Zekko said:
I could just as easily say that what you really want is a LTR and a woman who really cares about you. But you failed at that, so you say "That's a stupid game anyway",
Very true, and very defensible. Also, there's more and more evidence that one of the purposes of the conscious mind is to make up stories as go through life reacting pretty much on instinct.
Take this as an example.
Somebody's got five choices, A, B, C, D, and E.
If they can equally get each one, with the same amount of effort, they'll choose one, and then say they don't like the others because they don't "want" them.
But we all know that life doesn't work like that. Often times we fool ourselves into thinking that we don't "want" something because we simply can't get it.
It's the heart of the "sour grapes" excuse. We go through life, being lazy humans, choosing the maximum amount of pleasure for the least amount of work. Since admitting to ourselves that we suck at getting something that other people are enjoying, we trick ourselves into thinking that we really don't want it.
To give a specific example, I don't like golf much. I suck at it. I could easily tell myself, and tell others that I don't play golf because I don't like it. It's boring, it's expensive, and I could think of better things to do with my time.
To further make myself feel better, I could "put down" people who play golf. Of course, I don't put them down directly. I don't say, "Golfers are idiots. I'm better than them."
I structure my language that it "presupposes" that golfers are inferior. I would say something like "I would rather spend my money on something worthwhile."
This implies that golf is not worthwhile. That would mean that golfers are spending time on an unworthy pursuit. This is a linguistic judo method of putting down golfers indirectly is very common, and very easy to spot once you know what you're looking for.
For example, take this statement:
"guys want monogamous relationship. They don't want to be womanizers."
Now, on the surface, it sounds like an innocuous statement. However, the two choices are "monogamous relationship" and "womanizer." The word "womanizer" even in seduction circles, has negative connotations. So in that statement, the writer has indirectly put down those who have chosen to pursue a path of different relationships with different women.
Now, that raises an interesting question.
Is a monogamous relationship as inherently desirable among men as a string of extremely satisfying one-nighters?
Are the two choices REALLY the same as choosing a hamburger or a chicken sandwich when they both cost a dollar and you've got a dollar?
Given skills in achieving both a successful string of one nighters, AND the skills to create a rewarding monogamous relationship, which would men choose?
Very few men alive that have had the skills to get pretty much any women they wanted have settled down with one woman, for the rest of their lives. At best, they were serial monogamists.
As I have said before, the depths with which humans can deceive ourselves knows no limits.
My thing is this: There's no shame in not choosing something because you can't be bothered to put in the effort, or you suck at getting it.
Everybody does it. Every day. I do it. You do it.
But you're only fooling yourself when you look to somebody who has more skills than you do, and can therefore make more desirable choices with their life, and then somehow put them down as being beneath you.
It takes a very brave man to look himself in the mirror and say:
"I suck at X, Y, and Z. Do I want to put in the effort to improve my skills so I can get better things? Or do I accept what I can get today, and be cool with that?"
