How alphas handle cheating

[EyeBRollin]

95% interest level?

The alpha mindset?

Guys watch too many youtube videos or whatever. Pure idealism.

A concept is only idealism in the minds of those who cannot achieve it.

You trust someone, and there is always a chance they can let you down. That's inherently obvious. That's just life.

Appeal to possibility -Arguing that because something is possible, it is certain to happen.

Life says any one of us can get struck by lightning or hit the lottery.. doesn't mean it's going to happen.

No youtube video is changing that.

There's no getting around that we need to trust people to a certain degree. Maturity is in being sensible with that trust, not in just never trusting anyone again - and not in fancying yourself as having ultimate control over all human beings because you watched some youtube videos. These are the lengths people go to protect themselves and not get hurt, but these are frankly absurd ways of dealing with life's problems.

Strawman fallacy - misrepresenting your opponents argument to make it easier to attack.
'
Control has nothing to do with whether or not a woman cheats on you or not. Taking your defeatist attitude is an absurd way of handling your dealings with women.

 

[Ronin47]

Great to know Women's subjectivity defines that

IKR?

 

[EyeBRollin]

No substance, simple reductive logic, and literally never seen an original thought from this chap yet.

If you are going to reference a video or book, then at least have the decency and good manners to make a note of the reference that you take. Nobody likes speaking through a middleman.

Link the video here, since i doubt with your track record that you alone can expand on the materials - which was notably absent (surprise) - as you don't understand the concepts well enough (assuming they were good to begin with, which is a stretch) for this to contininue further into being anything productive worth a sh1t.

Slanderous insults come from being on the losing side of the argument. Your rebuttal to my clear blank statement is to make an unfounded accusation of plagiarism. Please feel free to actually address the content behind anything I post.

A concept is idealism when you start attaching absurd values that cannot be measured (95% interest) to something else that can't be measured neither (the declarance that a woman will never cheat under your criteria, which criteria you left out unless "be an alpha male" is the sum of your contributions to the thread ).

You're just a mark watching sh1t videos and parroting nonsense. The last time i dealt with someone that kept doing this i started throwing contradictory field reports at them, and watched them pathetically scramble for small print. Was a laugh, but also pretty dissappointing how people will cling to dogma.

Let the ad hominems flow. You make personal attacks as a substitute for your lack of knowledge on this subject. Once again, feel free to address the content coming from my posts.

That's your own projection, sunshine. I never said that, not in those words, tone, or anything. You are literally just misguided.

Lying doesn't fly in arguments, pal. Not only did you create a strawman argument, I highlighted the exact text in which you committed your fallacious angle. Don't be surprised when I call out bull****.

It's a bit concerning that you actually believe it acceptable to run over to a bunch of full grown adult men and say ""you see, if they have 95% interest level, [they won't cheat]."" As a standalone comment, and expect not to have your trousers pulled down and given a wedgie.

Alpha men are leaders. You would know that if you were one. Instead you subscribe to herd mentality, (also known as the bandwagon fallacy) by assuming group think from a bunch of disgruntled men about what causes women's infidelity. That's once again not an response to the argument put forth.

95% interest level is just a phrase meaning near maximal interest level, or love drunk. Interest level is simply a measure of a woman's feelings for you. It can be 0-49% (no interest), 50-70% (mildly interested), or higher. The idea that a woman with near maximal interest level will not cheat is not rocket science. Cheating is a result of low interest level. Get it?

 

[Ranger]

I’ve read through this thread just now. I skipped through the silly political stuff when it came up.

There is no way a guy could decipher through everything possible and actually be able to pick out an “ideal” woman from the crowd. A woman that won’t change or won’t feel the lowering of “in love” hormones. So things really do have an expiration date unless the man has really optimized himself.
Even then there is the fading of hormones.

So there would need to be a deeper level of optimization whereby the woman is certain she can’t find another equal to or better.
Or is fearful that there would be no redemption in this life for her if she fell off the wagon and onto another dik.

Like AJ pointed out, it would be utterly impossible to have a game tight enough to pull that off indefinitely and still have a life. No woman is worth that anyway. So it would have to be his presence alone. Something he didn’t have to work at.

I dont think game is a viable answer or solution. It would need to be a higher level “game”. Maybe even something that hasn’t been seen in a long time or maybe even talked about.

It is not a man’s place to work that hard to keep a woman. That is the imperative talking. It should be the opposite. We were not built for that long of an emotional haul. We would die early. Or even worse, become completely submerged in the feminine imperative. That’s the wrong model.

Women are a different story. They love that $hit. They were built for it. The leverage and schemes to somehow position herself in the forefront of a man’s mind. The evil sinister battles she has with other women invading her battleground. She likes that stuff. That’s her game. So it makes sense that the man should be enough that she jumps into that frame or mode where the game is on for her. She gets happy. Creative. More feminine with a sharp dagger for other women. That’s not a man’s game. He has a world to build.

 

[SteveSDCA]

This is the time you caught her. Maybe she never cheated before. Maybe she did.

 

[Roober]

As with most poor behavior from women, if you get cheated on, you failed one of the two following principles

1. Screen properly (dont put that pvssy on a pedestal)
2. Be the man every woman wants

There is a very small subset (almost negligible) of men who do both 1 and 2 very well and end up the victim of a cheater. Most women give men many chances before they ultimately do it. Usually one of the earliest signs is a lack of trust or disrespect, which is actually fostered by a man who is not living up to his full potential. But many many men will attribute those behaviors of women to them being women. It's the classic victim narrative that plagues western society.

And the best way to handle cheaters?

"Thank you for being honest with me," then she's dead to you. She wont get the pleasure of me fvcking her or any more of my time ever again.

 

[The_411]

As with most poor behavior from women, if you get cheated on, you failed one of the two following principles

1. Screen properly (dont put that pvssy on a pedestal)
2. Be the man every woman wants

There is a very small subset (almost negligible) of men who do both 1 and 2 very well and end up the victim of a cheater. Most women give men many chances before they ultimately do it. Usually one of the earliest signs is a lack of trust or disrespect, which is actually fostered by a man who is not living up to his full potential. But many many men will attribute those behaviors of women to them being women. It's the classic victim narrative that plagues western society.

And the best way to handle cheaters?

"Thank you for being honest with me," then she's dead to you. She wont get the pleasure of me fvcking her or any more of my time ever again.

I think a few concepts are being conflated here.

You cannot fullproof cheating per se; however, men who understand themselves and are in tune rarely get cheated on if at all because they screen well, they understand that all relationships end, and they need variety in their lives.

They do not allow the relationship to get to a point of cheating.

They end it when it isn’t working for them.

Now you can say they aren’t investing, but would counter that they aren’t over investing.

The appreciate what occurs but understand that a relationship doesn’t define their happiness and that they have a great life with or without a relationship.

 

[Spaz]

As with most poor behavior from women, if you get cheated on, you failed one of the two following principles

1. Screen properly (dont put that pvssy on a pedestal)
2. Be the man every woman wants

There is a very small subset (almost negligible) of men who do both 1 and 2 very well and end up the victim of a cheater. Most women give men many chances before they ultimately do it. Usually one of the earliest signs is a lack of trust or disrespect, which is actually fostered by a man who is not living up to his full potential. But many many men will attribute those behaviors of women to them being women. It's the classic victim narrative that plagues western society.

And the best way to handle cheaters?

"Thank you for being honest with me," then she's dead to you. She wont get the pleasure of me fvcking her or any more of my time ever again.

Roober, I normally agree with you on many of ur posts. Spot on in many instances and coming from a right manly frame.

I however disagree slightly here with "screen properly" narrative. I think too much emphasis has been place there in SS - so much so that it focuses on women, yet it offers 2 many variable's involved for it to be predictable thus making it unsustainable.

Perhaps change that narrative into "man having better standards", it offers the same or even better results but it's sustainable because it's predictable and constant.

Food for thought guys.

 

[Roober]

Roober, I normally agree with you on many of ur posts. Spot on in many instances and coming from a right manly frame.

I however disagree slightly here with "screen properly" narrative. I think too much emphasis has been place there in SS - so much so that it focuses on women, yet it offers 2 many variable's involved for it to be predictable thus making it unsustainable.

Perhaps change that narrative into "man having better standards", it offers the same or even better results but it's sustainable because it's predictable and constant.

Food for thought guys.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing. When I refer to screening, it is tied to having better standards. If the women do not match the standards, then a man should correctly move on. Ofcourse there are many variables to consider and it is a lot of room for interpretation and making decisions, however, there needs to be a solid foundation for screening.

For example, the previous woman I dated was sexually very selfish, extremely obnoxious come period time, and gradually reduced affections. If I had standards at the time, I would have rejected from the situation and saved myself some serious heartache. I didnt have standards and paid a dear price as a result. However, it led me here and to wild amounts of success, so I suppose it was bittersweet.

So I suppose our ideas are cohesive in that having better standards will result in proper screening of women.

 

[Spaz]

I think we are essentially saying the same thing. When I refer to screening, it is tied to having better standards. If the women do not match the standards, then a man should correctly move on. Ofcourse there are many variables to consider and it is a lot of room for interpretation and making decisions, however, there needs to be a solid foundation for screening.

For example, the previous woman I dated was sexually very selfish, extremely obnoxious come period time, and gradually reduced affections. If I had standards at the time, I would have rejected from the situation and saved myself some serious heartache. I didnt have standards and paid a dear price as a result. However, it led me here and to wild amounts of success, so I suppose it was bittersweet.

So I suppose our ideas are cohesive in that having better standards will result in proper screening of women.

Yes it is. Makes sense when you put it as such. Theres no doubt we hv plenty in common.

Unfortunately, what you meant by screening will be taken literally by others, to focus on women's character per se.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile if we use a different word = a man's standards.

The focus will shift towards the man and towards his standards, makes him think abt himself...

Perhaps men having low standards is giving them high turnovers when it comes to women.

I'm a proponent for men having 1 set of principles that encompasses all aspects of his life - a frame that is enduring throughout every sphere of his life.

He can't be 1 thing for women then another to his friends, yet another to his family and so forth in his professional life.

I've often mentioned this;

"The way u think" + "the way u do things" = results.

It's "how we think" that shapes "how we do things" = results

But if we as men proceed to go directly to "how we do things" = results, then it will most likely end up in a loop that yields similar results.

Not sure if I'm making any sense to anyone here but do ask.

 

[jnMissouri]

Alpha men are busy banging sluts, cheating. That's how they "handle it". Alpha men are not monogamous, think about it....