zazen

Marriage offers woman security. While she gives birth / raises children and is unpaid in that process, in case of the man leaving her at a later point in life when its harder for her to get into another relationship due to looks declining and that older people have less options in general, she has a financial cushion to support her self. This all makes sense, but the the laws are a bit too far biased against men. Men just don't trust women of the modern world due to them having higher body counts, not being able to pair bond and stick around as easily, past ex's they can go back to, cheating almost as much as men and it being easier than ever with apps big cities and no stigma, no fault divorce where you can divorce just because you 'feel like it', divorce rates being high with women initiating most of them 70-80% of the time. Forget man, what human in their right mind would sign up for such a thing. A marriage ceremony is nice to have, but not legally being married. Even int he case of prenup it just starts the whole relationship in a awkward manner.

Quoted '' If a man is to marry, there is reasonable fear the fresh legal supremacy his woman enjoys will disrupt the balance of power that previously maintained their relationship. The informed man is all too aware the legal privilege of the modern wife can be used to force him into domestic servitude, and that legally speaking, the marriage hangs on a thread tied to a hovering sword that follows him wherever he goes. From the moment he has said “I do”, a dangling sword of Damocles stalks him, scrutinising his every action, primed to strike. Too many mistakes, and the sword falls, divorce initiated, financial and emotional chaos wrought. Now of course there is an imbecilic, ignorant argument to be made that “not all women are like that“, and indeed this is true, not all women will whimsically detonate a divorce bomb. And yet a wise man in his prudence must ask himself “is my woman like that?” and then follow up this question with “if my woman is not like that, what is the likelihood she could become like that?” to which the answer in all earnestness is a most pertinent “easily”. If too much comfort is indulged, if too much is neglected or too much left to chance – the ruination of marital union is all but a certainty. A marriage is like a car hanging off a cliff, it requires the man driving to accelerate now and again to ensure the car does not tilt and fall into the ocean below. Just as it was in courting, in marriage the burden of performance is man’s to bear. If man fails in his capacity as husband, or is at least perceived to have failed, he loses everything, by contrast if his woman is an abysmal failure of a wife, she gets a pay day and a fresh chance. In today’s society a woman’s marriage risk is minimal, and of course, this comes at the expense of man’s being astronomical. Women do not fear marriage because they have no reason to, men do because they have every reason to. A marriage’s odds of success are merely improved, but still mightily unfavourable for man even when the potential wife is of considerable quality. And so although it is not impossible to become a patriarch, it is a dangerous affair regardless of who is involved. This danger is neither explicitly the man nor the woman involved’s fault, but rather, the fault of a judicial system that makes marriage so costly to men. The success of a marriage is of course dependent solely on the parties involved, but what was once merely a monumental investment on the part of man has been perverted by the misandry of feminism into a monumental gamble. A sensible man is not a gambling man, he does not wager half his assets and his emotional stability on the odds of a woman’s whim remaining pretty. No matter who is involved, this aspect remains the same: a man has no assurances nor protection from the state, in a worst case scenario, the woman is protected and the man is left to rot. Idiots will marry blindly and gamblers will marry brazenly, whilst sensible men will abstain and the intelligent romantically delay.'' ''The salvation of a crumbling civilization, the very thing it needs to persist and replenish itself morally, intellectually and socially is the very thing that has been poisoned to disincentivise man, the family. Deprive a nation of the nuclear family, and eventually, you deprive a nation of its very existence. And it is the poisoning of women by feminism in tandem with the hostility of family law that is encouraging men to embrace the playboy lifestyle in record numbers, in an accelerating social breakdown, cocaine, whiskey and hookers can seem like a smart choice to the live hard opportunist. We cannot blame the men who shy away from their responsibility as men, Christians, or whatever, for not indulging the burden of patriarchy when said burden has been contorted to ensure man’s life will almost certainly become a living hell should he be anything but perfect. When men conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the potential for marriage, and rightfully deduce the chance of success is not in their favour, and that a painless exit is all but unattainable, we cannot blame their aversion. It is easy to mount the entirety of blame on men, and accuse them of immaturity and commitment phobia. But I believe many men are, at heart, family men. They are socially smart for avoiding marriage, but evolutionarily dumb for not reproducing. Many things in life are a trade-off, and this is by far one of the greatest a man will ever contemplate.''

We have advanced to the point where victory could have defeated us. The rational optimist/ pinker and few others show us stats of progress and while there is progress on technological levels, wealth, green values etc this doesn't seem to be translating to human happiness. We have environmental issues, mental illness, life expectancy decreasing, relationships in turmoil, modern dating issues with the divide between men and women and low fertility / declining population which could lead to economic stagnation / collapse. Loss of meaning, connection to each other and nature. Our own advancements ie internet and now social media is polarising us more and more. Culturally and technologically we are evolving, but our social and conscious evolution can't keep pace to keep those forces in check or from destroying us. The question of family comes in and if one's out look on life and the future doesn't look good it begs the question why would you want to bring life into the current world only to suffer. Not sure if Leo wants kids or family, but I ponder this a lot and am uncertain. When you tell people you don't want children due to a dire future, people with kids get angry as it puts them in fear mode, and people without kids especially women get emotional and call you negative, weak (shaming guilt tactics) etc as it goes heavily against their maternal instinct and social norms. It seems most humans aren't rational humans but rationalising humans. The only thing certain is uncertainty, in the past we also had uncertainty but the issue now is the pace of change and level is so fast with technology we can't keep up or balance / ride the wave of change. We have more than ever technology / knowledge wise to fix many of our issues so the world could go either way, it all depends on us. But seeing how the world couldn't even come together to tackle covid and now the war mongering happening, it seems humans aren't evolved enough yet. Only this time, we have enough power to destroy us. Smart people are saying similar such as Yuval Noah Harari. What do you all think?

Where does the incentive to work come from when you can't claim what your energies go into or theres no private ownership. In the past or in small tribes people may have worked without ownership for the tribe but they were blood related and had more kinship, so to be more selfless was easier as it was for family, blood etc. Now we live in mixed societies of millions, society is so abstract to us. The only way would be if people became higher conscious to look past superficial divisions of race, creed, etc. Seems its a scalability issue ..

Two contrasting videos. We will technologically advance, but that says nothing of human happiness levels and emotional stability. Counter movements are already underway and discussions on what makes us happy such as nature, connection, community, creativity. Spirituality / meditation should likely become a lot more popular as well and already is. Just not sure society will evolve with the pressures or slowly decline under it. The word collapse is used a lot but decline is more accurate just as the way the British empire declined or Japan is stagnating, its not some apocalyptic collapse.

People aren't controlled anymore or forced, that doesn't mean their not influenced. Women being the more emotional sex are more easily influenced. Men are more rational, women are more rationalising. They'll act on emotion, and rationalise that act later to support their action and maintain self esteem if that action is generally deemed good or bad etc. To maintain emotional homeostasis. Men by nature should take more role / responsibility in rationally acting in that regard. Women are hard wired to depend on social bonds for survival a lot more than men. That being the case theres more need to be socially accepted / fit in, which is why they are more sensitive to taking responsibility, blame or criticism. Its a visceral response to being socially outed from the tribe and threatening their survival. So they will take shape like water of the society / bottle they are placed in. What society do we have now .. one that objectifies women.

Its not a moral question as much as it is a certain actions have certain consequences, its up to us whether we want to deal with those consequences/outcomes. Theirs a reason women were protected over Millenia (although excessively which is bad), they are more prone to emotions. If thats the case, its mens role to lead women in a path that is better suited for their long term happiness. Put women in stimulating club environments and drinking their conscience away, letting their emotions get the better of them and they become more vulnerable. Add to that, the culture tells them its okay only for it to back fire on them later in life. These girls have no chance with that kind of cultural set up, we have to have sympathy for them in that sense. Theres the flip side of hypo agency, which is men taking the responsibility excessively for everything. Whilst a woman does have agency and free choice, how free is she really. Her choices are determined by her upbringing, society and her genes/animal nature, which in the modern world give way to being promiscuous way too easily. It's not that its bad morally, but it doesn't lead to the most happiness long term. Women are gonna be old longer than they are gonna be hot, so its best they work on relationship habits and having a committed relationship than ONS, likewise for men.

For more clarification, I highly recommend this video on the topic of mono / poly and how society/culture influences both these genetic drives we have. Modern society stimulates our poly instinct, monogamy is a practiced choice we have to work on and create a society for or else long term relationships will fail and are failing. If you want a mono relationship you and your partner need to create your own world with boundaries in place, as the world around us doesn't foster deep relationships anymore with the advent of social media, big cities, no social stigma or consequences to cheating behaviours.

@Preety_Indiia @Gesundheit2 In the east / India sex has a certain value to it, that its not given as easily. The value of a thing is its rarity. So the way relations work is you first get to know someone and once you've figured you like each other over time then you commit to the sexual act. In more liberal cultures or in the West, people get to know each other whilst also having sex so they figure if they like or don't like each other over time and then part ways if they aren't compatible. Thats why you both have different view points. In the east its compatibility first, chemistry second. In the west its chemistry first and lets figure if we'r compatible along the way. Of course this can be a recipe for disaster as once you have chemistry and are physically bonded to each other people over look their incompatibilities and end up in horrible relationship. Once your bodies are flooded with bonding hormones through sex, your vision is clouded and its harder to part way. Tradition has some wisdom to it. A woman's sexual value may be high but her relationship value may be low, same for men. Modern culture has emphasised sexual value and rewarded such, putting relational value lower. We have a genetic drive to be polyamorous or monogamous, but the modern culture stimulates or poly genetic drivers more. Its epigenetic's in front of our eyes. In reality we'r all cheaters, in our animal nature, but as humans with consciousness monogamy and deep relationships are a choice we must practice at and structure our society to foster.

@Hardkill You had no problem with ONS's as your a guy and can detach emotion from the act more easily than a woman. Women can too but not as easily, for that reason most people hook up under alcoholic influence to detach/disassociate from the situation and not regret it later or rationalise it away that they were drunk and it just happened. A woman being used just for her body is like how a guy feels used when just for his money. It basically says you have nothing else to offer as a person except the most superficial part of your gender, the rawest biological form being for the male for resources and woman sex. Everything in life is transactional, the question is of depth. It's not that its bad its just limited or 1 dimensional. A man with just resources will have a 1 dimensional relationship, a guy with resources personality looks etc will have a multi dimensional relationship. Your transacting not just whats in your pocket but in your heart mind and between your legs. Likewise with a woman, she has her heart mind and femininity to offer. People have shallow sex these days, which could signal that the average quality of people has declined ie men and women don't have much else to offer besides the basic. If your sleeping with a woman just for sex it signals that the woman has nothing else to offer and so your choice is either not good enough or the average quality of people isn't good enough to stick around or see them for more than what they are. If a woman was higher quality what guy wouldn't want to hang around and talk etc. In the same light as how more men are lacking charisma, masculinity etc these days and are only used for money (sugar dating becoming more prominent). People have been hurt by sleeping around/cheating etc they get closed off and want to just have sex and nothing deeper so they don't get hurt again. In this case, the reason for sex could be just to let off steam, or validation sex for a self esteem boost. Sex can be had in a casual manner, as long as more relationship type behaviours aren't done like hugging, hand holding, eye gazing, intimate conversation etc.This is the reason escorts won't kiss, look yo in the eye, or prefer doggy position. Sex at that point is just stimulation based (dopamine) the other activities are bonding/security based (oxytocin). Both get released during sex even in a one night stand, but the oxytocin can be dampened for a weaker bond by not acting like a boyfriend or affectionate. Also, if you've slept with so many people your ability to feel is numbed just as an addict who's become desensitised to dopamine etc which further reduces the person to an object.

A society that participates in pick up / casual sex with the end goal being a long term happy relationship creates the very society where a long term happy relationship isn't possible in. Dating multiple partners at a time or short term serial relationships, hook ups etc sets the pattern for that. Our drive for polyamory is stronger than monogamy as we'v been polygamous for a much longer part of our evolution. Our animal nature doesn't care for our long term happiness, our biology drives us to act on reproducing the strongest genes and surviving. Biology is brutal and raw, our psychology/consciousness is what attempts to refine biological urges into something more romantic. Polyamory worked in small bands of tribes and when we had a short life expectancy of 30. The tribe had higher trust with each other being of similar genetics / culture etc, the village would raise the children collectively, our emotional needs were met by the tribe, people would sleep with each other more casually usually the alphas being the chosen ones to be mated with the most (40% of males got to pass their genetics on). Now that our life expectancy has tripled, and through industrialisation/living in big cities where we no longer easily have tight knight communities or social circles to provide us with emotional security, the family unit / pair bonded partner is what gives us emotional security over the long term. Reproduction is only front loaded and consists of a shorter part of our life span. The remaining decades are for companionship, pair bonding etc so this is what is vital to foster for long term happiness. Instilling monogamy and valuing deep committed relationships was important for the emotional stability of the individual and thus the society. Monogamy takes conscious effort and if the culture/society doesn't foster it, it is far too easy to dip into our polyamorous instinct/genetic drive. You get what you feed, and our current society is feeding our lower instinct, just as we have instincts for salt sugar fat, conserving energy by being lazy or doing the minimum to survive. These instincts served us in past times but now they hinder us and we have to use intelligence to over ride them for our betterment and that of society. Traditions were there for a reason and there is some wisdom to tradition although tradition must adapt and change with the times, dismissing it as controlling and throwing out all tradition shouldn't be taken lightly. Maybe in the past they didn't have the science/knowledge we have now to confirm why such practices were in place. Our biology works the same with any addiction. Novelty gives us hits of dopamine, oxytocin bonds us to what we have. If we seek out new partners, we'r becoming addicting to seeking out dopamine, and frying our neural network to be able to bond and be happy with one person as our neuro chemicals are spread thin between many partners. The initial hit you get the first time with a substance or someone you have sex with is the strongest, bonding you to that source of the dopamine. You become desensitised every time you get a new hit of dopamine with a new source and become like an addict needing to seek it out more and more. Thats why even for men with high body counts who think their immune to this aren't, although for women due to their biology it probably takes a much smaller body count, we neuter our ability to be happy with what we have, and even if we do get into a relationship, our happiness level isn't what it could have been. We eventually get bored and seek out another hit of dopamine. Another affect is if a woman has had an alpha in the past, she will always feel like she settled when she doesn't lock that alpha for a relationship, and ends up with someone less alpha causing her to be unhappy in her future relationships. In a unregulated sexual market place, the women go for the top males, who then have little incentive to settle down (obviously some still do as they seek depth), the women hate those males for being assholes (not settling) and conflate that behaviour to all men (apex vision), they then treat men in general badly (the nicer men) the nicer men then start saying why should we treat women nicely if they treat us badly and become bitter them selves becoming bad boys in an attempt to emulate the alphas or checking out the dating game completely and the cycle goes on. I guess we could have a polyamorous society at scale, as long as emotional needs are met by community, there are high levels of trust even amongst people of different backgrounds, religions creeds and castes (which means higher consciousness), and so a community to raise the kids in well as people care enough about kids who aren't their own.

Similar happens although not to that intensity in most major western cities. Miami, New York, London.

Same way you wouldn't park you Ferrari in a ghetto. Its locked (the woman) but having guys constantly try and break in eventually one will. This along with being under the influence of alcohol, the party environment and women being more emotional and being taken over by their emotions, then rationalising their actions away in their head to not feel guilt. @Leo Gura What are your thoughts on imprinting and alpha widowing affecting women's future happiness in relationships? It's why us men have a natural instinctual response to women with high body counts as it calls into question our paternity and ability to pair bond. If she doesn't have genuine desire for you, that means she may not take care of your offspring as well (evolutionarily infanticide was a thing). This is why men don't just want sex from a hooker but real authentic desire from a woman, it validates that our genes are worthy enough to be reproduced. Her ability to pair bond is affected if she's slept with lots of men (desensitising herself to the dopamine/oxytocin dump that she would have had to you practically bonding attaching her to you emotionally and so staying around to raise the offspring) or if she has a low count if just one of them was a alpha / abusive who stimulated her so intensely emotionally she won't be as bonded to a weaker future man and thus resentment, misery sets in. No wonder divorce rates are the way they are. Of course these instincts are natural, its up to us to decide how we react to them. Will modern humans evolve consciously enough to over ride them and have a free for all orgy .. lol . Right now the sexual market place is unregulated and we see the affects its having, the evolutionary pressure is on us to evolve in real time.

Men controlled women in the past because of paternity fraud / instinct to mate protect/guard that its their genes that are being reproduced. Also, being in smaller tribes it was harder to hide promiscuity and there was more kinship/trust between the people of the tribe. Now we live in big cities around people we barely know or from different backgrounds/walks of life and promiscuity can be hidden with ease. A woman can suck a dick in 20 min or have a quick 30min sex session with alpha and go to her husband and kiss him with the same lips the alphas dick was in. Even when such a thing is found out there aren't any consequences law wise or by society. Women's hypergamy and with it our jealousy instinct is running rampant. You have to control even more in the modern world because of the culture/access/ease of promiscuity and yet we can't as its abusive, deemed misogynistic or insecure (all shaming tactics used against men). All a man can do is state his boundaries and let the women choose to abide by them or not. No wonder men won't get the government involved in modern day marriage, a sensible man is not a gambling man.

I have this same predicament. If you date girls who are younger under 26/27 and they agree they don't want marriage/kids etc they don't really know any better at that age what they want. Once they come closer to their late 20's usually is when the pressure comes for kids/marriage and that maternal instinct kicks in, everyone around them getting married/kids also. Women in the 28-33 range are focused on locking down and have kids/marrying usually, so wasting a woman's time in this age range isn't nice either and feels a lot more guilty. After 33 a women who says she doesn't want kids/marriage and can agree with you has more than likely come to that conclusion clear headed / accepted it without her biology/society pressuring her in those other years. Maybe also the fact that its difficult at that age lets them accept it, although that doesn't mean their always happy / can become bitter they didn't fulfil their instinct. For men who don't want children / marriage the odds are much lower of finding a woman on the same page as it is a instinct. The women who don't want children / marriage can usually be maybe bitter by the dating market / negative in which case you don't want to be with someone toxic, or believe its not good for the environment etc. Hard to come across a woman who wouldn't want it, who's also healthy happy etc. Maybe you just need to be such a valuable man that they just want to spend their life with you and are willing to give up marriage/kids for that. Trying to logically explain why you don't want children / marriage doesn't always go down well as they get emotional and you can't have a rational conversation with a emotional person. Not sure what your reasons are, but mentioning you don't want children/marriage/family in general is a hard pill for people to swallow and the societal conditioning etc makes people respond negatively to you. If you start going into your reasons people get negative, offended etc. My reason is I'd rather dedicate life to the many other things we'r able to do in the modern world, opportunity cost, the future isn't looking too bright so don't want to bring children into the culture we have. Saying these things makes you just sound negative etc but most people aren't clued onto the general state of affairs of the world and think everything is hunky dorey, their wasting time on netflix sports etc. In this case, we'r left to do short term relationships as most want it to lead to somewhere but then again short term relationships / hook ups aren't even fulfilling and are ruining society/women also. What is one to do..

Everything has a karmic affect, actions have consequences. Ironically, once people learn red pill they learn the affects 'spinning plates' etc has on women psyche, but the same community then go ahead and prescribe each other to do the same. They create the culture they complain about. Unfortunately, because a sizeable proportion of society in Western liberal cities are openly sexual and the sexual market is unregulated, mens only reaction is to learn pick up in order to obtain a relationship in the first place, but then the act of pick up creates even worse conditions devolving society in a vicious cycle. To get a girl you need to be good with girls in general, but becoming good with girls leads you to alpha widowing girls, imprinting them and that causes them to not be happy in future relationships as they then need to 'settle'. They end up not being happy in those relationships, divorcing, and ruining a guys life, kids etc and those kids end up acting up as coping mechanism and the cycle continues downward generationally. ''As a guy or even just a functional member of society, it’s important to realize that female slutshaming isn’t the product of some deep self-loathing or in-group hatred. Rather, it is as prevalent as it is because a promiscuous rival is a woman’s biggest threat to keeping a good boyfriend. “Sluts” aren’t derogated because women are uncomfortable with their sexuality; it’s because they’re experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women. Female promiscuity also has a “tragedy of the commons” effect in the mating market. If one woman offers blowjobs on the second date, it’s harder for other women to keep them in reserve until the fourth date as their special treat. This creates a downward spiral of young women feeling like they have to offer more and more sex to more and more guys just to stay in the mating game. Thus, slutshaming is a way of enforcing a more restrained sexual norm on other women so that not all women have to become more promiscuous than any of them would like.''

Women judge other women as much as men, the extreme ends especially being the promiscuous woman and the chaste virgin woman. They judge promiscuous women because those women can take away their men with the offer of easier sex, and it lowers the bargaining power of one of the things they can offer men which is sex. If sex is freely available and men get their other needs (emotional, intellectual etc) met without women what need would men have to be with women. Women judge the chaste girl because it makes them feel lower in comparison and puts up a mirror to themselves. They feel as if that girl is judgmental and so don't want to be critiqued or judged that they sleep around easily.

It's true traditional blue has been tried and found too limiting, but isn't what we'r doing now too freeing in a way thats destructive/not working. Could make an argument for both. On one level relationships and heartbreaks can make us grow and their should be guidance and good resources on that, on another level it can cause us to shut down and dis trust, we carry the bitterness with us and end up not trusting/loving again as easily. Periods of life with 'casual' sex wires/trains us to treat it as such and so we can end up associating it with nothing serious to be shared with one person in a serious relationship, it can cause us objectify the subject and treat them as such. The value of a thing is its rarity. Maybe a healthy form of dating and the middle way is first filtering out people based on values, vision, compatibility etc before sexual chemistry. Currently we'r doing the sexual chemistry of the bat, and finding out later that we aren't compatible and having to break off or have to live in a dysfunctional relationship. We have sex whilst learning about each other, whereas before we learnt about each other before having commitment and sex. Its much harder to break off once we'v been biochemically bonded to another through sex at that point, which causes further trauma when you need to break up. This way could reduce suffering/baggage people have and increase the chances of successful relationships. Compatibility first, sexual chemistry second.

Jews, Indians and Chinese included. The new way is obviously not working and we have the stats to back it up. 50% divorce rate, 70% of which are initiated by women despite the notion that women are viewed as 'loyal.' Their loyal to their emotions and being more emotional than men this is in flux. Extreme freedom is just as bad as extreme rigidity. 50% divorce rate doesn't say the real success rate of marriage, out of the remaining 50% who aren't divorced probably half or more are dissatisfied, sexless and just with each other out of convenience. Human beings are very complex. This isn't about red or whatever pill, just some wisdom in tradition which has been there over centuries and with certain reasons, in the name of liberalism and progress we can't throw out key principles completely. The question is progressing to what? Some progress can be regressive. Maybe this is just a transition phase and we will learn the middle way from it. Even Sadhguru has talked on this https://isha.sadhguru.org/us/en/wisdom/article/emotional-security-importance-how-to-build ''Right now, the community that does best in the universities of the United States is the Indian community. Next comes the Jewish community. Why is that? It is just that they have emotional security. Until they are 25 years of age, till they finish university, everything is taken care of for them. They do not have to fight for anything. Parents are committed to their children, and children are committed to them in turn. They do not have to handle any other aspect of life. That is not so with other American children. By the time they finish university, they have already seen three boyfriends or six girlfriends – with all the emotional upheavals, jealousies, problems, and struggles. Before they stand up on their feet, they have seen too much life, which is making them incapable. Emotional security is an extremely important aspect for any human being and for any society to flourish. Unfortunately, due to a juvenile concept of freedom, we have lost this emotional security. That way, we are making people incapable of many things. There may be a percentage of the population who is strong enough to anyway go ahead and do things, but the majority become unstable. This may not be true in every home, but it is happening on a large scale. It is no more an individual but a social problem in the United States. Such problems are there in every society for a few individuals, but when it becomes a major social problem, when lots of people are facing similar issues, we have to see how to strengthen their emotional life. Without that, people cannot lead productive lives.''

Thanks for the input Leo. For women sex is expensive as women give birth handicapping themselves for a few years, every other animal is born and on its feet unlike humans. This must've evolved for women to be wary of who she spreads her legs too, as it risks her own survival. Sleeping the way us men do and us projecting our own biological/psychological make up on to woman is a bias. Agreed that in the past it was too repressive but what we have now just seems like the other extreme. Then came in birth control, social media and dating apps and women could toss these worries to the side, but we'v evolved over thousands of years and only had this lifestyle of birth control for 60 years, social media for 10 or so years. To add to this, men have a innate jealous and mate guarding instinct due to paternity certainty, so the more men women have slept with the less likely men feel like taking them seriously as they feel aversion to their past and past trauma. For women their attraction is increased knowing a guy has had other women before, social proof. Whats good is that people get to mix with each other and find the correct partner in terms of values, likes dislikes, chemistry etc. Wouldn't the middle way be to mingle but without sex as to not cause so much bonding/trauma/heartbreak. A bit like before birth control, that period where arranged marriage wasn't practiced anymore but neither was there complete debauchary. People courted each other to find the one, then committed and had sex. Now people have sex while learning about each other, but when sex gets involved and love goggles this clouds our judgment of each other as our bodies are flooded with bonding chemicals so we pair up with people who maybe aren't even the best for us.

So lets rationally critique and break down the content. Facts aren't healthy or unhealthy the just are, our interpretation/feelings of them makes it so. Equally unhealthy is to not look at data, stats and to try figure cause/effect and ultimately solutions to problems in society.

Back on topic. Here Owen mentions how pick up makes him feel more spiritually alive as relationships can take a lot of work, your basically relating with another ego/psychology and the complexity that comes with it. It's an interesting way of looking at it or could be a way to rationalise more casual relationships to not feel morally bad. Time stamped 2:30:00 Found this on a reddit and found it interesting: RP teaches men they must "spin plates" / date non exclusively before/IF they marry. RP also touts data which shows women with more sexual partners are more likely to divorce (however the data doesn't show whether it is the number of sexual partners itself which causes the high divorce rate or if it is the beliefs which influence a woman's choice number of sexual partners (ie. A religious woman may be a virgin till marriage but it could be her beliefs which restrict divorce). So, presumably, for every female a man "spins plates" with, he is lessening her chance of having a long lasting marriage. He is also causing problems for another man involved in a failed marriage. What is bad for women is bad for also men, because, while the genders are different, they are linked. So while "spinning plates" is best for the individual man (I argue, his short term needs), it is bad in the long term for the community and society, and ultimately creates an unstable society which all must live in. Thoughts?

So making observations on human nature, and particularly on a certain culture / community is now considered racist. What a way to shut down discussion. Ironically Kevin Samuels has a acronym he uses called SIGN. Shame, insults, guilt and the need to be right which people revert to if their arguments don't hold up, next would be ad hominem. We shouldn't conflate making a judgment on certain behaviours (ie behaviours of men or women) and being judgmental. Judgmental is coming from a place of ego to put the 'other' down, to judge/discern is coming from a place of what could be good for you or us / our community if you acted differently. We'r all the same on a biological level, thats our hardwiring. On a psychological / social level the culture/community we're from brings out certain sides of our own nature, thats our softwiring. If we see certain behaviours or actions and consequences in one country,society, culture or community and with negative results thats equally possible in another country, society, community. So we observe, learn and avoid the bad, and emulate the good. Not good or bad from a moralistic point of view but from a results point of view ie we brings about a stable society with less suffering and more love.

You have strengths of a higher order and quality. Not to say strength of body/looks is bad but its more superficial, animalistic and was the first step in our evolution of attraction/survival. When dealing in romance and aspects of biology it is a lower consciousness realm and you can play it at that level. Women have evolved to be attracted to more than just looks in a partner, such as emotional control, stability financially, or life wise. Biologically they are hardwired towards being aroused by the alpha, so the body will respond to alpha looks and behaviours, we evolved for the longest time under harsh conditions where brawn trumped brain for survival and so women evolved attraction for brawn and raw strength. Over time and for a shorter part of our evolution we got bigger brains, allowing for more consciousness/intelligence to seep in,and to be able to think of longer term security, build tools etc so women could use their intelligence in selecting a mate. For example, she may have been aroused by the alpha with muscles and got his resources through aggression, but using intelligence and now in a more evolved society where being a jerk gets you imprisoned its the smarter guy who has social savvy and gets along with people who is better able to survive and she consciously/intelligently decides he's the better mate for long term survival. She will logically/intelligently be attracted to that mate, but can still be emotionally/physically aroused to the jerk bum with nothing. The body gets instinctually aroused, the mind gets intelligently attracted. A woman of higher quality will recognise higher quality in a guy who has developed himself and be intelligently attracted to higher quality, which can lead to her body being aroused also, but the body and our natural instincts pull on us is still stronger as we evolved for a much longer period of time in the wild where physicality / brawn is prized for survival. Women who haven't developed themselves or have lower self esteem may even not want to be with a higher quality guy as it makes them feel bad about themselves, or they don't even appreciate your qualities or are aware of what higher quality is. This can be particularly true if you just go to clubs etc. I may be wrong but Leo's advice can have a bias towards attracting these kind of women as his experience is only of Vegas party girls. Lower/higher quality isn't a moral judgement however, it just is what it is. The arousal of the body is raw/savage, instinctive, amoral, towards reproduction, without care for the survival of whats being reproduced. The attraction of the mind is refined/romantic, intelligent, moral selecting for what ensures the survival of the offspring being reproduced. The mating game is the interplay of the two, our instinctive animal nature from where we came and the intelligent human being we'r evolved into and evolving into. The appeal of romance and romantic gestures (marriage, rescuing, flowers, commitment rings etc) is it signals our commitment to that woman's long term survival. Use your development to play on all levels of life. When we develop ourselves we find it hard to relate with others playing at lower levels but part of being developed is to play the role of the below levels and integrate them,not to stay in the clouds but come back down to earth, play in the mud enjoy the roses too. For example having mental/emotional mastery, use that to let go of the logical mind and be loose and fun with girls and don't get into a mindset that its lower consciousness that your acting silly and saying certain things. Your higher conscious but playing the role of man interacting sexually with a woman, your a spirit playing as a human. One side of life is to honour our incarnation and play it impeccably. We just do it with awareness that there's more to life.

There are reasons to be concerned with lessening population. From a economic view if we don't have a younger population providing a strong tax base and consuming in a consumption led economy that provides less taxes towards the pension system for the elderly. As far as genius/talent is concerned, if we had better systems, eduction etc with less population more percentage of people could meet their potential which they currently aren't so from that angle it isn't much of a problem either. Having a big population all consuming at the rate rich western nations are would wreak havoc on finite planetary resources and the environment however.