Train with Mystery Get Trained in your city



Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Loyalty Men VS. Women Unnatural characteristic Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Loyalty Men VS. Women Unnatural characteristic

    This post was written as a rant after describing characteristics that woman can convey to a man to attract him which I mentioned in a previous post. I stated that woman have a hard time being loyal as it is not their fault because it is not natural. I discuss below...

    I don't expect a female to be loyal since it's damn near impossible for a women to be loyal to a man over a lifetime. Especially a women of high value who is a target of other men. This is a reason I don't have a double standard. Women are emotional creatures which allows any alpha male/player/PUA to be able to increase a woman's buying temperature to the point of sex. Which happens because women act on emotions in the moment and rationalize later due to chick logic. Read articles from TD on this forum if you have no clue what I am referring too. Secret Society especially.

    The only way to keep a woman truly loyal would be to focus on keeping the women fully attracted emotionally at all times. Even this is only a preventive measure and can not be successfully sustained unless the women is always at your side. In my opinion the lack of loyalty in a woman is necessarily not a bad thing. It forces a man to be on his A game and doesn't allow him to get lazy or slack off if he want's to keep that women in his "tribe". Also a man never owns a woman so in my liberal opinion he should only deserve her beauty and presence as long as he remains alpha, on top of his A game, keeps her attracted, etc etc etc...

    On a side note... this is why our religious ancestor AFC's created marriage. It was created as an attempt to control a women and instill the mirage of loyalty as an extra leash to keep women from straying. Once again being with one women is not natural for us and for almost all mammals. Example: lions. Its merely practical when raising young to keep the man around.

    Thus for these 2 reasons marriage was created and still accepted by even non religious people today. A spoken truce...a spoken bond to agree on suppressing our natural instincts as men and women that are instilled as reasons of survival.

    This also allows us to evolve our species by giving the young extra attention. Which also helps our survival and allows us as humans to further expand our intelligence which needs nuturing to prevent external threats that are greater than our physical strengths can't prevent. Example: Human's suppressing life threatening diseases with intelligence such as AIDS, Small Pox.

    But thousands of years ago when we where less intelligent we still thought the world was flat. We created religion, stories to explain everything and since we couldn't explain with intelligence and science. Our emotions forced the need to create an explanation. With lack of intelligence, stories where created and the idea of marriage came about as we evolved into societies to prevent each other from killing each other when competing for woman. Logically we all agreed that when a woman was courted we would put a rock on their finger to signal that she is off the market and could not be competed for. To death due them part. Love-Rhetoric came in parallel to satisfy us emotionally in going against our natural instincts.

    To me marriage is a trade-off. Marriage helps men as much as it possibly can to keep a women loyal amongst competing males. For women it keeps the man around for protection in raising the young.

    When a woman gets mad at a man for cheating it's caused by their instinct to keep a man around to protect the young of the tribe. This is why most women will stay and go through hell with a man(afc) when kids are involved until that kid is fully raised. Even if they are not "in love" or still attracted to their husband.

    When a man gets mad at a women for cheating it's caused by our natural instinct to "herd" as many women as possible in attempt to spread our seed as much as possible to replicate as many humans to keep the race going.

    It's more natural for both men and women to cheat. Men have a natural instinct to spread their seed for replication. Woman think emotionally in moment's of attraction and rationalize later which allows alpha males to spread as many seeds as possible.

    So...lets us all end the double standard's and understand that being with one person is unnatural and only practical and necessary when kid's are involved.

    Lastly, Men can be loyal to a women more easily than a woman can be towards a man. Men think more logically and less emotionally. We can control our natural instincts by not putting ourselves in those situations. Especially since men do the approaching.

    P.S. I state all this just from a scientific view of us humans...as it's not very esthetically pleasing
    Last edited by FireWorkz; 03-23-2009, 02:16 AM.

  • #2
    I agree with you.. but one point marriage has no benefit for a man, you dont need to sign a contract, there is no benefit by signing a piece of paper

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the point I was trying to make is that marriage helps an AFC as an extra leash to be able to keep the women, and one of the reason's it was created by man through in religion. In essence it would help to trigger the wife's logical side of her brain when she is in attraction with another man. "O I can't do this, I'm married."

      Yes I agree...as a man who finds religion corrupt and useless as it brainwashes people and lies to them instilling fear and laziness(lack of responsibility)...there is no purpose for marriage.

      If I want to be with a women the rest of my life, I do just that. I do not need to have ceremony and sign a piece of paper to prove a commitment and restrict myself of my freedom.

      Comment


      • #4
        Id have to disagree with your post in several respects.

        One, loyalty is an individual trait.Its not a charachteristic that can be granted or revoked against men or women on a vast scale.Some women are loyal to the point of death for their men, and vice versa.I dated a chick who not only wouldnt cheat on me, but would do just about anything I commanded , legal or illegal.

        Yes, she was kinda crazy, but thats beside the point-[COLOR="Red"]its no more natural to be polyamourous or not as men or women than it is that all men must like cars, or all women must adore the color pink. Its an individual trait, and some guys and gals value it more than others.[/COLOR]
        Its a false trap to assume that its not 'natural' for anyone to be loyal/exclusive based on your sole observations.

        Marriage was NOT created to prop-up AFC values of retaining mates. Believe it or not the idea of love causing people to marry is a [I]very [/I]recent phenomenon.Take the clock back 100 years-marriage then and times before was usually an act of political or economic favor, not so much the happy ending to a love story.Your family or parents either determined your mate for you, or they passed heavy judegement on who youd tie the knot with to ensure that they 'got theirs' as a family.

        After that point ,it was almost expected that youd have an affair-as long as you didnt advertise it, and provided for your family's responsibilities.

        Okay Arctic, but thats 100 years ago.What about today?

        Look at the divorce rate. If marriage is supposed to keep people loyal, its doing a shitty job of it.[COLOR="Red"]If youre with someone who doesnt improve your reality positively, no contract or vow on this Earth will keep you with them.[/COLOR]
        Theres nothing wrong with seeking a mate who can exclusively improve your reality.But understand, thats a right that must be *earned*,not given to any HB with a nice rack.

        Thats not a concept many people understand today-and if they do, its typically because they learned it the hard way.

        Since a majority of AFC's (and HBs !)dont posess security of self required in a long term relationship, those insecurities surface and ultimately destroy the relationship.Heaven above knows too many sob stories of women and men who dated someone that at first was fun and awesome, who then flipped like a coin once things were 'comitted'.

        That doesnt mean the whole concept of exclusivity is invalid.Its a similiar intellectual problem as assuming because of car accidents, driving a car is a gamble on your life.Yes, one or two bad wrecks happen. It doesnt mean the whole idea is a crock.

        You wont hear about the family of 4 whos been happy for decades. Nor will you turn on the TV or see your friends admire a young couple that have been honestly together for years.

        Its hard to keep a positive outlook when you see people fucking each other over (in every way, sometimes all at once..... ) , then lying about it as if its ok. I dont say that to judge, but when youre screwing your best friends boyfriend/girlfriend and lying to the face of all parties involved its not a stretch to call that out as low-down behavior.

        Bear this in mind as you sarge-dont give up. Dont give into the negative BS that everyone's out to use each other.Understand that for every BS incident you see as a Venusian Artist, theres someone out there doing it right.One day, that someone will be you.



        -Arctic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Arctic View Post
          Its a false trap to assume that its not 'natural' for anyone to be loyal/exclusive based on your sole observations.
          I expressed my opinion not on my observations of relationships but more on our S&R values that I discussed in another post, These post's where meant to be together but the post was way too long so I divided them into two discussions. My main point is women are less loyal due to the reason they are much more emotional in decision making. Referring to chick logic...resulting in any good Alpha male or PUA being able to attract them regardless of there situation.

          While men are more capable of being loyal since we think more logical in situations. Though it's hard for a man also since it's natural for a man to be having sex with as many women as possible to spread his seed. It's en-grained in our circuitry.

          Loyalty requires suppression of natural urges to stay loyal. Especially in situations of attraction and seduction from someone who is not your committed spouse.

          Originally posted by Arctic View Post
          Believe it or not the idea of love causing people to marry is a [I]very [/I]recent phenomenon.Take the clock back 100 years-marriage then and times before was usually an act of political or economic favor, not so much the happy ending to a love story.
          I didn't make a point to say that love was the reason for marriage...I said the exact opposite...

          Originally posted by Arctic View Post
          Look at the divorce rate. If marriage is supposed to keep people loyal, its doing a shitty job of it.
          I mentioned that marriage was and still is an added leash to keep two people together. Of course the divorce rate is so high because marriage is unnatural. The divorce rate helps to prove my theory. Marriage is a fear tactic that came from religion and goes right along with religion practices. To use fear and brain washing to keep people in order. In the case of marriage to use vows that instill a fear and shame into people. The reason the divorce rate is so high now is because religion is losing the battle against intelligence and marriage has lost it's sanctity. Before a 100 years ago and further into are ancestry during a time when religion was at it's height of power it was frowned upon and despised to break that "sacred" oath of marriage. Especially for women. Women where deem adulterer's and poisoned by the devil. Lol which is complete non-sense. Women where also cast off as witches. Marriage was a suppression tool for the crazy AFC religious nut bags of our past.

          Marriage has taken on a new meaning in our present day. It's more a celebration of "love" and verbal commitment which no longer holds the same weight of fear or shame when getting divorced. Thus making it much more acceptable in today's society. The ritual of marriage is a joke when we recite until death do you part, through sickness and through health, through richer or for poor. For better or for worse.

          Men do leave when the women lose there beauty of there youth and women do leave of times of poor. Women are VALUE seekers and so are men. Women value securities while men value beauty. We both will leave when it get's worse.

          On a side note: We need each other for survival. Men protect, women nurture. Yes the lines have who does which have come closer together the more we evolve but these fact's stills remains. Yes alpha woman with a complete AFC dork. The woman could protect more then the man. There are also exceptions to the rule. But Men need woman's value of beauty and nurture IE Replication value. While women value the securities that a man offers. Protection and provider. IE Survival value. We both need each other to mate and make a baby so we both play our roles. As I mentioned in today's society the roles have merged closer together for some relationships. Many woman can provide in this society while many men can nurture. WE BOTH SEEK VALUE for a balanced family to raise a child.

          With that said yes this does not apply to all cases of marriage. The ones that do work are men who can keep there woman attracted and keep there value. It has nothing to do with the oath they took during marriage. If anything the women is saying...I HOPE you stay the man you are that led me to this day and for the AFC man he is saying... I HOPE you stay the caring loving angel that you seem to be up until this day.

          Marriage makes a lot of couples get lazy and since there is an oath of marriage and a false sense of security, both parties get lazy and don't tend to their qualities about themselves that keep there significant other attracted.

          Originally posted by Arctic View Post
          Since a majority of AFC's (and HBs !)dont posess security of self required in a long term relationship, those insecurities surface and ultimately destroy the relationship.
          Agreed...

          Originally posted by Arctic View Post
          That doesnt mean the whole concept of exclusivity is invalid.
          Agreed, if this is more than just a point but a reply to my post. My post merely is trying to show how unnatural exclusivity is and to take the double standard away from women. Especially for us PUA's who understand a woman's nature. We should not judge and we should understand that loyalty is something strived for logically on a daily basis and not something that should be expected. Exclusiveness can be obtained but as I mention it takes suppression of natural urges and constant effort when wanted between a man and a women. Men to men loyalty in friendship is much more obtainable.

          I quote chris rock "When a man see's his buddy with a amazing girl he says to himself "Man I need a girl just like that". When a woman see's her girl with an amazing man she says to herself "I WANT THAT ONE!"."

          The reason for chris rock's joke:

          Men look at it logically and think, theirs a ton of women I can find one similiar.

          Women look at it emotionally and pre-selection and social value takes place. They see there g/f's emotional state and buying temperature and want the same. I WANT THAT ONE! He has what it takes.

          Of course all women are different. Not all women act on this. But they still feel it. Meaning they can act on it if that attraction hit's a point they can't control.

          Originally posted by Arctic View Post
          Bear this in mind as you sarge-dont give up. Dont give into the negative BS that everyone's out to use each other.Understand that for every BS incident you see as a Venusian Artist, theres someone out there doing it right.One day, that someone will be you.
          Wondering if your preaching to the community...I agree if you view things such as "cheating" or how I describe it "Being with other people sexually" as negative. Yes don't allow it to effect your sarging and your pursuit for commitment to one women.

          For me there will not be any giving up when I sarge or give into any negative BS because I don't see any of the BS. My take on it is that my views are not negative. More realistic and scientific. I am very liberal and view women in the best of light. I love women and understand them. With my view I do not see "cheating" the way most people do. I don't see it as people using each other or betraying each other because I view it as something natural. Being with more than one person or being attracted to someone and acting on it sexually is natural. I see ignorance when two people commit verbally and then are let down when the other cheats.

          The day I settle down with a women to mate and have a family life it will probably be with a women who can accept being sexual with other people while being together as a family. A level of trust and ability not to get jealous will definitely have to be evident. I'm liberal and will find a women who is the same when it's time.

          In ether type of relationship I think we can agree with your statement in that "Since a majority of AFC's (and HBs !) don't possess security of self required in a long term relationship, those insecurities surface and ultimately destroy the relationship."

          We all need to be secure with who we are to be able to make a relationship last. As men we need to be as strong as possible in all facets of our being to keep the women attracted. The women must also be as strong as possible to keep the man wanting to stay strong in order for a relationship to last. Any insecurities from ether side will create a problem in a relationship. It takes a certain level of strength of character along with the growing ability to adapt and conquer any insecurities that may arise to keep a relationship strong.

          Though attraction is the only KEY. Attraction cuts through everything. Thus the reason we see so many people who are wrong for each other continue to go back to each other due to the fact they are super attracted to each other.
          Last edited by FireWorkz; 03-24-2009, 03:57 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I actually agree, mostly, with your conclusions, but I disagree with your premise.

            First, this "men are logical, women are emotional" bullshit. Fact of the matter is, most men [i]and[/i] women are illogical. You seem to think we men are more logical because you belive your own rationalizations, while you manage to see through the to us strange rationalizations of women. "There are plenty of other similar girls out there" is just another way of saying "I can't have her because she doesn't want me or because [some self-imposed rule of some sort], so to protect my ego and self, I'll just tell myself that she's nothing special and move on."

            Now, the patterns are actually pretty rational, from a perspective of evolutionary psychology. A man wants to have sex with as many women as possible, to hopefully sire as many children as possible and as such increase the chance of his genes being replicated. A woman wants to have sex with more than one man because a) some men are "better" for reproductive purposes (healthy and good characteristics that mean it's probable the child will be healthy and inherit these characteristics) and b) the more men suspect the child may be theirs, the more men will protect her and the child.

            But modern life sort of invalidates these evolved patterns. We use protection to avoid children unless we feel ready for them (which is a logical choice, given the costs of having a child), and to prevent disease (which is logical no matter how you look at it). Women no longer need the protection of men (yet they still seek it). And so on and so forth. We men act no more out of logic than women, though our actions may at times seem more rational, especially to ourselves, who think like men. I would like to claim that our actions often [i]are[/i] more rational, but it has little to do with us men inherently [i]being[/i] more rational, and more to do with the circumstances around us making our hard-wired responses fit better with what is rational.

            Neither women nor men are lifetime monogamous, on that we agree. There are many different strategies that we've adopted, from serial monogamy to lifetime polygamy, but lifetime monogamy is exceedingly rare a strategy, because it's ineffective.

            I could rant on on some other points you make, but I haven't got the time.

            Comment


            • #7
              This thread is being moved to Fight Club because of it's inflammatory religion-bashing nature, which is a shame really because this topic would have had the potential for some interesting discussion if it could have been approached in a more mature manner.

              This is not the place to bash a person or groups religion beliefs, and it will not be tolerated.
              Last edited by Prophet; 03-25-2009, 02:00 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Okay I see your point and let me further discuss mine as I left out a major part of my argument. In a heated moment where emotions are heavily triggered in the brain. Such as an argument, attraction, or a stressful situation such of endangerment... Women act on those emotions and allow them to effect there decision making and though process far more than men.

                Read TD's Post on this forum in the article section on the topic's of The Secret Society and Chick Logic. The articles further my points and explain how women act on emotions in decision making and how they effect there thought process.

                Also read this article [URL="http://www.dallaspua.com/articles/the_truth_about_women.htm"]http://www.dallaspua.com/articles/the_truth_about_women.htm[/URL]

                Another proof of how we are more logical then women. Any AFC turned PUA can understand this. You can't pick up a women with logic. You must appeal to their emotions. You must raise there emotional state.

                So as a conclusion I merely state that for women when emotions are triggered they follow these emotions compared to following there logic which might tell them otherwise.

                Yes women can be just as logical as men in normal states of emotion. But when emotions are involved emotions take over the decision making process. This is the reason women go back to men who beat them and treat them like shit. There emotions are attracting them to this man and the constant drama keeps there buying temperature's high which women love.

                Another point that Men are more logical is the fact that Men on average tend to do better than women in MATH. It's proven.

                Lastly to further describe your point Thomas. I agree in normal state's women are just as logical in their decision making in terms of Survival and Replication. Being able to make a rational decision. But I disagree when they become emotional, they won't make the same logical conclusion. All rationale can be thrown out the window.

                Example: Many cases where women are being abused or mis-treated by a complete douche bag alpha male and if you can get the female away from him for a week to lower her emotional state. She will make the logical conclusion to leave him. But how many times have we seen that male be able to come around and change the woman's mind by appealing to her emotions. The woman completely drops her logical conclusion at the drop of a hat. I've seen this done countless time's with women who have been friends of mine in my AFC past. I used to get frustrated protecting this certain girl from her asshole b/f who I accidentally introduced her too. I would Beat his ass for hitting her and convince her logically to leave him for her own good. She logically hated him but emotionally was obsessed. She kept going back to him until eventually they had a kid. She was only 20. She finally left him. The reason...THE KID. She was able to put all her emotions into the kid. Which allowed her to finally keep her emotions in check and leave the S.O.B.

                This is necessary, as Alpha males are able to bring these emotions out of women which usually better's are Human Race by replicating stronger Men with the alpha's genes.

                But I will concur that human intelligence is slowly changing our evolutionary track. Our intelligence is changing the game and creating what will soon be called a NEO-HUMAN. Lol, watch Waking Life by Richard Link ladder made in 2004.

                Normal Beta males with weak gene's are able to use their intelligence to learn our evolution's code and teach themselves how to attract women. Instead of using natural born characteristic's. In my opinion this is necessary for the survival of our human race. Human's will have great things to accomplish to survive in the future that we can not even phantom at the moment. Things on a universe grand scale. I'll stop here as this leads to a whole different topic.

                One more point. Women being more emotional than logical is rationale for them. It allows them to do everything Thomas stated.

                "I would like to claim that our actions often are more rational, but it has little to do with us men inherently being more rational, and more to do with the circumstances around us making our hard-wired responses fit better with what is rational."

                This made no sense. Our hard-wired responses as men are inherent. Which leads to the conclusion that we are more rational as men compared to women. We are humans. We are the Observing eye. Our actions and thought's are what created the idea and frame for what is rationale. So if men seem to fit more to what is rationale, and this is caused by are hard-wired responses then YES we are more rationale. We don't have complete control our hard wired responses. The most we can do is suppress them or accentuate(don't know if this is the proper term...looking to say allow them to come to the forefront) them.

                In my experiences in life... a lot of arguments of YING VS. Yang tend to fall into the category of how you view the world. Your grand view would tend to co-exist more with (I don't have the correct technical term) that there is a GOD and a layed out plan. Rationale was created by something other than humans and we happen to just as men fall in the category of being more rationale. Please tell me if this is not what your are trying to say. I don't want to assume but this is my conclusion from your statement.

                My view tends to agree with the idea that though we where created from a higher energy in this universe(I can explain this is asked too) that we evolved into what we are and know today. Rationale wasn't possible until we had the brain power to conceive of it during an encounter with our environment. We as cavemen saw a animal cooked by a random fire. Ate the cooked meat and rationalized that this meat tasted better when cooked over this element fire compared to being eaten raw.

                Man I can get too deep into things.

                Later lol...

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm gonna start with the reply to the statement you quoted.

                  Don't worry, you've misread me. I'm simply saying that for certain aspects of life where rationality doesn't really affect our choices, the intuitive reaction, the gut reaction, of us men simply align much better with what analysis after the fact would show to be a better choice of action. Why? Probably a combination of natural selection and how we've built our society based on male principles.

                  I'll give you that women are generally more emotional, and men are generally [i]better[/i] at logic.

                  However, you've also turned my entire point upside down. I never claimed women were logical, or rational, or anything like that. Quite the opposite. Women are irrational crazy beings. But so are men. We're just better at rationalizing it away so we don't seem that way.

                  Of course the alpha male is great at making a woman feel good and wanting to be with him. He's an expert at manipulating her emotions, her irrational side, which controls her. But there are people, men and women, who know how to manipulate men just as well, to get whatever result they desire. Because, as I said, men are also irrational and lead more by our hopes, desires and fears than by cold, rational, logical thought.

                  You point at women who are being abused by their men and go "see there. Irrational." I'll point you at all the men who are being abused by their women (usually emotionally, because, hey, we men are generally physically more powerful), and go "see there. Irrational". I personally know or know of at least as many men having been in relationships with abusive women as women having been in abusive relationships with men, and they had a hard time getting out of them as well, because of, yes, emotions.

                  In fairness, I have to say that I do know a few guys who are relatively rational, and no women. These guys are, however, all very much geeks, nerds, you know, the socially inept sort of guy who just can't understand social interaction. Not doesn't understand, can't understand. Like, "that part of their brain just doesn't work" can't. These guys, at least the one who are tolerable to likable, are often really brilliant, and I've had the pleasure of discussing the topic of how one of these guys work with him. He claims he has "modules" that emulate social behaviour logically, I mean like internalized "if-then-else", and he can deconstruct them and point at how exactly they work. He manages well in any social situation where rational behaviour works (like professional relations), but once irrational behaviour strikes, he's usually lost and all his logical social emulation just doesn't give him good answers.

                  I'm rambling too much now, but the essence of my point was this: On a scale from rational to irrational, while men [i]may[/i] actually score more towards rationality than women, we're all in general pretty damn far over on the irrational side most of the time. We pursue our hopes and desires, and avoid our fears, and weigh them completely and utterly wrong compared to what we rationally should. Especially the fears. We choose sub-optimal courses of actions because we irrationally weigh the benefits and costs of these actions quite different from what is actually the case.

                  To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, we're not Homo Sapiens, the Thinking Man, we're Pan Narrans, the Storytelling Ape.
                  Last edited by Thomas; 03-25-2009, 04:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Touche...did I spell that right? lol

                    After my last post I actually thought about all the AFC's out there in the world who would sit parallel with all the irrational women. I had a feeling you would add that to your argument and I completely agree.

                    We PUA's, some Natural's, and some Alpha Males are the rare occasion's.

                    Lastly...come on bro we don't manipulate woman's emotions. We give them what they want, what they crave, what they desire. Just because we have the power when we do this doesn't mean we are manipulator's.

                    We are just special...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Manipulate, influence, whatever you want to call it. I'm not implying there's something inherently bad about doing it. As long as you don't do it to exploit the person, chances are you will both benefit.

                      And, yeah, PUAs do usually act kinda rational in the area of dating and picking up girls. It's an area where they've learned to use their rationality to override irrational gut reactions (like, say, Approach Anxiety). But just because some men are rational in some areas doesn't mean we're rational in all areas.
                      Last edited by Thomas; 03-26-2009, 05:20 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X