RT (or someone) please elaborate on this concept [merged threads]

[muscleman]

RT was the first person I saw mention this, but it's been floating around here and there.

"Women would rather share a successful man than be tied down to a faithful loser".

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Desdinova]

Sounds like a different way of describing the returning fox. If a successful, confident (valuable) man were to cheat on his woman, she would want him to stay with her regardless of his infidelity.

But a faithful loser has no value and can be easily tossed away.

At least that's how I interpret that statement. Perhaps Rollo has another meaning behind it.

 

[Señor Fingers]

Is this statement true for some women? I'm sure it is. But all?

I know plenty of women tied down to faithful losers because they are addicted to dysfunctional madness and emotional suffering.

Put a successful (and taken) man in front of them and they won't bat an eyelash.. they are foolishly convinced that they have a winner...he just needs some polish.

I am starting to dislike these generalized statements about gender. It really fosters a close-minded mentality towards women and stunts one's game.

My 2 cents:

Despite our best attempts to fit people into comfortable little categories and behaviors, humans have too much of a random factor going on for us to make so many assumptions. Everyone has different tastes, values and morals, so I see it as a waste of time to try and classify folks you don't even know yet, especially based of someone else's observations.

Just because someone reputable jumps to a conclusion doesn't necessarily make it true.

Heck I could be totally mistaken myself, so take my response with a grain of salt.

 

[muscleman]

That's it? 2 people?

 

[joekerr31]

most women would rather share donald trump than have pee wee herman all to themselves.

whats so hard to understand about this?

 

[iqqi]

That's it? 2 people?

You asked specifically for a certain poster. Til he responds, you may have to wait for any real discussion.

You could engage the people who have taken the time to respond thus far.

Also, your title doesn't really say anything, so many may not even click on this thread...

---------MY TWO CENTS----------

If loser just means a guy who is not successful with a hot whip and mansion, i dunno, maybe he is an artist, living off a teacher's wage or something. But he is morally strong and holds fast to his principals. I'd choose that man any day over some rich "successful" dude who cheats, say, Charlie Sheen.

 

[muscleman]

It's just the mentality of the whole thing I haven't grasped yet. Let's not use such a dramatic example for a second. What is it exactly that keeps a woman hanging on even if she knows you're seeing other women (and not just thinks that you may be, but knows that you are)?

I'm asking because I'm in a situation right now where I'm seeing a girl, there hasn't been a verbal agreement to exclusivity or anything, and I want to keep her around because she's a lot of fun but at the same time there are other girls who want to hang out that I wouldn't mind meeting.

 

[ketostix]

Another way of looking at it is women will tend to date out of their "league". Therefore they can't keep the successful guy all to themselves, only the best woman can do that. It's also an explanation for a small percentage of men getting a disparate percentage of women. The only thing I would add is even though women will share a successful man, they don't want it thrown in their face and they like to live the false belief that there not just part of a guy's harem.

 

[muscleman]

Ketostix, thanks for the input. Now, let's take this situation for example:

Let's say I take this girl up on her offer to hang out. We do our thing, girl I'm currently hanging out with finds out somehow. I wouldn't feel guilty about it because it's not lying, I'm not trying to hide it, and we're technically not exclusive. However, I'm not sure how I would handle the situation because I've never been in it before. Like I said I'd like to keep her around.

I have a problem of getting most girls to like me and sometimes I just lead them on because I do enjoy their company (and their sex), but I don't necessarily want to be tied down. I'm young, I don't want to get married any time soon, and I enjoy variety from time to time. Yes, I want my cake and I want to eat it too.

 

[ketostix]

Well generally speaking I'd say you wouldn't make it obvious. You wouldn't hide the fact you are playing the field but you wouldn't bring it up either. It would be left for her to determine implicitly. And if she gives you grief about hanging out with other girls you could basically say you were taking things casually and seeing what happens and you weren't in a hurry to get into a relationship, or something along thoose lines. She can either accept it or not. There's not much more you can do. Just don't buy into any frame of hers that your doing something wrong.

 

[iqqi]

I think a man who is taking his time to see what he really wants and likes is attractive. I dislike men who get in relationships just because they are being pressured. Strong man = yay, weak man = nay.

However, leading someone on is never a good thing. If she doesn't want to be with you if you are banging other chicks, that should be her choice, not yours. You dig?

 

[Señor Fingers]

ketostix solution will work, for the short term.

But if you are serious about hitting multiples, you need to program them from Day 1 to accept your behavior, otherwise its multiple uphill battles. You need to filter out the Floozy NutLickers from the Suzie Homemakers, otherwise people's feelings get hurt.

I successfully pulled this off for 6 months before I got tired of it.. took up too much of my time and it's really hard to get through this drama-free. Someone almost always catches feelings.. it's inevitable when you are that good!

 

[muscleman]

How exactly do you "program them from day 1", or filter them out for that matter?

Thing is, she's definitely catching feelings. I never thought a stripper would be falling for me, go figure. There are also some feelings on my end - as I said I do enjoy her company. I've just been in quite a few LTRs already and they don't seem like a good idea at this point.

 

[iqqi]

My girl would tell you that any chick you sleep with is going to catch feelings. My other girl, who is quite promiscuous, would agree. The first girl in question refuses to sleep with any man who doesn't worship her first, the second one sleeps around, but then will not call or contact the guy ever again.

Both of their actions are the directly due to their insecurities involving their ability to have unattached casual sex.

As Fingz said, someone always catches feelings. So tread lightly. Or carefully... if you care. You will have to be prepared to deal with emotions, when dealing with people.

 

[joekerr31]

keeping multiple women on the go and having them be ok with it is something that has to be a part of your personality from the get go.

in essence, you have to be a 'all fun' kind of guy. if you even for a split second exhibit the 'hey i have emotions also and enjoy connecting on a deeper level' you will be asking for trouble long term. because the moment she develops deeper feelings for you she will instantly expect that 'mature' man to step up to the plate. she knows your 'mr fun' face is just a mask and she will expect you to start giving her 'mr committed'

additionally, if you exhibit the 'im all fun and games' type of attitude women know what they are getting. the ones who aren't ok with you being a 'playboy' will stay clear of you.

as for the stripper getting feelings for you. i guarantee you that you've played mr. 'lets share our feelings' with her.

if you want to date multiple chics at once you have to keep it fun and superficial. if you start sharing deeper emotions and forming a bond of trust, then people start to get worried that they might get 'hurt'.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I posted this on LoveShack about 2 months ago since it's part of the Plate Theory thread and I'll admit I wasn't prepared for as violent a reaction as it provoked there. I also can't claim authorship of it either, this was originally POOK's observation and one of his axioms. I quoted him on it in Plate Theory because it sums up the principle very well - the idea is that women are more tolerant of man's mating methodology whom they see as higher value than a man with lesser value.

Let me begin by stating that this is a feminine Achilles' heel, and one they don't like exposed since it's a fundament to their own mating methodology. It's also easy to cover with a broad variety of long standing social contrivances - the easiest fallback being shame. However, as POOK (and many other guys for that matter) observes in feminine behavior, the higher value male is often tolerated in his own non-exclusivity. Now, for just one second, try to put off any moral or ethical stance you have about Men being required of monogamy, exclusivity or being a Player, etc. and look at the repeated and predictable behavior that women have with regards to high value men. Celebrity is an easy illustration because these Men have consistently provable social proof and therefore tend to realize their own options. Try to look for examples of men, maybe you know personally, who are the "naturals", the guy's who're "lucky" with women. Usually these men possess attributes that make them favorable for short term and/or long term breeding potential.

Do you know a guy who can "cheat" on his GF or maybe just flirt with other woman and she'll stick by him? They don't necessarily have to be the Jerk archetype either. They may be so good looking or so well off or possess such a potential for long term success that women will indirectly/involuntarily share him with other women.

Before I go too much further I ought to point out that no woman, even the one's involved, want to be overtly made out to having been complicit in this. This is what caused such a violent reaction on LoveShack. There is always an overt presumption of exclusivity before sex or intimacy that is in a woman's best interest to maintain, especially publicly. But it's in the practice and the observable behavior where this falls apart. My mistake was in overtly drawing attention to this on LS, but in practice and routine the behavior bears out the principle. So that being said, women will vehemently reject this, but in practice they'll play it out with a reasonable predictability.

The counter to this of course will be that only "low quality" women with self-esteem issues will fall prey to these horrible, unethical men. That's the obvious counter, but in fact it's really higher value women (or what we'd perceive as high value) who have the most to benefit from this arrangement. If you subscribe to social matching it bears out that a woman who knows her value will be more tolerant of a like value male. Now, I don't believe there is such a thing as a low or high quality woman - I think each has a potential for insecurity, genuine desire, character strengths and weaknesses as situations merit, but conditions being what they are, women would rather be with a man other women want (proven high sexual marketability) than settle for a dependable guy that few (if any) women have a socially proven desire for. This ability to secure the guy that women want adds to her own prestige since she's the one he gives up his mating methodology for, even when she must compromise her own convictions (assuming they're genuine in the first place).

 

[muscleman]

My girl would tell you that any chick you sleep with is going to catch feelings. My other girl, who is quite promiscuous, would agree. The first girl in question refuses to sleep with any man who doesn't worship her first, the second one sleeps around, but then will not call or contact the guy ever again.

Both of their actions are the directly due to their insecurities involving their ability to have unattached casual sex.

As Fingz said, someone always catches feelings. So tread lightly. Or carefully... if you care. You will have to be prepared to deal with emotions, when dealing with people.

I don't get what you're saying. The promiscuous girl who never calls the guy after an ONS supposedly still gets feelings? That doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I've recently had a couple ONS where the girl was perfectly cool never speaking to me again. I don't get how feelings are involved in a situation like that.

keeping multiple women on the go and having them be ok with it is something that has to be a part of your personality from the get go.

in essence, you have to be a 'all fun' kind of guy. if you even for a split second exhibit the 'hey i have emotions also and enjoy connecting on a deeper level' you will be asking for trouble long term. because the moment she develops deeper feelings for you she will instantly expect that 'mature' man to step up to the plate. she knows your 'mr fun' face is just a mask and she will expect you to start giving her 'mr committed'

additionally, if you exhibit the 'im all fun and games' type of attitude women know what they are getting. the ones who aren't ok with you being a 'playboy' will stay clear of you.

as for the stripper getting feelings for you. i guarantee you that you've played mr. 'lets share our feelings' with her.

if you want to date multiple chics at once you have to keep it fun and superficial. if you start sharing deeper emotions and forming a bond of trust, then people start to get worried that they might get 'hurt'.

You're right, I did go "let's share our feelings" on her. Well, maybe not share feelings, I never told he how I felt, but I did spend time with her that was more than just a little casual (I've spent the night over at her place a few times, she's made me breakfast on several occassions, she's brought lunch to my work, etc). I think she knows I like her. I haven't admitted to it verbally but I think she gets the drift. And honestly I do. I just want to fvck other girls as well.

I posted this on LoveShack about 2 months ago since it's part of the Plate Theory thread and I'll admit I wasn't prepared for as violent a reaction as it provoked there. I also can't claim authorship of it either, this was originally POOK's observation and one of his axioms. I quoted him on it in Plate Theory because it sums up the principle very well - the idea is that women are more tolerant of man's mating methodology whom they see as higher value than a man with lesser value.
Let me begin by stating that this is a feminine Achilles' heel, and one they don't like exposed since it's a fundament to their own mating methodology. It's also easy to cover with a broad variety of long standing social contrivances - the easiest fallback being shame. However, as POOK (and many other guys for that matter) observes in feminine behavior, the higher value male is often tolerated in his own non-exclusivity. Now, for just one second, try to put off any moral or ethical stance you have about Men being required of monogamy, exclusivity or being a Player, etc. and look at the repeated and predictable behavior that women have with regards to high value men. Celebrity is an easy illustration because these Men have consistently provable social proof and therefore tend to realize their own options. Try to look for examples of men, maybe you know personally, who are the "naturals", the guy's who're "lucky" with women. Usually these men possess attributes that make them favorable for short term and/or long term breeding potential.

Do you know a guy who can "cheat" on his GF or maybe just flirt with other woman and she'll stick by him? They don't necessarily have to be the Jerk archetype either. They may be so good looking or so well off or possess such a potential for long term success that women will indirectly/involuntarily share him with other women.

Before I go too much further I ought to point out that no woman, even the one's involved, want to be overtly made out to having been complicit in this. This is what caused such a violent reaction on LoveShack. There is always an overt presumption of exclusivity before sex or intimacy that is in a woman's best interest to maintain, especially publicly. But it's in the practice and the observable behavior where this falls apart. My mistake was in overtly drawing attention to this on LS, but in practice and routine the behavior bears out the principle. So that being said, women will vehemently reject this, but in practice they'll play it out with a reasonable predictability.

The counter to this of course will be that only "low quality" women with self-esteem issues will fall prey to these horrible, unethical men. That's the obvious counter, but in fact it's really higher value women (or what we'd perceive as high value) who have the most to benefit from this arrangement. If you subscribe to social matching it bears out that a woman who knows her value will be more tolerant of a like value male. Now, I don't believe there is such a thing as a low or high quality woman - I think each has a potential for insecurity, genuine desire, character strengths and weaknesses as situations merit, but conditions being what they are, women would rather be with a man other women want (proven high sexual marketability) than settle for a dependable guy that few (if any) women have a socially proven desire for. This ability to secure the guy that women want adds to her own prestige since she's the one he gives up his mating methodology for, even when she must compromise her own convictions (assuming they're genuine in the first place).

Great post as always. Regarding the bolded parts, I'm still slightly confused. Are you saying that even within the confines of an LTR (or a prolonged dating scenario) a woman of high desire (i.e. hot) will be tolerant of a male of high desire (i.e. hot, successful, wealthy, whatever) who sleeps with multiple women?

I understand how this has played out in history (kings and their harems being an example), but what about in comtemporary western society?

I guess what I'm asking, ultimately, is if it's possible to have a girlfriend who you have a deeper connection with and who you can share yourself with while at the same time maintaining sexual non-exclusivity, and if so, what the requirements for such a scenario would be?

 

[iqqi]

I don't get what you're saying. The promiscuous girl who never calls the guy after an ONS supposedly still gets feelings? That doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I've recently had a couple ONS where the girl was perfectly cool never speaking to me again. I don't get how feelings are involved in a situation like that.

She doesn't contact them again to AVOID catching feelings, and to AVOID feeling hurt by giving them the chance to jump ship first.

Both chicks illustrate two extremes but deal with the same issue. One won't sleep with anyone at all to avoid feelings, one sleeps with many but also is avoiding that feelings issue, by ceasing contact period.

 

[muscleman]

Ah I see what you're saying, thanks for clearing that up. My questions still stand in the previous long post.

 

[Phyzzle]

To answer your questions, just go back to the basics.

• The man does not ask the woman to be exclusive. He waits for the woman to bring that up.
  
• When and if she ever does, he has the option of saying "let me consider that for x number of weeks."

Please don't try the vague "Uh, I dunno. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe never. I dunno." Only a desperate (read "fat") woman will put up with this indecisive crap for long.

The point is don't worry about playing the field! She will bring it up if and when it ever becomes an issue for her.