nothing that you just quoted had girlfriend in it anywhere
You sure about that? Seems to me "What Are Your Goals? Girl-Friend or Girlfriend?" has "girlfriend" right there in the title, it's kind of hard to miss that, and the article itself is about turning a girl friend into a "girlfriend". Plus, there's a score of other articles on this site that deal with boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, not just articles about dating, approaching, how to's and the attributes of being a DJ.
dating and having a girlfriend are two completely different things.
I never said it was, did I? The OP mentions both and so I've covered both.
i date women, but haven't had a girlfriend in 2 years.
Me too. And, so? That doesn't disprove the OP's assertions. I haven't lived in an apartment building nor taken a bus either for years and yet have had a roof over my head and my ride. That doesn't mean apartment buildings and buses are to be avoided.
The OP, from what I understand, isn't saying don't be in a relationship, he's saying that, from what he reads here, seems to him that guys have problems when in relationships and they handle the fallout in ways that appear AFC. So he deduces that women bring out the chump in a guy from which then he reaches his conclusion that avoiding relationships is the answer. To prove his assertion, he wants others to prove why relationships are beneficial.
His whole equation is warped. For a guy named Logical Player, he's thrown logic out the window.
First off, we all know that the only way any inner chump gets let out is by the man not controlling himself if he's prone to being a wuss in the first place. It's not the female's doing any more then she acting like a b1tch is his responsibility.
Secondly, the guys that don't have problems with their relationships aren't going to post here because they don't need answers for problems they don't have. We're not going to hear as much from any success stories, those guys may never even come to this site, it's guys looking for answers to their problems, mostly, that do.
Thirdly, using threads about relationship problems doesn't prove you shouldn't be in a relationship, it only proves you should learn how to prevent these problems before they become big major problems and how to nurture your relationships. There are problems people have in their careers too, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't work.
Fourthly, if the question is about how relationships often become problematic, then you don't prove that by asking for a list of why a relationship would be beneficial. That's like noting there's a high incidence of car accidents, and so let's deduce that one shouldn't drive, and to prove that one shouldn't drive, please furnish a list of why driving is beneficial. That just doesn't make any sense.
Fifth, even if someone posts any benefit, the OP can strike it down with illogic. He also attempts to take several off the table up front when he wrote: "Before you post the benefits, let me refute some of the more obvious ones" and then lists some. Whether he realizes it or not, that's him trying to stack the deck in his favor by making these very valid reasons invalid on his say-so.
IOW, if I said to you, "tell me why natural foods are better for you then processed foods, but DON'T tell me it's because they're healthier for you, or that your body processes them better, or that there aren't any chemicals in them or that medical studies have confirmed this to be a fact." C'mon.
Sixth, the OP uses put downs to try to make his point. This is what lawyers do to discredit witnesses when they can't discredit the testimony. "its YOUR problem if you follow the emotional feminist dating agenda", "besides hiding the fact that you have no game", "instead of being a nerdy type who makes wise-cracks"
Seventh, he makes assertions that are baseless. For example, he writes: "then why change anything and make life worse for yourself" But where's the proof that being in a relationship universally makes one's life worse? It's not a given that life gets worse.
Eighth, he paints innocent things as if they're big, bad reasons. Again, this is what lawyers do to dramatize their versions of events. For example, when he writes:
"you can really like someone and be with someone without the commitment and hassle of jumping into a relationship"
...he's flavoring "commitment" as being something to be avoided, and stating that getting into a relationship is a "hassle". Who said this is the case?
And note that even so, his answers do not prove that relationships should be avoided. They only *state* that you could experience the same (such as, "you can like someone and be with them") with or without a relationship.
I like a good discussion, but it's got to be valid. Not this bullsh!t unintelligent type of reasoning. His only valid point I see is "UNEXPERIENCED guys to not randomly commit to women when they do not know 100% for sure what they want", though I'd argue it's not all about if they don't know what they want. It's about knowing what works, what's needed to make it work, what kind of choices to make and how to navigate relationships, and how to be the kind of right person to be in a relationship yourself.
He admits he's been burned in relationships, that he's had those episodes of stress, depression, and what sounds like anxiety attacks. He claims to have "learned" from his mistakes, which to him means, don't have a girlfriend. Applying that logic to another situation, if I get hurt riding a horse, I should simply not ride them anymore. Actually, I should seek to understand what I did wrong on my part, learn from it and correct that. IMPROVE myself. Evolve. Grow. Which means, he didn't understand or learn anything.
And this thread proves that.
