A bit of cynicism...

[Interceptor]

I think we may want to find out WHY a woman would want to be adversial with us. If we are supposedly so High Value...
Who made the rules that it HAS to be adversarial?
Why do I have to follow those particular rules?

What if Im just happy with myself?
What if Im happy with being by myself too?





If Im involved with a woman, why would I have to 'fight' for power??
What am I trying to GAIN here?

If she doesnt want me, Im gone. Period. No tears. Just gone.

Im not going to be 'fighting' for 'power'.
I have my own power.

If she truly wants you , and she is intelligent and healthy, she wont necessarily want to be adversarial with you.
And what kind of behaviors am I demonstratng to her that will make her competetive side come out???
ie "I gotta get mines, yo!"
That's Scarcity Mentality.
"There's never enough for me, So I have to hoard the little I have. And can't share! Gimme gimme!!Feed ME, even if I dont have anything for you."

Something to think about.

 

[STR8UP]

It's not about the woman being or wanting to be adversarial.

The whole point is, by nature it IS an adversarial relationship, but most people don't see it that way because on the surface it looks to be just the opposite. We see that a relationship is all about hugs and kisses, sharing and caring, which it IS, but that is only on the surface. It is the "glue" that holds the fragile bond together.

MOST relationship end. I think this really donned on me one night when I met up with Deep Dish, and he was talking about this very subject.

If there was such a thing as "true love", would people be breaking up and trading in older models for new? I think not.

Why DO people break up? Because they have THEIR agenda and if the other person's agenda does not flow with theirs, or one or both parties lose physical attraction, which is more of a symptom than a cause.

People part ways primarily because they see that life with this particular person isn't going to help them reach their goals. Thus, a man and a woman are on opposing sides, only coming together to achieve a common goal.

 

[TheHumanist]

Okay, Let's take your "adversarial relationship" definition and assume it is correct.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the definition of the adversarial relationship the rise of an alliance of two hostile parties bonded only by mutual interests/common goal. When agendas and interests change, the two will have to break up.

By your viewpoint, it fits well to the model symptom of low interests and women cheating and going for bbd. However, your theory I suspect also fits well to friendship as well. By the definition, one can say your best friend is only a fragile bond held together by some glue on the surface. Familial relationships are the exception by genetic imperative.

This generates some flaws to the theory.

1. First is that without the common goal/interest, the base mode is then hostility rather than neutrality. This point is negated if you think the common stranger is regularly hostile to everyone unless they see something to unite or exchange. Currently, I don't think people only act friendly only to people who have immediately value, some do, but many are friendly in general. There's an element of exchange and each individual interests as well, yet it seems a healthy friendship end as harshly when interests fade (and many relationships don't either).

2. As many pointed out, many downfalls of relationships seem to be caused by the fact that many (many throw in American) women are self-centered. She sees men as only a tool and willingly pay, including acting all lovey-dovey and saying "I love you" until the need is over. This seem to be a contradiction to the nature of relationships between a couple is adversarial because the conscious behavior point to a women's character. Seems a good point that many are just being adversarial rather than by nature.

3. To see a reason why most relationship fail and a few succeed, we have to look at the difference between the two. Which is likely impossible to pinpoint due to so many variables include culture, religions, socio-economics factors, but it is possible to look to see if we can rule our possible ones. However, can try to rule out reasons and differences. Looking at the difference, those that do survive, last a long time, and those that end at least amicably does not always end when agendas change. Seems to show character is a large factor and if it nature, than it should apply to all relationships.

4. If we are to assume the core reason most relationships fail is because of its nature and cite everything else as it symptom, then why does some gaining the same "symptom" survive and others fail. If it is the core and the cooperation is just the surface, any bad weather should be enough to wash away any glue that hold the bond, many don't end as bad as saying "I love you" one day and the next day is the new boyfriend. At least by my experience, many times women do feel remorse. It fits well to your experience it seems of the people you been with saying "I love you" one day and then marrying a new man when you don't fit to her desires in a very short time and that does sucks, but there are many examples large enough to say there are breakups that either show a long decline enough that when its finally over, one can see the adjustment have already passed in the wind down or they do enter remorse themselves when things ends as well. It seems you watch girlfriends break up and went quickly to marrying another man with no pause (I'm too young to see that currently it seems), but surely you seen others act with remorse or a long winding end. Could it be more possible that the women just view relationships and men as tools and thus avoid attachment rather than its nature to why so many break up so coldly? Adversarial relations should point that all endings should end without remorse as there is no attachment. To discount break-ups for low attraction in favor of changing agendas means that changing agendas have to be the reason for the majority of break ups. I believe there too many broad reasons to just saw it is the nature of it.

Ok, the above too way too much of my time to type. So I'm going to give a quick alternative.

Aristotle listed three types of friendships:

1. Friendship of Utility
2. Friendship of Pleasure
3. Friendship of Virtue

Now, he only applied it to friendship only and factors relationships differently as it is not equal. However, applying it to relationships.

Well, the friendship of utility is only a connection based on need for something. Now this is adversarial as they are only friends/couple for an agenda or need. Obviously, to mistaken for something more is very damaging when the need is gone. I suspect many relationships these days are just that and this is why it seems so many are adversarial and many end so badly.

Friendship of Pleasure is a friendship that is based a connection based on something internal and enjoyment is on activities together. This is a genuine connection where the person is friends with the person and not just thinking of what the person offers.

Friendship of Virtue is a friendship based on the connection that is not just internal like pleasure but built on a long connection and requires both parties to have strong integrity and good character which is required to view the other self as an extension of themselves rather just a resource and also willing to be open to form such a bond along with several other reasons.

Since of course to cultivate such a bond require such time and rare type of people, may I present it as an alternative to your viewpoint.

 

[Colossus]

'Buyer's power' is not necessarily a direct reflection of financial capability, though that's usually a component of it. The term 'seller's power' could just as easily be substituted here, though I think buyer's power makes more sense as more often than not a man of value is the one actively selecting the woman as a suitable candidate for a relationship. Either way you slice it, the fundamental concept is the power of choice; the power to be selective.

In order to avoid becoming a simple commodity in the eyes of women, one must command enough sexual value as to have a distinct competitive advantage over other men in the marketplace. This all goes back to the various threads on the subject of authentic value vs. projected value. Prize mentality and the projection of value will help get one laid, but won't put one in a position where their value alone creates competitive anxiety within the chick.

If she would have a difficult time replacing you with a partner of similar value, you're no longer a commodity to her. You're no longer a c0ck and a wallet and the repairman in her world, but an asset that she is damn fortunate to have secured. My suggestion here is that a sound strategy for de-commoditizing one's self with women is to increase one's sexual value to the point where their mere existence authenticates their power of selectivity and reinforces it with women.

As far as having more potential value than actualized value, consider that all the more reason to avoid monogamy at this stage in your life. Not that monogamy is even necessarily such a horrible thing, but one of the most self-limiting things that I see other guys my age do is get into an LTR where the unspoken expectation is that provisioning and an AFC marriage is the goal of the relationship. The whole relationship is premised on the man's ability to hurry up and get established with his career so that the domestication process can begin. To me, and to any other man who seeks a life which isn't inspired by AFC ideals, this is a scenario that can easily be avoided if one isn't complacent in their mentality.

Thanks for the expansion. This was helpful.

A few comments:

I think the X-factor of the Value discussion is that value is, of course, relative to the marketplace and the individual buyer.

"Value", as it is in our age demographic generally revolves around an index of a few things:

-Monetary and material posession
-Upward momentum in career terms
-Physical attractiveness (looks, fitness, presentation)
-Social proof and command

I have never and will never be a proponent of 'projecting value'; I think this is PUA b.s. and serves no purpose other than pulling some tail.

Actualized value takes time and is sort of relative to the path you have chosen. My father, for example, has a lot of actualized value, but he is 25 years older than me.

I have very little actualized value in terms of the above index, but then again I am not after the types of women who seek these attributes exclusively. I think it is better to find women with high enough interest in YOU that they basically think the sun shines out of your as$ no matter where you are at socially or financially. Easier said than done, of course.

 

[jophil28]

Pook once said that he thinks that the typical North American relationship is basically this: Man loves woman, woman loves herself.

Some appended thoughts from a lifetime of observation --

" Man pleases woman. women pleases herself "

" Man is devoted to woman, women is devoted to her friends."

" Man works to provide for woman, woman works to indulge her own whims."

" Man is loyal to woman, women is loyal to others."

" Man accomodates woman's wishes, women exploits man's generosity "

All good indicators of the futility of modern marriage.

One overwhelming aspect of change that I have witnessed in the past 40 years is that women have stopped being DEVOTED to their men and their relationship with him. Women now have choices , unfortunately they execute their choices poorly.