The red pill approach that tells us to use game & continue to use game into marriage seems like a recipe for misery to me. I don’t want to spend 30 yrs using techniques to put a woman under control. Yrs of acting against your nature; it would be like being at work but at home.
-
-
2. My approach is to drop all appearances and say exactly what I think and feel, whatever works on that “natural” basis works. It does make me an arsehole quite often which is a form of “game”, but I find the horsetrading approach to relationships miserable.
-
3. Also, I think nature has an intention for people and that attempts to be rational or horsetrade frustrate this. Essentially, I advocate “just being yourself”—except I mean really, really do that: say things you actually think or feel, even if it seems embarrassing or stupid.
-
That's why I said "something equivalent". My point being that just like women can't understand "game", we can't understand whatever the female equivalent is. At least not fully. I dont think the issue of relationships is at all "solved" intellectually, only practically.
-
1. I think we can, because we can be more objective than women. We make systems and understand things beyond ourselves. We can’t know the subjective experience of a woman, but we can understand her systems—as mentioned in the other post, these are predictable.
-
2. But, of course, I believe in a spiritual or supernatural aspect beyond mere material manipulation. Nature has her devices and desires,too. I think conciousness interferes. There are people I know who should have mated, but “reason” & modernity interfered.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.