Objective: The Soul Mate/Quality Woman Peace Treaty!

[DavenJuan]

bump

def. a must read to everyone in this forum

 

[LovelyLady]

bump

 

[thirdtimescharm]

bump

 

[slaog]

Nice thread and inspirational.

There are plenty of people on SS who are only interested in fvcking women and don't realise the other benefits.

 

[thirdtimescharm]

You MUST qualify her.

It would appear then, that a goal in finding the newly defined soul-mate, is to locate a woman who "gets it" and is also qualifying -us- in return. Since what we are talking about here is a conscious CHOICE, then the perhaps the best choice would be one where both sides are working in tandem, approaching the selection process from a similar mindset.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

It would appear then, that a goal in finding the newly defined soul-mate, is to locate a woman who "gets it" and is also qualifying -us- in return. Since what we are talking about here is a conscious CHOICE, then the perhaps the best choice would be one where both sides are working in tandem, approaching the selection process from a similar mindset.

Yo Special Agent Thirdtimescharm,


YES. It has taken me quite awhile to accept this fact (specifically the part of your response that I have emboldened). This is what separates the men who are OPEN to the idea of having more with women than just the temporal gratification that "Sex ONLY-relationships" provide. This is where the importance of the "vetting" of these women actually becomes so important. In the quest to find and/or accept a potential ally, I believe it behooves us to know as much about ourselves AND HER as possible. But I do recognize that everyone is NOT consciously looking for, or are open to, such a connection. And THAT also is a choice that I can respect...

And I do realize that no plan is foolproof, but I've found it is better to open my eyes AND to do my own reconnaisance work as I encounter various women out here than to NOT to. Nothing hurts more---no blow is more devastating than the hit you take that catches you TOTALLY offguard----because you weren't even TRYING to look out for yourself.


And Sergeant SLAOG:

There are plenty of people on SS who are only interested in fvcking women and don't realise the other benefits.

This ONE sentence that you have written right here shines a huge light on one of the MAJOR reasons why there exists such a divide between the two sexes. No one side is fully to blame. We all share in it somewhat. But what I'm speaking of is the LACK of recognition, the LACK of appreciation, and the LACK of willingness that exists between men and women to fully explore the WHOLE of the potentially "good attributes" we each can share with the other.

I've personally noticed for many years now how guarded, how fearful, how hateful, and how IGNORANT we as a society, and as a culture have become towards each other (and not just GENDERLY speaking...but I digress...). And sadly, much of this suspicion we have is WARRANTED.

It is because of this, that finding a true Soul Mate (not the popularized, sugar-coated, delusional definition that most people usually refer to, but the definition that I have put forth in THIS thread), is such a rare thing indeed.

People who believe in the fantasy aspect of such a term, without taking into account the more realistic, personal responsibility, and necessitously reciprical aspects of it are often doomed to repetitive DISAPPOINTMENT.

And as a result, many men's passion for just the idea of ever meeting ANYONE worthy of being thought of as more than just another ejaculation target often wanes. Their passion for women that used to burn RED hot has cooled, or worse, has only become further compartmentalized.

Or EVEN worse------what they feel inside for women has gone from Red to GREEN.

And when I say "green" I'm not talking about as in "green with envy". No, I'm talking green as in "JADED".

And when I say jaded, know that what I mean by that is extremely CYNICAL.

Look around you in your real life. Hell, look around you on THIS FORUM, and you will see men who have fallen prey to allowing their outlook on women to become SO negative that it permeates most everything they do and say. No woman, no other person, and NO THING should ever have that kind of negative impact on our lives----if it is within our power to do ANYTHING to stop it.

And I say this not just from observation, but from personal experience. This is LIFE, soldiers. NOBODY gets out of this shyt alive. And nobody gets out of this without taking some serious ass hits. And I am NO exception.

It takes a hope. It takes a form of determination. And it takes FAITH to believe that we DO possess the personal power, the ability, and the spiritually-fueled CONFIDENCE to again believe that the next day of our lives really CAN be the "BEST" day of our lives.

And I feel, that in THIS world, this is exactly the balls-of-steel type of attitude that can make the difference between having our dreams and aspirations TRAMPLED ON--------or to instead, build the intestinal fortitude that we need to continue to...


...MARCH ON.

 

[Ripper]

The OP is pure genius.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Troops!


In lieu of the multitude of threads I see around here lately in this Mature Man "theater of war"------with posts filled with anger towards women as an entire group (sometimes justifiable), condescension towards their fellow men whom they should be either helping or learning from (argueably justifiable), and overall bitterness and hopelessness being tossed about as a foregone conclusion in regards to the future of man/woman relationships (NEVER justifiable for any man who actually believes that he CAN better himself and better his outcomes)-----I decided to bump this thread for those FEW new recruits (readers) who might find some benefit from it.

And I'll only drop this one supplemental SMART BOMB to add to it:

Beware of the traps of EXTREMISM.

On here, it seems somehow "macho" and "alpha" to mock extreme optimism as being foolishly naive. And this is understandable, because naivete can be DANGEROUS to a man's mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

However, I would also remind everyone that extreme pessimism is just as foolishly naive. How many men fukk themselves OUT out of EVER experiencing positive, long term relationships with women? Who knows...

Masks of cynicism CANNOT provide enough cover to camoflauge the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual DAMAGE that's been done to many of us who post here. No need for anyone to raise their hands, men. We all know who we are...

In this scenario, what we have here, is the triumph of SELF-SABOTAGE over true SELF-REFLECTION and SELF-IMPROVEMENT.

Neither NAIVETE nor CYNICISM is the way to achieve complete relationship victory. Each pathway, even if taken to a point of some "success", will only be a victory of the most HOLLOW kind.

Somewhere, in the MIDDLE of these two, lies the ANSWER.

Only by staying well inbetween these two extremes of naivete and cynicism will most of us ever successfully achieve the oucomes that we seek-----because using this method of attack allows us to continue marching forward (relatively emotionally-baggage free), while STILL providing us with an opportunity to experience a sense of inner peace, mental contentment, and physical and EMOTIONAL pleasure during the PROCESS.

Some of here have seemed to forgotten that though there is obvious value in winning the relationship war--------there is NO VALUE in allowing these battles to mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually destroy "who we are on the INSIDE" in the process.

In every war, there are casualties.

Be careful though, to not let the death of your "realistic" relationship HOPES and DREAMS be by your OWN hand (your overly negative attitudes, limiting beliefs, melancholy mental focuses, etc.).

In other words, it's time to get BACK to "BALANCE", boys.

We're LONG OVERDUE around here.

We have an opportunity here to "right this ship", throw the bullshyt posturing OVERBOARD, and to "stop the Bytch-Assness" in general.

The definition of maturity need not be "living long enough to become your OWN arch-villain". For those who choose, the definition of maturity CAN be "living long enough to become a fukkin' HERO to yourself---then as a byproduct, a positive asset to those around you."

I'd advise you to choose the path that does the MOST good for YOU, at the same time that it does the LEAST harm to others.

But the choice, of course, as always...is YOURS.


Much HONOR and RESPECT to you all.


VU

 

[horaholic]

I am guilty of cynicism, and will now make a valient effort to balance my inner mind, after reading your words, sir. I salute you.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I missed this the first time around, but this should be in the DJ Bible.

And to think I thought the "Quality Woman" debate was a recent development...

V.U.'s post should be the final word on the subject.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Great post.

I think that this:

Masks of cynicism CANNOT provide enough cover to camofluage the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual DAMAGE that's been done to many of us who post here. No need for anyone to raise their hands, men. We all know who we are...

And this:

Be careful though, to not let the death of your "realistic" relationship HOPES and DREAMS be by your OWN hand (your overly negative attitudes, limiting beliefs, melancholy mental focuses, etc.).

These two things mix together in the same man and create a huge problem. You see, when you are one of the "walking wounded" one of your problems is that you won't always know what is "realistic" to expect from women.

When you're one of the 'walking wounded' you may start to ask yourself questions like:

Is it realistic to expect a woman to never cheat?

Is it realistic for any LTR to last more than a few years?

Is it realistic to have to be constantly on my guard against the woman I'm dating?

Is it realistic to be able to let my vulnerabilities show every once in a while?

I'm sure the list could go on. But considering how badly some of the posters here have been injured (and honestly, my heart does go out to the guys who have gotten royally fvcked over), I'm not sure that someone who has been badly injured over and over and over will be able to make a realistic assessment of what they can expect from a woman.

 

[jophil28]

You see, when you are one of the "walking wounded" one of your problems is that you won't always know what is "realistic" to expect from women.

When you're one of the 'walking wounded' you may start to ask yourself questions like:

Is it realistic to expect a woman to never cheat?

Is it realistic for any LTR to last more than a few years?

Is it realistic to have to be constantly on my guard against the woman I'm dating?

Is it realistic to be able to let my vulnerabilities show every once in a while?

I'm sure the list could go on.

.

All of these dilemmas are readily resolvable when a man has defined clear and immutable criteria for his relationships with woman.
This is sometimes called setting "boundaries" here, but it is more that just limits and boundaries.
We rarely do this in a proactive and effective way, and so we are vulnerable to being blindsided by that HB9 with a personality disorder who slid into our life looking and acting like an angel of light and lust, BUT who was mysteriously transformed into Satan's daughter 6 months later.

In detail...
*Is it realistic (do you mean reasonable ?) to expect a woman not to cheat. Yes. it is a primary requirement, but, if she does cheat do you have the nuts to do a 180 and NEVER call her or take her calls EVER again?

*Is it realistic for an LTR to last more that a few years ? Indeed it is. Many do last into old age.
Chose well initially, and never relinquish your leadership.

*Constantly "on guard" against the woman in your bed. Sleeping with an enemy ? Adversial relationship? Power struggles ? You have chosen poorly in that case. Dump her and start over with a better contender after you learn to apply clear criteria BEFORE you agree to exclusivity..

*Let your vulnerabilities show? NO problem doing that *occasionally* IF you have established your strength and musculinity . Being "soft" for a few minutes is fine ONLY after you are "the man" in her mind.
THis is like having a decent bank account. YOU can afford to lose a few dollars because you have a lot left in credit.

 

[fertileTurtle]

Soul=self
Mate=fvck

soul+mate= You fvck yourself.

Haha, just kidding.

 

[PSYCHO]

Great Post VU! Haha, you forgot to add that PSYCHO has his hand on the trigger and is at the control center dropping bombs of TRUTH!

You have a PSYCHO's hand on the trigger - don't you love it!?

The answer lies in truth not moderation! The Truth of the masculine (man) forming a PROPER bond (Bond = "Love" - as you stated), with the feminine (woman) - The Natural Order Of Things!

Binding in the flesh is not bonding - it is our spiritual masculine and feminine selves that binds us - because for an union to take place, you need two - a duality! Our minds bring our flesh together! It is a spiritual union / BOND! That is what Love is - Love is spiritual NOT physical!

The pimp/hor binding is not a bond - because it is not spiritual!, but physical! Love comes from the mind/spiritual - a bond through commitment in marriage! Marriage is a mental act to form a union - spiritual! The sex act (physical) is a subset of marriage (spiritual)!

All could be appeased if it is simply stated that one's "soul mate" / 'quality woman" - is merely the paragon of one's imaginings!

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Lieutenant LUXIUS,


The urge to release loads, or as I like to put it "the urge to UNLOAD", is a major driving force behind why men pursue women in the first place. Without the fiery passion of sexuality, rare is it in this western culture (cultures where arranged marriages are no longer the norm) that the two would ever get together.

However, unbridled sexuality alone is not the be all and end all of their coming together--------"if" either actually views the other as something other than a tool of fully animated masturbation.

A man, or a woman, being out for sex is not in and of itself a definition of chump.

The issue that I am referring to is one that I have referred to before. And it is also one that others here have oft-quoted and even used in some of their email signature lines:

"ANYTHING that you can't say NO to, is your MASTER. And YOU are it's SLAVE." - Victory Unlimited

In other words, any man who is led by his dikk ALONE, and willfully refuses to allow his rational mind or his inner spirit to influence his decision has chosen to march down a path far lower than chumpdom.

For men like this, between their ears they tend to not have gray matter-------but pusssy matter". You'll easily recognize "celebrity" guys who fit this mold because you read about them all the time in the headlines and see them on the news AFTER they've been caught doing the most stupid shyt imaginable in their pursuit of sex.

There's no need to name them because there's actually too many of them to name.

These guys run the risk of losing their girlfriends or wives (even if they don't leave them immediately "physically", you can bet your bottom dollar that they leave them emotionally)

These guys, if they happen to be still single and free, also run the risk of losing their credibility, their political positions, their financial possessions, their freedom, and even their lives (look at the number of murder/suicides that take place as the result of some sexually obsessed, but socially inept asswhole NOT getting the girl he wanted).

And all this because they couldn't or wouldn't look further into their futures past the lengths of their three-inch(?) dikks.

"Chump" is actually not a strong enough word to describe such men.

Try "SLAVE".

Yes, SLAVE would easily be more accurate and appropriate a description.


Soldier on.

 

[KontrollerX]

I never considered a woman as a masturbation tool, never ..

What do you want?

A gold star??

The best way to live your life is to use what brings you the most success.

If you get the most pvssy and intimacy with women that you want by being romantic then do that.

If you get the most pvssy by being an ice cold player do that.

What the morality symps on this site need to get through their fvckin head is that both ways can be valid...its just that the morality romance way of being is typically the fastest way to turn a woman off since most guys are very beta and weak with it.

If you carry yourself like George Clooney and be romantic + strong in the sense you will take no sh!t or disrespect from a woman you can be a successful romantic.

But if you are a weak beta f@gg0t with it "yes dear" "sorry dear" "Oh I'll open the door for you always dear" and "I love you forever dear" and you call her 5 billion times a day combined with letting her win every and any argument/disagreement you both have you are going to then be viewed as unattractive then you will come off as a weak pvssy doormat and then she will walk all over you getting what perks she can get via your beta behavior until she walks right out of your life.

Its just the way that you seem to think not considering "women just for sex" scores you any points at all with them that makes my skin crawl.

It doesn't.

Women don't care about that sh!t.

You may get a few pats on the back for that mentality among the moralists here and if you go to loveshack.com and interact with the harpies and cougars over there but again in reality this "not like other guys" beta male mentality you have is not going to get you rewarded.

What?...do you expect to tell some woman...Oh I don't consider women as just sex objects...then expect her to be so greatful to you over that she'll jump your bones right then and there?

Give me a fvckin break.

Even the most radical feminist on the planet responds to her natural animal biology first over everything else and her biology is not turned on by her own feminist idiot idealogy idea of men and how they should be weak yes sir no sir yes ma'am no ma'am beta f@gs.

Its turned on by what she claims to hate the most about men ie namely men's masculine dominate take no prisoners and take no sh!t nature.

So quit looking for gold stars and pats on the back and instead when you are in the field concentrate on discovering what works out of all of the advice at your fingertips here.

Then run with that.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

"ANYTHING that you can't say NO to, is your MASTER. And YOU are it's SLAVE." - Victory Unlimited

I happen to agree with this, however, by this definition then, does not commitment make you a 'slave' by default? If by the circumstances of a commitment you cannot, figuratively, say "no" to the that (or due to that) commitment, are you not then a slave?

Take marriage out of the equation; if I'm in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she's not what I'm looking for (for any number of reasons, not just sex), even though she's 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment? What's my obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?

It's my take that commitment 'should' be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one's own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable trade. This is unfortunately rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after depending upon circumstance.

So what I'm getting at is where do you draw the line? People go all kinds of crazy when I suggest a guy NEXT some girl that's obviously showing all of indications that she's using him (or has proven so) and then two threads down suggest that it's Men's obligation to vet women by "walking away." If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?

We tell freshmen AFCs here all the time to dedicate themselves to self-improvement; to seek out and accomplish what's best for them - in other words, to uncompromisingly commit themselves to their own cause in as positive a manner as possible. I'd argue that genuine desire is a necessary precursor to this, but in advocating this self-concerned improvement, are we not then doing them a disservice if their duty ought to be focused on the principle of commitment, even when that commitment is (or becomes) deleterious to their commitment to a positive self? What holds more water, being a martyr to chivalrous commitment, or a steadfast dedication to ourselves?

Should we not hold AFCs in the highest respect when they selflessly sacrifice their futures due to their devoted commitment to a ONEitis girl who'll never reciprocate (much less reward) that commitment? We'd call them chumps, but maybe they've got it right? You can't doubt their (albeit misguided) dedication to their convictions.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

I have found that the free will aspects of all romantic, familial, or even adversarial relationships, out of necessity, REQUIRE that both sides uphold their end of that partnership or interaction.

The see-saw aspects of all relationships (especially the romantic ones) requires for both sides of that see-saw to keep their individual end of things working well enough for the mutually shared, "whole" experience to be fulfilling.

Entering into a romantic relationship, whether it's long term exclusivity or whether it reaches the level of marriage is not something that should be undertaken by people based on suppositions and presuppositions of what each side is determined to bring to such a union.

Conversations should be held prior to entering into such a commitment.

Also, conversations should be held and observations should be continuously made to ENSURE that the terms of that original commitment are being upheld by both parties.

True, people lie all the time in some relationships. And people use subterfuge all the time in some relationships just to maintain the facade of a true committment. Only fools would believe that these things are not going on to some degree in almost every relationship.

Every man's Internal Alarm System should should alert him to whenever that relationship has gone from commitment, entered into the realm of mature compromise, or is about to start a freefall into the pit of SUCKER-ASSED self sacrifice.

There's a difference between a man sacrificing himself and a man being willing to find common ground with a woman that he believes is bringing enough value to his life to be worth that consideration.

The men we call "AFCs" lack a strong enough sense of self, lack too much knowledge of how women generally work, and they lack the proficiency of skill it takes to stay in the ****pit of their emotionally charged, high-flying relationships that it takes to be successful in the long run.

I would posit that in today's climate of sexually ambiguous gender roles, men who are "average", will remain "frustrated", and will eventually be treated like "chumps" by most women they get deeply involved with.

Most women have a natural tendency to want to change, tweak, and sometimes TAKE CONTROL of things about the man they're dating in an effort to ensure that they themselves are happy.

But of course, most men here (in the Mature Man Forum) know full well that the moment she succeeds in this mission, she will lose all respect, and therefore, sexual desire for that man as a result.

When I speak of things like honor or codes of ethics, my mindset is not necessarily one of self-sacrifice, but rather SELF-RESPECT. A man who respects himself, knows what he wants, and is confident in his ability to eventually get it will NOT make initial commitments (preferably) or continue to honor his commitment to a woman who shows by her words and actions that she no longer honors him (or their mutual, prior commitment).

It is at this juncture that it can be clearly seen the separation between the men and the boys (AFCs). Martyrdom, blind commitment, emasculating forms of self-sacrifice have NOTHING to do with the points of view that I advocate.


Also, more Intel on this subject:

It's entirely possible for a man to say "no" to any woman, at any time, and under any circumstance and still be a slave to SOMETHING.

A man who can say "no" to a woman he's commited to just for the sake of getting new pusssy can be just as much of a slave as the man who says "no" to leaving a woman that hasn't reciprocated his sexual advances, his romantic desire, his spiritual input, or his financial investment for the last 5 years.

In such cases, the only thing in question is "what" exactly he may be a slave to.

The "SLAVE" terminology is meant to represent a broad spectrum of things-----not only just that particular man's unwillingness or inability to direct his two-inch Dikk at a target (or targets) that may be more suitable for him.

Again, romantic forms of commitment in the sense that I speak of them require that BOTH parties must sign and uphold the terms of the Peace Treaty. Otherwise, it is most definitely the same as entering into a farce.

Soldiers...It's really very simple:

When your woman is your ally, she upholds her end of the commitment.

But when that same woman becomse you enemy, she has broken that commitment and you MUST treat her and the situation accordingly, for the sake of your own best interest.


Peace...one day.


VU

 

[jophil28]

I
It's my take that commitment 'should' be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one's own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable trade. This is unfortunately rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after depending upon circumstance.

Yes, and therein is the rub...what needs to be understood is that many times "committment" is made and signed off when the emotional appeal of a course of action is at it's highest. Then feelings commonly wane, and desire and passion are often diluted due to changed circumstances.
What drove you ten years ago to dedicate your life, can now feels like the proverbial millstone.
There is some wisdom in the eastern custom of 'arranged marriages'. This practise recognizes the fluidity of the participants feelings , so the ultimate decision making is assumed by detached observers.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

An interesting side note on the subject of "arranged marriages" that we brought up earlier:

Outside of the usual reality of those arranged marriages that are just societal "show pieces", and the men and women fukk around at will and nobody really gives a shyt------there may be something to be said for "part" of the mindset behind arranged marriages:

Rarely are the families who pick a mate for their child as blinded or sidetracked by temporary attractive features or compartmentalized viewpoints of that choice as most of us "freewill" pickers tend to be.

As cool or as whack as some arranged marriages may be, there's something to be said for at least adopting a more all-encompassing view when you're considering ANY kind of exclusive commitment to ANYbody.