms of a female's breeding preferences. So you're still exposed IMO.

By and large, women nor dating are not something you can present such strategies for because said dynamics are fluid, not static.
​

This is the basis of "NAWALT." Listen, no one is saying "if you do this, 100.00% of the time, this happens." But by in large, you can find that perfect unicorn, do a couple things the red pill tells you that you shouldn't do, and then, hey, I guess they do all act this way. I'm just giving a heuristic that someone can use to make informed choices. If you think women are more complex than that, no biggies. But I think a lot of guys have learned the hard way, over a long time, that if they cross some of the immutable lines (for instance, having a woman who believes herself to be of higher status) trouble is going to come up.

Dating a woman who makes more money than you does not negate marriage/divorce issues. Your theory fails to view women as individuals with different values, personalities and agency.
​

That's because it's honestly not important. That's the basis of "the hamster" in theory here. She may say "the problem is xyz" but if you undress it, it's because she thinks she has higher status etc. And for instance, your choice to choose a mate who makes as much or more was significant in that domain. As Rollo says, hypergamy doesn't care.

Now I'm not sure exactly what you're debating in terms of the money issue, but my point was this. It's a sub-optimal pairing arrangement, but in terms of mitigating alimony and child support, that was the purpose. So for risk-averse guys, who primary concern is not getting taking through the cleaners, that would be their choice. Basically, you either have to be willing to lose large sums of money or have a sub-optimal pairing arrangement (non-tradcon) if you want a family.

If you don't care about kids, it doesn't matter honestly. Then the world is your oyster, LTR and STR at your hearts desire. Because if the relationship fails, who cares, big deal.

Kids are the variable that changes everything IMO.

I tried to get through the MASS wall of text and still haven't been able to get through it. If you truly are seeking to help MEN, you have to be a better communicator than this Sir.

You type TOO gawd damn much. Condense it down to one solid post, use bold text and underline if you need to, but condense it down to the MAIN points you are trying to push. This allows guys to better read, comprehend, and understand what you are trying to communicate.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

I tried to get through the MASS wall of text and still haven't been able to get through it. If you truly are seeking to help MEN, you have to be a better communicator than this Sir.

You type TOO gawd damn much. Condense it down to one solid post, use bold text and underline if you need to, but condense it down to the MAIN points you are trying to push. This allows guys to better read, comprehend, and understand what you are trying to communicate.

This post is NOT for you. It is for men who have enough interest in setting course for their entire life.

 

[Tenacity]

This post is NOT for you. It is for men who have enough interest in setting course for their entire life.

You aren't even making any sense. Condense the post down man. Damn.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

You aren't even making any sense. Condense the post down man. Damn.

TL;DR : Tradcon if you want a nuclear family, Purple Pill if you want kids but want to spin plates. Go to college if your posting name is Tenacity.

 

[bigneil]

This 10 page sermon is from the same man who said "If you spend any money your relationship doesn't count".

But wait, time is money.

How much time/money did Sado spend typing this? Four hours? He could have worked four hours and earned enough to buy a girl dinner.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

This 10 page sermon is from the same man who said "If you spend any money your relationship doesn't count".

But wait, time is money.

How much time/money did Sado spend typing this? Four hours? He could have worked four hours and earned enough to buy a girl dinner.

That's when I was confused. I thought your "girlfriend" was your sugar baby, turns out that instead she's a prostitute and is someone else's sugar baby. I thought you were bankrolling her. But considering your inability to engage in any meaningful dialog here, I all but assume you're paying for her outright, pay for play.

Of course you need to spend money in any relationship. Even other men, you split tabs, grab gifts etc.

 

[Doc Kas]

So imagine your LTR is starting to flatten out. The reason behind this is because you're no longer giving her dopamine\serotonin because that's just the game. You moved in together, you **** with the door open, you have chores, kids etc. The "game" is over, it's real. We're not built for it. This isn't controversial.

So you start edging to a dead bedroom. It's not dead, but it's starfish time. So you start doing all the things you're supposed to do and you start ramping up the sex. Because more sex, gets you more sex. You're trying to reforge the pair bond. Problem with that is she produces more vasopressin. This negates the responses you're trying to heighten. The evolutionary reasoning behind it, is that you haven't gotten her pregnant. You're not a viable male.

That's why the preferred structure, in terms of attraction, is to not cohabit. Her body is telling her "just one more shot." When you move in, it's saying "well, where's the baby?"

I mean really, you can't win. That's the end result of years and years of personal interest in the theory behind all this, observation and my own battle. You can at best, basically try to lose the least amount of blood. And if you haven't bled out, you can call that a win.

On the money my man.

The great comedian Patrice O'Neill, who passed in 2011 (TRP in comedy is easier to absorb), said it best....."Once you're in a relationship, she's already won. From there, it's about damage control and maximising moments of temporary enjoyment, but ultimately; she got you by the balls".

 

[Doc Kas]

I used to eat these types of posts up.

I don't think you were shadow banned, most likely no one bothered to read this massive info dump. Considering you are basically presenting a thesis, it could have been structured better and more concise. I read the entire thing and at times it was difficult to follow because your thoughts ping ponged everywhere. Not to mention you offered barely any background and wrote a lot of assumed knowledge and terms.

I don't believe this level of analysis is necessary for social success. I also don't believe that the game is lost because the honeymoon period of a LTR is over. Social exchange theory and the like suggest that successful LTRs transition from passion filled endeavors to a more deeper companionship. You also failed to consider investment, comparison level of alternatives, time, shared values and other variables that influence relationship behavior. By and large, women nor dating are not something you can present such strategies for because said dynamics are fluid, not static. Dating a woman who makes more money than you does not negate marriage/divorce issues. Your theory fails to view women as individuals with different values, personalities and agency.

Some wisdom here too.

 

[fastlife]

Hey bro, just wanted to say that I see some internal progress from when we had our little debate here: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/threads/so-im-nearing-my-thesis-on-borderline-personality-women.233556/ (glad you're still kicking it, honestly).

Your OP shows that you've made strides toward developing a true self (recognition & elimination of covert contracts), which will serve you well when this falls apart (and it will), BUT you still have your SO as your own mental point of origin. Your whole post is still more concerned with her reaction to you instead of your own agency.

This journey is about YOU. Knowledge of yourself will take you further than knowing all the X's and O's of potential disordered behavior. Once you have a clear idea of who you are, what you like/dislike, what you will and will not put up with, you'll be amazed how no one in your life will display personality disordered behavior (even if their disorders defined your previous relationships with them).