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

[SadoMasochrist]

Tried posting this to TRP, but I think they shadow banned me because they think I was involved in a leak... lol. They've lost their minds over there. Well here's a giant post from some blue pill spy! Anyways guys, hope you enjoy your read here. It's important I think for you to formulate your end game strategy here and this should help. GLHF.

----

I will for the sake of clarity, omit the backstory of this woman, but I will summarize it concisely as The Story of Carroll with the added benefit of finding out she has Borderline Personality Disorder when I stopped gaming her and started loving her in the dirty blue pill way and a tornado ripped through my life. I thought that story was very interesting because when we find out the red pill truths in our lives, it always starts out with "but she was so different." My "not like the other girls" was in fact, just like them. Despite the doctorate declaring otherwise. Despite the seemingly demure presentation, the lack of seemingly basic ***** anything. Manic pixie dreamgirl. Manic pixie dreamgirl.

My Carrol, was unfortunately A LOT worse. And I wasn't given the good luck of not having children with "my Carrol." But serves as good reading for you, because I can assure you, that mine was a "worst case possible" example. From this, you can formulate your strategy on how you want to achieve your blue pill goals, realistically, if you so choose that route. Without the naive optimism of the purple pill manifesto (AKA, do these 50 things to ensure lifelong attraction as the family alpha "tm").

I hesitate to call myself blue pill through this, but the truth was, that I was. Just a different brand of it. And actually, I'd venture to say a lot or even more than half of the people that read the content here are still blue pill. I say that as an advocate of Rollo's "Mitch's Purple Pill." I was a big digestee of PUA content before TRP was a thing, and even back then, guys who got it were against marriage with much less framework to establish why it was such a bad idea. My own personal reasoning was simply the reward structures of woman being finite, the duty of performance being an unrealistic infinite goal (in terms of never losing a job, losing your mojo etc). But she was different. Hey, she gets that she can't have it all. She's smart. She's not like those other women. The subtext was "she's not a woman." In hindsight, this was an absolutely moronic conceptualization of her.

Truth of the matter is this. If you're using red pill knowledge to try and achieve a blue pill dream, you have to accept failure up front. They are incompatible because they are not two sides of the same coin. One is an illusion and the other is the true reality. While you can still achieve parlor tricks like making yourself a steak by inserting one into the backend programming, you can't actually change the reality you're in. Only how you operate, within it.

Trying to go long is a mistake, and I'll tell you why.

The mistake is this. "The happiest I will be, is content with a family." I disagree on a couple fronts. But also recognize this is impossible to sell to someone who wants this. Trust me, I get it. I'm going to let you hold on to that dream, but be real with yourself.

#1 The idea of a family, even if you are a "patriarch", is still a female primary end-goal. AKA Gynocentricity

For a maternal, stable woman, this is her end goal. You serve her purpose, you live in her world. A common pessimistic distortion I see here is that all women's end goals are to divorce rape a guy and jump back on the CC. Wrong. Most women do find their happiness in family. But there's a lot of outside influences that will destroy that. A LOT. That is aside the point here.

Family, is a female centric end-game. Men who have started families quickly learn that you have little time for leisure, hobbies or friends (without kids). You should still have the ability to go fishing and go out with your friends, but let's be clear here. Your days of partying whenever you feel like it are over. Hell your days of playing Call of Duty for AN HOUR uninterrupted are over. That isn't about her having you by the balls. Your kids need you, she needs you. That's what family is, self-accepted dependency. That's why the corollary to this, in the feminist frame of mind, is to eschew family. That is "independence." The opposite, of self declared dependency.

If you start a family with a woman who has a job, good luck remaining interdependent. You are 50% mom, and that's not a good thing. If you're tradcon, hold your horses captain patriarch. You're not as much of a badass as you think.

There is, for most men, a sense of purpose in this. And I would say it is impossible to tell a man that this won't be the most fulfilled he can be unless he makes the mistake himself. Kids are great, but make no mistake, they won't make you happier than when you were in that high smv state to get the girl to have those kids. Reaching peak SMV, is to reach your full potential. And if you combine that with a radical acceptance to the world around you and are willing to work and maintain your position in the world, you call that self actualization.

The true problem here is that self-actualization at an individual level is much more resilient than putting family as the top of your pyramid. Women blow up their families all the time, and if you've put family at the top of your pyramid, well, statistically, you're going to be in for a bad time. You're not trying to avoid being part of 50% of divorces. You're trying to avoid being part of 80% of families, and 90% of relationships. 7% or less of relationships would probably constitute what would be parroted as the representation of what I've called "the male dream." The loyal, yet still sexual, feminine woman whom they have a happy and healthy family. Everyone wins, no fighting, no cheating etc. Good luck.

The alternative, individual self-actualization, is easy by comparison. Women become an accessory to your life, and they can always be sent out to sea. Little different than when you've willfully decided to sail into the ocean together and she decides one day to pull the pin on a grenade on your boat in the middle of a typhoon. "Why did you pull the pin on that grenade? We'll both drown! Because I am a woman, it is in my nature."

You will NEVER NEVER NEVER run your family in a way that is inherently patriarchal. It is impossible. TRUST ME. As that biggest ******* on the block, trust me. You are, even in your most patriarchal, silverback gorilla moment, still operating in her end game. Do not forget this. You can't win someone else's winning strategy. You can share in the benefits of her winning at her strategy, but not win the game. That is hers to win, and hers alone. Understand this, accept it, if you long endlessly for children.

If you're tradcon or want to be, I bet you still haven't let this sink in. Suck on this. Even if you can see other women on the side and she's ****ing you morning and night, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO THE ZOO ON SATURDAY FOR PENGUIN DAY. YOU'RE STILL TAKING YOUR DAUGHTER TO A MUFFIN WORKSHOP ON SUNDAY. You can NOT escape that. Exercising peak male sexual strategy ALA mistresses with captain and first mate is only balancing out the fact you're in a female primary end-game. That doesn't mean you can't adore your daughter and bask in the greatness of your family. But don't delude yourself.

Read this a thousand times until you understand being the biggest bad ass patriarch is still just the illusion of winning the game by executing someone else's strategy. That's like a woman saying "I've won because I'm in Christian Grey's harem, now on to marriage and kids with him!" This is only your winning strategy, if she is also your winning strategy. And let's be real, if she's your best, she's probably not your best bet. Two separate things.

#2 If you are going to have a family, and she makes as much or more than you OR hedge for marriage 2.0\divorce rape, you still can't "win" because additionally, you're in a sub optimal pair bonding arrangement, but there are plus sides here

Couple points here

• If a woman doesn't want anything to do with you, because you don't have more social status or won't be a provider for her, consider this a bonus. If she makes more than you, you're either AF or she's a basketcase. Be careful it's not the latter.
• If she makes more than you, guess who is paying child support or alimony in most cases? Don't buy into the FUD here. Divorce courts aren't anti-male, they're anti-provider. And they're not even anti-provider, they're there to soften the blow for the "loser" and ensure that the children and the "loser" ends whole, not destroyed from the interaction. They even the losses to the benefit of the one worse off. There is good purpose for this here, it's to solve issues of agency. If you need to have income disparity for a woman to be involved with you, you're BB. Elon Musk was BB, don't forget that. This is why in terms of agency, you rarely see women who make more with men who make less.
• In this same token, you want to be Kevin Federline, not Elon Musk. Remember that. This was the ultimate take away from the battle in trying to save my family. There's nothing admirable about being an A-class provider.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

#3 I agree with Dr. Jordan Peterson's assertion that men are inherently lazy and pleasure seeking.

I however, disagree with his use of the word "lazy." Men are currently unmotivated to traditional male roles, and therefore seek pleasure instead I think is more accurate. He rightly recognizes that lots of men do not see the payoff in putting forth the effort to have a family. Many of these guys, that are "lazy" if they were given a proposition of a woman who would fit their ideal mate, or even some approximation of it, would move mountains to make that reality possible. That's not laziness, that's just being unaware and unmotivated to reach awareness.

Men that fail to expand their mind enough to understand their position become MGTOW. These are pessimistic pessimists. They rightly identify that the incentive structures are perverse, but wrongly identify their ability to navigate in any way or totally reject any ability to operate within the framework. They are, in economic terms, discouraged.

Men that fail to fully digest the concepts here, become "purple pill." They are still blue pill, so their journey takes longer. They are, in economic terms, naive investors. They need to lose it all to truly understand the framework they operate within.

Men that fully digest the concepts here, first go through either PTSD if it's severe enough or simply the stages of denial. If you have not gone through this, it's unlikely you've fully made the transition. If you never did, maybe you were lucky enough to never digest blue pill dogma, you were just too damn awesome. But naturals have their own issues. Once they fully digest the content, there are only a couple viable outcomes to choose from.

• (TRADCON)That women are inherently a risky proposition long term, but if a family is going to be involved, there is a preference for traditional conservative arrangements, as it facilitates interdependence, and what we would call "masculine polarity." This is a RISK-TOLERANT, OPTIMALLY STRUCTURED, HIGH RISK, LOW VOLATILITY position that optimises for stability at the cost of risk.
• (PURPLE PILL)That women are inherently a risky proposition long term, but if a family is going to be involved, there is a preference that the woman makes as much or more, as it hedges against the perverse incentives in post-modern marriage arrangements. This is RISK-AVERSE, SUB-OPTIMALLY STRUCTURED, LOW RISK, HIGH VOLATILITY position that optimises for risk at the cost of optimal pair structure.
• (RED PILL)That women are inherently a risky proposition long term, so no family should be involved. All relationships should be short term, without cohabitation. This is a RISK-AVERSE, OPTIMALLY STRUCTURED, NO RISK, INNATELY VOLATILE position that optimises for high short term returns at the cost of LTRs and consistency. (This is male application of female dating strategy)
• (MGTOW)That women are inherently a risky proposition long term, so you should not be involved with them unless you fall bass akwards into them. This is a RISK-AVERSE, NO RISK, LOW RETURN position. If the man involved is simply overanalyzing, and therefore is choosing not to participate based on his perception of what is gained and lost through the game, then he is an uneducated investor. If he chooses this because for instance, a crippling disability or some other HUGE smv issue that is not solvable. This position could be considered "declaring bankruptcy." In economic terms, they are, not investors at all. They are speculators.
• (Incels)That they are unable to attract a woman. In economic terms, they are, discouraged investors. With knowledge and confidence, they could choose one of the paths above. But until someone can rationally self-assess after some successes and failures, they are, simply discouraged. Even if they've told themselves that they can't generate a positive return. They are speculators masquerading as investors saving capital.

To be blue pill, can concisely be summarized as not yet recognizing some things once we eliminate the more obvious things like codependency, low social status etc.

Disposing of the "purple pill"

#1 A long term relationship is biologically constrained by the female (and not entirely, driven by male performance). One thing I'm going to take off the shoulders of guys here. It's not all your fault for every failed relationship.Briffault's Law expanded

That's going to ruffle some feathers here, and I'll tell you why. The first is, that it is convenient, and overly simplistic to simply attribute the failure of your relationship to your lack of frame, SMV etc. Now I'm not dismissing that this is why your relationship failed. What I am saying is that a relationship that you're doing 100.00% right, with SMV disparity and all that, can and likely will still fail. Women are just not built for it, it's not their purpose. Their evolutionary purpose is both for the selection of the highest quality mate and genetic diversity. Pair bonding chemicals are to get you guys through a birth and to get that kid's feet on the ground, after that you're toast, from a neurochemical perspective.

Briffault's Law is the rationale behind her staying, but it only covers association, nothing more, nothing less. AF\BB anyone? Furthermore, you can satisfy Briffault's law being BB. To satisfy both Briffault's law and be AF, is the only optimal solution to the problem, and even then, some other issues come into play.

Briffault's law could I think best be understood as the intellectual observation of AF\BB and the reasoning behind "male disposability."

So now you've satisfied all the checkboxes in your purple pill manifesto. You're tall dark and handsome, and you run your own company selling buttplugs for dogs. Great.

Problems

• Dopamine declines in a relationship, and nearly all relationships deplete their effects between 18-30 months. (pair bonding is typically finite, being AF doesn't change this if you cohabit)
• Societal pairing structures are no longer family oriented (no longer promoting pair bonding)
• Promiscuity is covertly tolerated and in many cases, celebrated (breaking pair bonds)
• For all the oxytocin you generate, vasopressin counters. (You can't game pair bonding)

TL;DR : You can't "game" the system if you're still playing within it. You can choose not to play (MGTOW), or you can game it(TRP). But you can't choose to play and game it.("Purple Pill" AKA Blue Pill). You're either red pill, MGTOW or blue pill. Purple pill won't "game the system" since it's a sub-optimal pairing structure. The only way purple pill can "game the system" is if you use it as a way to get your children out of the way and move on to a red pill life. Then it can be considered a means to an end. Tradcons if they are being honest, accept their likely fate as viewers of a game over screen. They're not gaming the system, they're accepting the game and playing as hard as they can and they put the coins in willingly.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

#2 LTRs, even ones that present themselves as red pill, have an extremely high number of covert contracts

The elimination of every last covert contract, up to and including me agreeing to be faithful has free'd me from the nightmare of "but what if?" (And to be clear, I'm not in an open relationship, though I agree with the assertion if you're in a relationship with a woman, you are in an open relationship) Relationships, from a male perspective, seem to be inherently from a position of scarcity. "But what if I do this, and she reacts this way?" That can summarize a lot of relationships, probably 90% of them.

If you are playing mental gymnastics and game theory in your mind, you are operating in a form of scarcity mentality. You can not fake abundance mentality.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever had a salesman try to tell you that you "have to buy now, because of xyz?" This technique sadly works on a lot of people. And it might work to a certain degree on the woman you're with. But you can only fake so much of that. To have a true level of salesmanship mastery, you'd need to live your whole life in this nether world of half-truths. You'd have to be a woman. Or it'd have to be real. Time machine and a sex change or real deal, take your pick.

The scarcity mentality, and your purpose, in terms of male disposability and applicability to Briffault's law I think can best encapsulate being a beta male. This is in terms of your usefulness, your purpose and even your mindset. You think, act and present in a way that conforms to your purpose.

And so when I viewed my unicorn, my exception, as just another Carrol, things changed. Since she wasn't special or unique, I no longer viewed her in terms of deserving special or unique treatment. I stopped caring in any way shape or form if I would lose her. I gained honest abundance mentality and eliminated every covert contract I could find laying around. Up to and including working, paying for things and being faithful. I was going to burn the entire house to the ground to see what was flammable and what wasn't.

Some of you may say that is being petty, childish or even acting like a woman. I don't disagree. But I'm not going to chastise myself for finding myself (not in a woman's way) and for reaching what I consider to be the turning point in our battle and finding my own worth as a man, finally ridding myself, forever, of scarcity mentality. Through this journey I finally hit paydirt.

Broken and despondent, she cried "you're supposed to be protecting me."

Now when you're dealing with a pathological liar, you have to ignore essentially everything they say. Your only frame of reference with someone like that is subtext and behavior.

Overt : You are my protector (AF)

Corollary : You aren't acting like a provider (good)

**** Test : Be my provider (BB)

Covert : Please supply me with validation (comfort test)

Have I saved my family? I don't know.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

But that has been the statement that I'll hold onto no matter what. My circumstances are slightly unique in the fact that BPD is likely not salvageable long term, I'm in no man's land here. And I say that as someone who is having sex roughly twice a day with walking papers. After over a decade together. If you really understand this stuff, having a lot of sex isn't enough to say you're okay. Knowing that you aren't an ATM isn't enough. And in my case, I couldn't rely on essentially anything this person said unless I could peel it apart and read something that didn't have any overt intent.

I do know this.

That was the promising line I was waiting for. If it was a lie, I consider it to be one of the most masterfully crafted lies a person has ever told me. Lying by way of subtext, to my frame, within a niche communities' framework and understanding, would be beyond my capacity of understanding manipulation. And I'll tell you what, this relationship has been a masterclass in manipulation for both of us. If that statement was a lie, she can have my soul, she ****ing earned it.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I can't think of a more powerful line from a woman, that line told me what I could only hope was true. The absence of financial consideration didn't mean I was automatically not providing enough support that I maintained the position of protector (AF) in her mind. Rejecting faithfulness wasn't even enough to assure myself that I held the right position, because she has borderline personality disorder. That could have merely been the fear of loss. ****ing like rabbits doesn't even necessarily mean anything. Sex is a means to an end for women. The problem is, only she knows what spot in the AF\BB dichotomy you fit in. I was just lucky enough to find out that I had in fact, made my way across the abyss from BB to AF. But for me, that doesn't mean much. For someone with a neurotypical woman, it might mean salvation. For me, just a chance to drink from my canteen.

That line let me relax only to the degree that I know I can relax. That at least, it was time to give her some benefit of the doubt that she wants this to work, and that I can start building something on top of this steaming pile of radioactive garbage. But that I needed to rebuild in a different way, and I wasn't willing to put any amount of risk into rebuilding it. For me, it was all reward. If we didn't have kids, I'd have left 3 years ago. This is a story you can read a hundred different ways over a MRP. Or you can read the failures at relation****s, or you can read premature failures at thebluepill. If you are going to have kids in this day and age, just prepare for some degree of failure. Literally budget it financially, mentally, pragmatically.

That's how long it takes to fix a relationship, that is the worst case scenario (I consider mine THE worst case scenario). This is the ruleset I've crafted for you, so that you can go in with the right frame of mind. If you take what I'm telling you here and don't start beating yourself off to purple pill delusions, you can go in honestly. The only way it could be worse than the drawn out battle I went through to save my family is if she actually murders you. In decision theory, this is called Minimax.

You need to budget 3 years of living expenses (MINIMUM), and be willing to lose whatever the child support and alimony calculation is.

If you still choose the purple pill route instead of TradCon, you need only plan your living expenses. I say that, because 3 years of relationship issues can strain your ability to work, if someone loses a job you need to have that part covered while you're fixing the rest of the wreckage. You need a lot of resources to support the damage she's going to cause. Women are inherently self destructive.

It took for me, 3 years to fix a broken pair bond. And when I mean fix, I mean to go from being almost discarded, to AF. That involves fixing yourself, her and you and her, three separate entities. Do not discount the work you need to do on yourself. Do not discount the work you need to do on her. Do not discount the work you need to do on both of you. It is herculean to fix the amount of damage that happens when a pair bond is broken. It is herculean to fix the damage you've done to your relationship, through absorption of female primary dogma. That is not your fault, but you will bear the burden of its damage to your relationship through its design and through your follies of accepting even 20% of it.

And if you have kids, you need to fix that relationship or at the very least, take enough time to get to the point where you know it is, in fact, without question, unfixable. The process itself of going through this, to determine that your relationship is unfixable, or that you no longer are willing to accept the nightmare of covert contracts you agreed to, and thus the relationship, is REQUIRED. You MUST be willing or even WANT to lose the relationship you have, to reforge it into something new. Without this process, you will be unable to truly realize abundance mentality. Abundance mentality is correlated with your understanding of every woman as being similar, and if you are unable to group her in with other women, you are unable to understand abundance. And through the understanding of the fact that you can not fix her or your relationship, you can understand the inability to do this in the future. And it follows then, they all will, like her, be unfixable, or that you will be unwilling to fix it, in the future. Therefore, there is not one, or several, but an unlimited number of women in the future for you, since you are not reliant on one or several since they are all the same (AWALT).

Disposal of the purple pill makes way for a pragmatic acceptance of risk, because acceptance of realities, even if undesirable, is the cornerstone of TRP

I would say the viable way to handle having a family is this.

• You need to be fully red pilled. You need to have had your special snowflake put you into cPTSD\denial. You need to have gone through the anger stage etc.
• You need to have either accepted the purple pill as a blue pill delusion or have had your purple pill "algorithm" failed enough that you understand that too, was blue pill.
• You need to have genuine abundance mentality
• You need to be able and willing to lose your "3 years of a woman going ape****" stash as well as paying your alimony and child support if going tradcon. You can't mentally think you're above this, you need to accept up front, the $500K+ you're talking here.

Is she still worth it? Is it still worth it?

If the answer to you is NO, then you can go PURPLE PILL > KIDS > WIN or SPLIT > SPIN PLATES

If no woman willfully associates herself with you because you don't make enough money, hit the gym and read up on PUA. Get your life in order, the problem isn't them it's you 100.00%. Period. The problem isn't money, I assure you that. The problem is mostly not even your appearance, I can assure you that. Rollo was right, Frame is paramount. It is number 1 by MILES.

If the answer is YES, then you can go TRADCON > KIDS > WIN or SPLIT > ?

If you can never justify it, then the closest you'll ever get is finding a woman who has equal earning capacity and seems have some degree of self-awareness and passes the usual 43 page purple pill manifesto (she's just smokeshowing you, but I'll let you eat your steak for one sentence). But like me and many others, she'll eventually show you that you can't really game the system, only play within it and expect to lose and be willing and able to lose if you so choose that route.

The ultimate, and final realization of the red pill is not how you can win. But this.

Pick your poison and cross your fingers pig

 

[SadoMasochrist]

TLR

• The idea of family as a patriarchal end game is misdirection.
• Go into a marriage with 3 years of living expenses. Expect to lose it.
• If Tradcon, expect to lose alimony and child support, budget up front.
• If you want kids, but don't want marriage\divorce issues, use the "purple pill" and find a woman that makes as much or more.
• If you do want a family, go Tradcon, the risk averse route (purple pill) is a suboptimal pairing arrangement.
• LTRs have biological constraints in addition to SMP pressure issues and male performance issues.
• You can't game the system... period. Just formulate optimal and suboptimal strategies.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

For all the oxytocin you generate, vasopressin counters. (You can't game pair bonding)

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[dk1990S111]

what a post, good read

 

[Julian]

i think biggie said it best


fuk bitches, get money

 

[SadoMasochrist]

Can you elaborate on this?

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.

 

[Chev.Chelios]

I wrote up a half azzed post on "fundamentals of man hood", and I to came to realize that we are all learning "game" and tactics in a flawed system..

My opinion is now, bottom line humans are inherently fvxked up, stupid, idiotic creatures naturaly and thats why id rather just be christian and not worry so much about these problems of society anymore go jesus lol

 

[SadoMasochrist]

I wrote up a half azzed post on "fundamentals of man hood", and I to came to realize that we are all learning "game" and tactics in a flawed system..

My opinion is now, bottom line humans are inherently fvxked up, stupid, idiotic creatures naturaly and thats why id rather just be christian and not worry so much about these problems of society anymore go jesus lol

What you're looking for is called "rational epistemology"

I've just given you your primer. Pick your end goal. Is it risk or purpose you're more concerned about?

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

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.

I meant what exactly does vasopressin do. I tried doing some research on it because I've never heard of it before, and from what I read it basically makes people more willing to be monogamous. I don't see how that is bad for a woman.

 

[bigneil]

STFU you whiny b!tch. And wipe that dot off your girl's forehead.

 

[Tenacity]

What you're looking for is called "rational epistemology"

I've just given you your primer. Pick your end goal. Is it risk or purpose you're more concerned about?

Sir can you shorten this entire thread posting? A lot of people aren't going to read the textbook you just posted.

 

[dk1990S111]

Sir can you shorten this entire thread posting? A lot of people aren't going to read the textbook you just posted.

There is a TL: DR lol post 4 or 5 I think, on my phone so it doesn't show post #s

 

[SadoMasochrist]

Sir can you shorten this entire thread posting? A lot of people aren't going to read the textbook you just posted.

That's fine, the post isn't for you. It's for people that want the answer to literally the most important question in a man's life. It's the consolidation of red pill theory, purple pill hypothesis, game theory etc. If you read and understand the post, and you don't have kids, it will allow you to make an extremely well thought out decision on how to progress for the rest of your life.

If that doesn't appeal to you, I get it. Lots of guys aren't interested in the bigger picture while its play time. When its time to get down to business, read the TL;DR and if it interests you, the rest.

 

[SmooveMooves]

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.

 

[Tenacity]

That's fine, the post isn't for you.

I don't know if it's for me or not....because it's too long to read, shorten it to one solid post with a few paragraphs. You have 4 posts with extremely long text. Surely, you can get the POINT you are looking to get across in one, solid, condensed, post.

 

[SadoMasochrist]

I don't know if it's for me or not....because it's too long to read, shorten it to one solid post with a few paragraphs. You have 4 posts with extremely long text. Surely, you can get the POINT you are looking to get across in one, solid, condensed, post.

If you need the most important discussion about your choice as a man condensed to a paragraph, why are you here?

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

What you're looking for is called "rational epistemology"

I've just given you your primer. Pick your end goal. Is it risk or purpose you're more concerned about?

'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.