QUESTION: Why commit 100%?

[NewJack]

Aside from what Jariel and HumbleNinja said, which really covers a lot of ground...

1. Why should any man commit 100% to ONE woman and not spin plates in 2013?

2. How does a man benefit LONG-TERM from forming a deep faggish "bond" with a woman in 2013?

I'll try and address the core of your question, without getting lost in clever specifics or trying to convince.

First off, no way is better. You can serially date girls all your life if you want. If people look down on you for it, I would say they are being haters. You don't have to commit to women because its the emotionally legit, NewJack-approved wisdom on Life.

But the main reason guys become interested in deep bonds with women is....

Depth of experience. Some experiences are shallow, the feelings in them are small, their ability to rock your world is small. Other experiences are very deep.

When people don't deeply commit, or if their dating life is an ongoing series of experiments and sex-adventures, the one thing you can generally be sure of is that those experiences won't contain a lot of emotional depth.

One of the reasons for this is just sheer anxiety. Its possible to date 47 different women in 3 years, and never have really gotten past the 'awkward getting to know each other stage' with any of them. You could even have banged all 47 of these girls (ok that would never happen, but to make a point), and the sex would be, for the most part, that 'awkward getting to know each other sex'. Sometimes it would be amazing but mostly it would just be awkward.

Why? The reason is anxiety. Where there is trust, people are relaxed. When they are relaxed, they enjoy themselves more. The potential for deeper experience is there. But when a guy is hopping from girl to girl, never committing, never bonding, he is never really relaxed. He may learn to fake it, but he can never relax. How can you relax around a person you don't know/trust but are intimate with?

The same posters who I see with the most intricate mental machinery for 'Performing Experiments in The Dating Science', are the guys who communicate between the lines of their posts that they just can't relax in these areas.

Commitment and connection and heart-alignment and all that good stuff is mostly so that YOU can one day relax. Its a fortunate byproduct of this that the woman will also relax.

And why do you want to relax more? So you can have deeper orgasms, longer-lasting lovemaking, deeper ongoing enjoyment of life, enjoyment of being around your partner, less stress in many regards, and lots more stuff that I am too distracted with work to be able to list here. So those are some thoughts to chew on.

[edit: sorry to trivialize the subject matter by listing deeper orgasms as item #1. I can't really make the whole case for why an emotionally connected existence trumps an emotionally disconnected existence within one comment, given that I ought to be working now anyway. But yeah, DEEPER ORGASMS baby! why not?]

 

[Trump]

I have two main questions:

1. Why should any man commit 100% to ONE woman and not spin plates in 2013?

2. How does a man benefit LONG-TERM from forming a deep faggish "bond" with a woman in 2013?

1) Committing is for having babies with the woman, to see if she will be a good mother. Even then for a man to commit is risky, because the state will take care of her and the baby, along with your child support payments. It's gotten so bad now that we have to pay, abide, and listen to whatever women want in a feministic society in order to keep the species going.

For the guys who commit and say "my girl is is good to me, my girl is so good to me." I think its because she is getting older and has no other options. Once they reach a certain age they have to be good to you because they cant do otherwise. You never see a good looking 22 year old being so nice.

It's also a societal thing. You are not married or in a committed relationship, something is wrong with you, despite the fact that everything is against you.

2) No benefit to bond with them, to form a friendship is OK only is she is hot, and that's only if you are seen with her it may increase your value even though you are not having sex with her.

In my opinion, they can bond with you but you can't bond with them. For those who say their wife is their best friend and soul mate, I've known girls for 25 years who I thought were my best friends, they have thrown it all away in 25 seconds. My brothers wife pushed him over a balcony to his death and got all his money and remarried, after he felt they formed they "love and friends forever bond."

Anyway, that's my experience. Others may been so lucky to find their "soulmate", but for me, girls are about

1) Money
2) Sex
3) Babies

 

[Mr Wright]

Raising kids is no where in a man's biology. This is why men can reproduce until death (unlike women). Men are designed to spread their seed.

It is part of our biology. Men tend to periodically enter relationships with women even if they're sleeping around with other women in order to improve the chances of one of their children being raised past infancy. In theory, a man who sleeps around has no real idea if his seed is being raised correctly or well fed if he just fvcks off after the moment of conception. Sticking around increases the chances of conception as more access to the pvssy greatly increases the chances of pregnancy. It usually takes a few ovulation cycles to impregnate a woman and women generally only conceive when they're ovulating so you have to be there to be the one who fathers the child. Sticking around also helps to provide the woman with protein, defence and shelter all helps ensure the baby will survive and not just perish in a particularly cold winter. Biologically speaking 10 dead babies are not as good as one well raised one. Which is why men and women fall in love and men generally fall in love quicker because they need that instant bond to keep them there.

But after a while, things get old and stale in the relationship. It's called the 7 year itch(the name albeit has come from popular culture) because it's around the age of 7 that an infant could fend for themselves in the wild. So at this point the man moves on to go and spread his seed some more before inevitably getting into another relationship because statistically in a relationship you have a chance to have more offspring and more of a chance to raise them successfully. Why do you think even Kings of old used to financially look after their mistresses and not just leave them out in the cold? It's because they intrinsically understood the value of raising their offspring well, it's natural. It's not societal pressure, in the past, you had to stick around to assure the survival of your offspring, whilst that is not directly relevant today, it's in our DNA.

 

[PlayHer Man]

That's not what you originally said though:

"How does a man benefit LONG-TERM from forming a deep faggish "bond" with a woman in 2013?"

inb4 "what I really meant was". Sorry but you should practice your passive aggressiveness.

You can be in a relationship without having a deep faggish bond moron. :crazy:

Most men in relationships are faggots. This doesn't mean being in a relationship makes you one. Another example --> Most truck drivers are men. This doesn't mean being a truck driver makes you a man.

 

[PlayHer Man]

Aside from what Jariel and HumbleNinja said, which really covers a lot of ground...



I'll try and address the core of your question, without getting lost in clever specifics or trying to convince.

First off, no way is better. You can serially date girls all your life if you want. If people look down on you for it, I would say they are being haters. You don't have to commit to women because its the emotionally legit, NewJack-approved wisdom on Life.

But the main reason guys become interested in deep bonds with women is....

Depth of experience. Some experiences are shallow, the feelings in them are small, their ability to rock your world is small. Other experiences are very deep.

When people don't deeply commit, or if their dating life is an ongoing series of experiments and sex-adventures, the one thing you can generally be sure of is that those experiences won't contain a lot of emotional depth.

One of the reasons for this is just sheer anxiety. Its possible to date 47 different women in 3 years, and never have really gotten past the 'awkward getting to know each other stage' with any of them. You could even have banged all 47 of these girls (ok that would never happen, but to make a point), and the sex would be, for the most part, that 'awkward getting to know each other sex'. Sometimes it would be amazing but mostly it would just be awkward.

Why? The reason is anxiety. Where there is trust, people are relaxed. When they are relaxed, they enjoy themselves more. The potential for deeper experience is there. But when a guy is hopping from girl to girl, never committing, never bonding, he is never really relaxed. He may learn to fake it, but he can never relax. How can you relax around a person you don't know/trust but are intimate with?

The same posters who I see with the most intricate mental machinery for 'Performing Experiments in The Dating Science', are the guys who communicate between the lines of their posts that they just can't relax in these areas.

Commitment and connection and heart-alignment and all that good stuff is mostly so that YOU can one day relax. Its a fortunate byproduct of this that the woman will also relax.

And why do you want to relax more? So you can have deeper orgasms, longer-lasting lovemaking, deeper ongoing enjoyment of life, enjoyment of being around your partner, less stress in many regards, and lots more stuff that I am too distracted with work to be able to list here. So those are some thoughts to chew on.

[edit: sorry to trivialize the subject matter by listing deeper orgasms as item #1. I can't really make the whole case for why an emotionally connected existence trumps an emotionally disconnected existence within one comment, given that I ought to be working now anyway. But yeah, DEEPER ORGASMS baby! why not?]

Well explained.. but I think its ultimately false logic.

Why? --> You can never totally relax in life. PERIOD.

Look at all the men who got married and thought they could finally relax. Next thing you know they're getting raped in divorce court. :crackup:

You can never relax. If relaxing is your goal then you're just lazy. In which case you're actually better off avoiding people all together.

It is part of our biology. Men tend to periodically enter relationships with women even if they're sleeping around with other women in order to improve the chances of one of their children being raised past infancy. In theory, a man who sleeps around has no real idea if his seed is being raised correctly or well fed if he just fvcks off after the moment of conception. Sticking around increases the chances of conception as more access to the pvssy greatly increases the chances of pregnancy. It usually takes a few ovulation cycles to impregnate a woman and women generally only conceive when they're ovulating so you have to be there to be the one who fathers the child. Sticking around also helps to provide the woman with protein, defence and shelter all helps ensure the baby will survive and not just perish in a particularly cold winter. Biologically speaking 10 dead babies are not as good as one well raised one. Which is why men and women fall in love and men generally fall in love quicker because they need that instant bond to keep them there.

But after a while, things get old and stale in the relationship. It's called the 7 year itch(the name albeit has come from popular culture) because it's around the age of 7 that an infant could fend for themselves in the wild. So at this point the man moves on to go and spread his seed some more before inevitably getting into another relationship because statistically in a relationship you have a chance to have more offspring and more of a chance to raise them successfully. Why do you think even Kings of old used to financially look after their mistresses and not just leave them out in the cold? It's because they intrinsically understood the value of raising their offspring well, it's natural. It's not societal pressure, in the past, you had to stick around to assure the survival of your offspring, whilst that is not directly relevant today, it's in our DNA.

There is no biological urge in men to raise kids. Protect? Yes. Raise? No.

Biologically speaking (also observed in other primates) males tend to bond to females when they have limited options. In this case.. once the female gives birth the male sticks around to protect the kids. Males with many options will sport-f*ck the female population and protect the offspring of the female if no other males are around to be suspected fathers.

There is a biological desire to NOT protect the offspring of other males (which is why men generally dislike sluts).

So you're half right.

 

[JohnChops]

No **** you can be in a relationship without being all "phaggy". Its called don't be whipped and don't lavish the girl every chance you get with gifts.

Its pretty simple, once you start doing stuff like that just because and you are at her beck and call you are fvcked.

 

[JoeMarron]

Ah yes..this argument again

1. Why should any man commit 100% to ONE woman and not spin plates in 2013?

I agree with some of the other posters that kids are the only reason. Fvcking multiple chicks on the side will make starting a family and raising well adjusted kids a bit difficult.

2. How does a man benefit LONG-TERM from forming a deep faggish "bond" with a woman in 2013?

Lol..the same way a man benefits long-term from forming deep bonds with his parents, siblings, family, close friends, etc. Humans are social creatures; we like bonding with each other and bonus points if we can have sex and are attracted to the person we bond with. The bond becomes "faggish" when a man can't live without this person, when he sacrifices his happiness over hers, when he allows her to have control over his life. Sure forming bonds with people has its risks but so does anything in life worth having. If you truly have no desire to bond with a woman then you don't represent the average human and your advice won't be applicable to most men. I think I get where you're coming from though. You feel that its far too risky to form a bond with a woman these days. In that case we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll take my chances

You can be in a relationship without having a deep faggish bond moron.

Is there a difference between a deep bond and a deep faggish bond? Are all bonds inherently faggish? :crackup: Define these terms for us