[Highlander]

Hi!

I was a silent reader for a while on this board and there is one aspect which is irritating me:
Most people here are aware of bluepill content and of hypergamy.
As well as of some evolution-psychological aspects, which are clearly suggesting that humans have been never designed for long lasting relationships.

But yet, I see here so many threads which are about screening properly for LTR-material or even wife-material.
I mean, in the travelcategory of this forum, there is even one whole thread which is about how and where to find potential legit wives from abroad.

Isn' t this all contradictory to what we claim to know?
Clearly there are prospects who are better ltr-material than your usual weekend partygirl with accounts on all popular datingsites and apps such as tinder.
But in my opinion even those better prospects are not a good bets anymore because hypergamy is existing finally everywhere(and all experts on this field are certain that for instance divorce rates will even increase within the next few decades , significantly.

So I really do not want to offend here someone, but to me,
striving from game-aware men for long-lasting relationships always seems a little bit like a joke.

I would be interested in some views and opinions on this one.

[Phoenix]

And what is the end of the game? Ultimately if you never reproduce, your life was merely a bunch noise and commotion about nothing. And by virtue of the extended duration of human development, long term relationships are a necessity.

Sure we like the fun and boost to our egos, but a mature man recognizes the importance of one day starting a family. And far from being 'against biology', a quick look at some history books will show you this has always been the dominant form of reproduction of the human species. One man, head of his house, in perpetual union with one woman, and their children. We are not bonobos.

That this form is no longer safe in western countries, is no black mark against the form itself. It is a black mark against western culture. The response to this is to question either how to escape western culture or to foment a revolution therein, not to question long term relationships.

[262]

Game-aware does not equal bang sluts only.

In fact, in today's world, you need even more Game than is required to bang sluts in order to get and keep a successful LTR, never mind a successful family.

Well-known Red Pill writer Rollo Tomassi - himself a husband and father - just started a series of posts on Red Pill parenting. Here is the first:

http://therationalmale.com/2015/09/28/th...ll-parent/

Quote:

This week I’ll be exploring a new angle in the Red Pill: how parenting and family relations influence and direct the Blue Pill conditioning of a generation, and what Red Pill aware men can do to redirect this. It was encouraging to see fathers and sons together at the Man In Demand conference. I honestly wasn’t expecting this, but it was a humbling experience to see fathers and sons coming to a Red Pill awareness together. I also met with a few men who told me their sons had either turned them on to my books or that they would be required reading for their sons before they got out of their teens.

One of the greatest benefits of the conference was the inspiration and material I got from the men attending. A particular aspect of this was addressing how men might educate and help others to unplug and in that lay a wealth of observations about how these men’s upbringings had brought them to both their Blue Pill idealisms and ultimately their Red Pill awareness.

I’m beginning this series with some of these observations, but I plan to break protocol and be a bit more proscriptive in the last essay with regard to what I think may be beneficial ways to be a Red Pill parent. In The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine I included a chapter which outlined how men are primarily conditioned for lives and ego-investments in a Blue Pill idealism that ultimately prepares them for better serving the Feminine Imperative when their usefulness is necessary to fulfill women’s sexual (and really lifetime) strategies.

That chapter is only available in the book, but if you have it, it might be helpful to review it after you read this.

Reader (and MiD conference attendee) Jeremy had an excellent observation from Solipsism II:

@Capper

The only thing I take issue with is the advice, from the book that his wife read, which told her to place her husband above her children. Children come first for a mother, and they should for the father too. I’m not advocating to neglect her husband, but he needs to accept some biological facts and not be hurt because of it

What you’re repeating there is actually the first steps of a hostage crisis. That is first-wave-feminism boilerplate response. It is the first redirection in a misdirection perpetuated by women in order to sink any notion that men should have some authority on matters. Think of the children. It’s been repeated for so long, it’s a cliche…

It’s typical crab-basket behavior. Women seek power over their lives and somehow instinctively believe that the only way to achieve power is to take someone else’s power away. So they attack male authority by placing children above the man. This then becomes a stick with which to beat male authority into submission, as the woman is allowed to speak for the needs of the children. This is literally textbook subversion, and plays out on so many levels of human culture it tends to make one consider how boring humanity must look to any alien life that happens to stumble across our unremarkable corner of the universe.

When the children’s needs become the “throne” of the household, and the wife is allowed to speak for the children’s needs, then the authority of the household becomes a rather grotesque combination of immediate child needs and female manipulation. Worse still, the children are now effectively captives of the wife, because at any time she can accuse the husband of anything the law is forced to throw him in handcuffs for, and take away the kids.

What you’re repeating is the first steps in that hostage situation. Equalists will try to convince you of the logic that children come first, that children are the future, that all of that which makes them better is more important than anything else. This is bullshit.

Do you think cavemen sat around in caves all day playing and socially interacting with their babies? Do you think they had some kind of fresh-gazelle-delivery service that allowed him to interact with the children directly? Do you think the mothers were not under exactly the same survival condition, needing to forage for carrots, potatoes, berries, etc, while the men hunted and built structures? Do you think the “children” came first in any other era of humanity? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.

Children are more than capable of getting everything they need to know about how to live simply by watching their parents live a happy life together. This is how humans did things for eons, changing that order and putting the “children first” is frankly perverse and the beginning of the destruction of the family. Children are more than information sponges, they are blank minds that want desperately to be adult. Children want to understand everything that everyone around them understands, which is why a parent telling a child that you’re “disappointed” in them is more effective than a paddling. If you focus on children, you are frankly just spoiling them with attention that they will never receive in the real world. If instead you focus on yourself and your spouse, you will raise children that see you putting yourself as the MPO (as Rollo calls it), and your marriage/partnership as an important part of what you do each day.

Don’t put the children first. That’s essentially like negotiating with a terrorist, they’ll only make more demands on you until the cops storm the plane and lots of people get shot.

Your Mental Point of Origin should never waver from yourself.

American Parenting is Killing American Marriage

Of course, Ayelet Waldman’s blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them. This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods-before-me. As with many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but many wives would be offended if their husbands said, “You’re pretty great, but my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior.”

Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. A father could admit to desiring his wife without seeming like a distracted parent, but society is not as willing to cut Ms. Waldman that same slack. It is unseemly for a mother to enjoy pleasures that don’t involve her children.
There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.
In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters? Perhaps it is time that we gave the parenthood religion a second thought.
I think these quotes outline the dynamic rather well; a method of control women can use to distract and defer away from Beta husbands is a simple appeal to their children’s interests as being the tantamount to their own or their husbands. If the child sits at the top of that love hierarchy and that child’s wellbeing and best interests can be defined by the mother, the father/husband is relegated to subservience to both the child and the mother.

This gets back to the preternatural Empathy myth that women, by virtue of just being a woman, has some instinctual, empathetic insight about placing that child above all else. That child becomes a failsafe and a buffer against having to entertain a real relationship with the father/husband and really consider his position in her Hypergamous estimate of him.

If that man isn’t what her Hypergamous instinct estimates him being as optimal (he’s the unfortunate Beta), then “she’s tolerating his presence for the kids’ sake.” Jeremy was responding to a comment made by Capper about an incident where a woman was being encouraged to put her husband before her kids in that love hierarchy priority. The fact that this is so unnatural for a woman that it would need to be something necessary to train a woman to speaks volumes about the facility with which women presume that their default priority ought to be for her kids.

Most men buy into this prioritization as well. It seems deductively logical that a woman would necessarily need to put her child’s attention priorities well above her husband’s. What’s counterintuitive to both parents is that it’s the health of their relationship (or lack) that defines and exemplifies the complementary gender understanding of the child. Women default to using their children as cats paws to assume primary authority of the family, and men are already preconditioned to accept this as the normative frame for the family.

As with all your relations with women, establishing a strong Frame is essential. The problem for men with even the strongest initial Frame with their wives is that they cede that Frame to their kids. Most men want the very best for their children; or there may be a Promise Keepers dynamic that guy is dealing with an makes every effort to outdo, and make up for, the sins of his father by sacrificing everything, but in so doing he loses sight of creating and maintaining a dominant Frame for not just his wife, but the state of his family.

It’s important to bear in mind that when you set the Frame of your relationship, whether it’s a first night lay or a marriage prospect, women enter your reality and your frame – the same needs to apply to any children within that relationship. Far too many fathers are afraid to embody that strong authority and expect their wives (and children) to recognize what should be his primary place in the family.

The fear is that by assuming this position they become the typical asshole father they hoped to avoid for most of their formative years. Even for men with strong masculine role models in their lives, the hesitation comes from a culture that ridicules fathers, or presumes they are potentially violent towards children. Thus the abdication of fatherly authority, in as positive a tense as possible, is abdicated before that child is even born.

Ectogenesis

At the Man in Demand conference last weekend I had a young guy ask me what my thoughts were about a man’s being interested in becoming a single parent of his own accord. I had this same question posed to me during my second interview with Christian McQueen and essentially it breaks down to a man supplying his own sperm, buying a suitable woman’s viable ovum to fertilize himself, and, I presume, hire a surrogate mother to carry that child to term. Thereupon he takes custody of that child and raises it himself as a single father.

In theory this arrangement should work out to something similar to a woman heading off the the sperm bank to (once again Hypergamously) select a suitable sperm donor and become a single parent of her own accord. It’s interesting that we have institutions and facilities like sperm banks to ensure women’s Hypergamy, but men, much less heterosexual men, must have exceptional strength of purpose and determination to do so.

Despite dealing with the very likely inability of the surrogate mother to disentangle her emotional investment in giving birth to a child she will never raise (hormones predispose women to this) a man must be very determined financially and legally to become a single father by choice. In principle I understand the sentiment of Red Pill men wanting to raise a child on their own. The idea is to do so free from the (at least direct) influence of the Feminine Imperative. However, I think this is in error.

My feelings on this are two part. First, being a complementarian, it is my belief that a child requires two healthy adult parents, male and female, with a firm, mature grasp of the importance, strengths and weaknesses of their respective gender roles (based on biological and evolutionary standards). Ideally they should exemplify and demonstrate those roles in a healthy fashion so as a boy or a girl can learn about masculinity and femininity from their respective parents’ examples.

Several generations after the sexual revolution, and after several generations of venerating feminine social primacy, we’ve arrived at a default collective belief that single mothers can perform the function of modeling and shaping masculinity in boys as well as femininity in girls equally well. The underlying social message in that is that women/mothers can be a one woman show with regard to parenting and thus men, fathers or the buffoons mainstream culture portrays them as, are superfluous to parenting – nice to have around, but not vital. This belief also finds fertile ground in the notion that men are obsolete.

Secondly, for all the equalist emphasis of Jungian gender theories about anima/animus and balancing feminine and masculine personality interests, it is evidence of an agenda to suggest that a woman is equally efficient in teaching and modeling masculine aspects to children as well as any positively masculine man. With that in mind, I think the reverse would be true for a deliberately single father – even with the best of initial intents.

Thus, I think a father might serve as a poor substitute for a woman when it comes to exemplifying a feminine ideal. The argument then of course is that, courtesy of a feminine-centric social order, women have so divorced themselves of conventional femininity that perhaps a father might teach a daughter (if not demonstrate for her) a better feminine ideal than a woman. Conventional, complementary femininity is so lost on a majority of women it certainly seems like logic for a man to teach his daughter how to recapture it.

Raising Betas

This was the trap that 3rd wave feminism fell into; the belief that they knew how best to raise a boy into their disempowered and emasculated ideal of their redefined masculinity. Teach that boy a default deference and sublimation to feminine authority, redefine it as respect, teach him to pee sitting down and share in his part of the choreplay, and well, the world is bound to be a better more cooperative place right?

So it is for these reason I think that the evolved, conventional, two-parent heterosexual model serves best for raising a child. I cannot endorse single parenthood for either sex. Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role ought to be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

I’ll admit that when I got the question of single fatherhood I was a bit incredulous of the mechanics of it. Naturally it would be an expense most men couldn’t entertain. However, as promised, I did my homework on it, and found out that ectogenesis was yet another science-fiction-come-reality that feminists have already considered and have planned for:

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important. Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?

[…]“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”

This was a great article and it came at an auspicious time – the time we find women sweating about having their sexual market leverage with men potentially being undercut by sex-bots and/or immersive virtual sex substitutes.

[Highlander]

(10-12-2015 01:18 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

And what is the end of the game? Ultimately if you never reproduce, your life was merely a bunch noise and commotion about nothing. And by virtue of the extended duration of human development, long term relationships are a necessity.

I have to disagree with this.
There was a time where it was biologically absolutely necessary to reproduce yourself in order that our species can make it.
But this aspect is no more longer true in times where overpopulation exists and will be also in the future a big problem.
Still having children might be for many men important.
But in order to have children, you do not need longer to marry, necessarily.

Sure we like the fun and boost to our egos, but a mature man recognizes the importance of one day starting a family. And far from being 'against biology', a quick look at some history books will show you this has always been the dominant form of reproduction of the human species. One man, head of his house, in perpetual union with one woman, and their children. We are not bonobos.

I have already left long time ago the notch-count-hunt because I am long enough in the game and personally I have achieved regards to hook ups everything i ever wanted. But I have to admit that suddenly I have this feeling that it would be nice to settle down once, with a high value woman.

But again: It seems to me that this would be not a very smart idea to be honest.
It is not only the case that it is already at the present time difficult to settle down successfully and longterm, but you also have to anticipate that the situation regards to this will even worsen in the future -> hence the chances will get even worse.

That this form is no longer safe in western countries, is no black mark against the form itself. It is a black mark against western culture. The response to this is to question either how to escape western culture or to foment a revolution therein, not to question long term relationships.

It is also not a very sure bet in "better" countries for this matter as you can see in the mentioned thread "finding a wife abroad" in the travel section + again: You have to do some anticipating man.
The western influence also hits strongly on SEA, Southamerica and EE - so even though you might find at the present time a solid prospect (which will be also there not too easy), the situation might become worse in the future.

And @ 262:
Thanks for the article man! In general I like the material from Rollo Tomassi very much, so will read it as soon as possible.

[The Black Knight]

(10-12-2015 01:18 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

And what is the end of the game? Ultimately if you never reproduce, your life was merely a bunch noise and commotion about nothing. And by virtue of the extended duration of human development, long term relationships are a necessity.

Sure we like the fun and boost to our egos, but a mature man recognizes the importance of one day starting a family. And far from being 'against biology', a quick look at some history books will show you this has always been the dominant form of reproduction of the human species. One man, head of his house, in perpetual union with one woman, and their children. We are not bonobos.

That this form is no longer safe in western countries, is no black mark against the form itself. It is a black mark against western culture. The response to this is to question either how to escape western culture or to foment a revolution therein, not to question long term relationships.

This! Forming strong bonds, building lasting relationships, and passing on knowledge and wisdom to the next generation to advance the human race requires game awareness to do it right. Especially in this day and age.

People discuss LTR screening stuff because most western women are shit for relationships and the cultural/legal environment is horrible to even have a relationship with a GOOD woman. You need game and red pill knowledge to counter this. Without it, you're dead. It might be difficult but its not impossible. People who are game/red pill aware are not the types of people who back down from a difficult task just because its difficult; they find a way to make it work.

[TheMaleBrain]

Highlander

You are probably in a different stage of your life than some of us.
I met Roosh at the Berlin lecture. He says he get tired of game. In his words "A man has only so many approaches in his life time".

Monogamy is the basis of civilization. It is extremely hard these days - I'll give you that.
However, the older you get, the less energy you have. You sometimes want, not the blue-pill dream, but to lead your own household.

Some of us want kids (I have 2). We are basically motivated by the genome to reproduce (that is actually why we want sex).
Game can be used in LTR (or even mLTR) as well.

[MikeS]

(10-12-2015 01:18 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

And what is the end of the game? Ultimately if you never reproduce, your life was merely a bunch noise and commotion about nothing...

Take an ever so slightly longer perspective - absolutely minuscule against the span of human history (itself a blink of an eye in the history of the universe, but no reason to zoom the perspective out quite that far) - and your own genes, when you have children, will be completely watered down after a dozen generations or so (and lose a lot of their impact after only a few), around 300 years.
And as far as remembering you as more than a name, in most families that's probably past in a couple of generations, and after that many of your descendants - barring an interest in genealogy - probably won't even know your name or anything about who you were and what you did or didn't accomplish.

Unless you're one of a tiny group of people who make historic impact, for better or worse - through politics, inventions, arts, war - you'll be forgotten in a few generations, even by most of your own descendants. And even those historic figures have an expiration date.

That said at 38 I'm starting to feel the biological tug to consider whether or not I should have children (and if I do I'll want them no later than my mid 40s, I don't want to be geriatric when my kids finish high school). But other than the ancient biological drive to reproduce, I'm certainly going to also weigh the rational aspects of having children. More so right now than usual, when the future of Europe is looking bleak for the current and next (and who knows how many) generation. And things aren't exactly rosy many other places around the world either.

[Phoenix]

(10-12-2015 08:45 AM)MikeS Wrote:  

Take an ever so slightly longer perspective - absolutely minuscule against the span of human history (itself a blink of an eye in the history of the universe, but no reason to zoom the perspective out quite that far) - and your own genes, when you have children, will be completely watered down after a dozen generations or so (and lose a lot of their impact after only a few), around 300 years.
And as far as remembering you as more than a name, in most families that's probably past in a couple of generations, and after that many of your descendants - barring an interest in genealogy - probably won't even know your name or anything about who you were and what you did or didn't accomplish.

Unless you're one of a tiny group of people who make historic impact, for better or worse - through politics, inventions, arts, war - you'll be forgotten in a few generations, even by most of your own descendants. And even those historic figures have an expiration date.

Yes yes, live is pointless and meaningless and we're all just waiting to die

That attitude's certainly one way to drag your body through life, but I prefer mine.

[Highlander]

(10-12-2015 09:08 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 08:45 AM)MikeS Wrote:  

Take an ever so slightly longer perspective - absolutely minuscule against the span of human history (itself a blink of an eye in the history of the universe, but no reason to zoom the perspective out quite that far) - and your own genes, when you have children, will be completely watered down after a dozen generations or so (and lose a lot of their impact after only a few), around 300 years.
And as far as remembering you as more than a name, in most families that's probably past in a couple of generations, and after that many of your descendants - barring an interest in genealogy - probably won't even know your name or anything about who you were and what you did or didn't accomplish.

Unless you're one of a tiny group of people who make historic impact, for better or worse - through politics, inventions, arts, war - you'll be forgotten in a few generations, even by most of your own descendants. And even those historic figures have an expiration date.

Yes yes, live is pointless and meaningless and we're all just waiting to die

That attitude's certainly one way to drag your body through life, but I prefer mine.

Though his attitude usually also provides a lot of relief and mental, emotional capacity.
You also can combine this attitude with a positive focus and switch between them.

Check out Marcus Aurelius and his meditations if this attitude is new for you.
Maybe you will find out that it actually can give you a grounded perspective and a lot of positive energy, as well.

Back on topic:
I am with you guys that the idea of settling once down, set up an own family, raise your "own blood" , etc. becomes as well to me more and more attractive,
but on the other side deep down I am just a realist and I think odds for the mentioned stuff are worse and what is also important, will become even worse.

Still, I am reading at the moment Rollo Tomassi' s article regards to this topic and there are some interesting thoughts inside.

But overall I think settling down in today's world and even more in tomorrow's world is a decision with a negative expected value in the long run, like we call it in the world if business
So finally everyone has to make his own decision on this one by hoping for the best, while expecting the worst (and being prepared for it - for instance by protecting your networth and properties throughout trusts, for instance) combined with maximising the chances, that it will work out (having game, staying independent, etc.)

[thoughtgypsy]

Phoenix's reply contains a great deal of wisdom and pretty much sums up my thoughts. For most people, sport fucking will get old after a while and after a certain age they'll look for companionship. I can understand that impulse, we're compelled by our biology to reproduce and pair bond. Children born into two-parent households are less likely to become criminals or develop antisocial tendencies. It's comforting to have a person you can rely on when you need a ride to the hospital, etc. For many, I think LTRs and families will be more fulfilling in the long run.

However, anyone pushing guys to enter a state recognized marriage in modern western society is insane. You don't need to be married in order to have a committed relationship between consenting adults. In the current legal regime, when a woman pushes a man for marriage, she knows the cards are stacked in her favor. She knows she has all the leverage in this situation and is basically pushing you into a hostage situation. She is saying that she doesn't believe your relationship would last without the government putting a gun to your head and threatening to take away everything you own, including your liberty and children. Guys, don't get married the way things are now. If she wants a family, tell her you can have that outside of legal marriage. If she stands on being a religious snowflake, tell her you can get married in private by a pastor or have the ceremony without applying for the license. If she still won't relent after you explain the reality of modern marriage, she doesn't respect you and sees you as nothing more than her slave to exploit.

Foreign marriages have a greater chance of success, but there's still issues there. Women are much more sensitive to social pressures than men and will have a strong desire to conform to their environment. This is why marriage worked so well in ages past. Society understood that women are constantly looking for the best guy they can get, and that they're compelled to break up their families after 4-7 years. They were only able to curb those impulses by making infidelity grounds for public shame and alienation from the herd. Those days are long gone, and today we have the opposite where women are encouraged by society to break up their families. Even if you find a foreign virgin snowflake, you're going to be taking her out of a culture where chastity and marriage are sacred, and putting her into a culture with slut walks, feminism, and female entitlement. The women around her will often be miserable spinsters who know they're damaged goods, and won't hesitate to ruin her happy marriage in order to lower the competition. She will want to make friends and fit into a group, and she'll start hearing all about how your patriarchal arrangement is abusive and start clawing to get out after the 7 year itch. It may work if you're the one moving to her, but for most guys this isn't an option because of their careers.

For guys jaded with the hookup scene, there has to be better options than marriage. If guys are looking for long term commitment, there's no reason they have to get married. All that will do is give her control of your life. Two consenting adults will stay together if they want to. The cards are stacked against it, but there are ways to improve the odds. We have to start by understanding women's nature. Roosh's "How to stop the fall of women" contains a ton of insight into the predispositions of women, and a path towards forming solutions. They're naturally weaker, more dependent on men in order to survive, and constantly searching for the best genes for their children. This makes them entitled, corrupted by increased options, fearful of social alienation, and usually more ruthless than men. Environment matters much more for women, so we should focus on providing an environment that shatters entitlement and reinforces the concept that they must take responsibility for their actions. Couples should live in rural areas wherever possible to limit options for cheating, and consume less pop culture. They should surround themselves with friends and family that are willing to shame and alienate women who behave in destructive ways. Women naturally crave security and leadership, so they'd actually be happiest in this arrangement. Though it's probably only possible in flyover country, at least it's a start for those who're looking for something more long term.

[Gmac]

Unless you want to be the 80 year old guy in the club or dead by 50, you need a long term plan. Doesn't mean your plan can't include some side hustles, if that's your thing. You might find as you get older you're content once you find a the right woman, but you won't ever know that unless you get experience screening women and being in LTRs - and maybe come to enjoy it.

[XXL]

And the alternative is what, chase many random women at once forever?

You're bit too paranoid about relationships in general. With the knowledge you gather from sources like this forum you should be way better prepared for any turbulences along the way so don't panic.

Hope for the best be prepared for the worst. Create reality where you can meet quality women and choose one that fits you best. Nobody said it's easy.

The most important thing is to have freedom of choice whether you chase after girls or when you break up with one and want to meet another.

[Menace]

Most well adjusted men eventually get tired of doing huge volume of notches/approaches, and settle with an LTR (with side girls as needed). Believe it or not, intimacy with a well chosen woman is a wonderful thing. If you don't feel it, you're just not there yet. Keep banging. It can take a while.

[kaotic]

I'm one of those guys.

I spin plates, bang sluts, go on dates, approach women, game as much as I can.

....I also have an LTR that's approaching 2 years.

She recently discussed with me her plans of having children and future plans.

thread-24128...pid1129517

I'm struggling with this, even some older players are.

Hell even Roosh had a discussion about this.

You can have children but not be married, you can have a child and still enjoy parts of the playboy lifestyle.


There might be a chance you settled down with a girl and she turns out alright.

Being game aware, and gaming your woman is an advantage over the "blue pill" male.

[HankMoody]

I have zero desire to be in a LTR.

[Dusty]

Most Hollywood actors and rock stars who can smash a different 10 every night end up getting married.