mr_engineer

I mean, I was hoping to help you cut short the time you'd take to decide whether you wanted monogamy or polygamy. This is how you'd figure it out, by determining your top value in relationships.

@Consept What is your biggest relationship-value? Is it attachment-relationship? Is it sexual compatibility? Is it sexual abundance? On what metric are you evaluating women at this point? Another way to put it is - what would be the 'KPI' of your sex-life?

@Consept Out of curiosity, what kind of sex-life do you want to end up with? Monogamous or polygamous? Because a monogamous individual would not see the future potential of them wanting to be the only one in the future as a 'problem'. If you're fundamentally polygamous, nothing wrong with it. I just don't relate and my advice becomes irrelevant for you if that's you. The ethical dilemma for a monogamous individual would be 'how do I make her feel secure when I'm single and considering multiple options?'. That's what I was answering.

In that case, I don't think it's ethical to date multiple women. Even if you're able to smoothly manage it, you don't want to be in a mindset where the women you're seeing are 'replaceable'. If you're seeing them as replaceable, they will feel objectified. This will repel higher-quality women. So, if you don't think that sex is the end-all-be-all, you should act like it. Women should see you walking your talk and that includes not seeing other women and focusing on one woman at a time. Also, when you don't have multiple women clouding your radar, you're able to make quicker decisions with each woman.

Is it a good habit or bad habit, socially? Is it appropriate or inappropriate? I used to think of it as a bad habit, because I hated it when others did it. Yes, there were those people who kept talking on and on and on. I had two strategies to deal with such people. Either be a good listener and listen to what they're saying, if it's interesting. Or, if they're boring, avoid them. But then, in a recent situation where they wouldn't stop talking, I realized the reason for it. It's that they're not a curious person. And, I realized that not only are they boring right now, they're never going to stop being boring, because they're not learning anything new! Nothing new is entering their mind, because they're not learning. So, my new rule - if they're being boring, it's okay to interrupt them. If they're interesting, they can keep talking! Thoughts?

It's because most dating-coaches see women as a replaceable commodity. The mindset of 'approach thousands of women' means that a specific woman is just a number to you and if things don't work out with her, there's 'plenty of fish in the sea'. I'm not saying that incels aren't responsible for solving this, they are. I'm attempting to explain why they're not going for dating-coaching. Because the OP sounds more like a problem for the dating-coach than the incel.

Oh no, by 'petty conflict', I don't mean, them personally attacking me. (By the way, those who personally attack me don't deserve to talk to me at all.) I mean, a conflict over what would be the right way to do something together as a team. In the conflict I was talking about, the point of disagreement was a fact. I knew a fact she didn't and she kept arguing for it. This was a red-flag, because it signaled closed-mindedness, which would cause much bigger problems in the future. The conflict itself was petty, the stakes weren't that high. But, argumentativeness is a hell no for me. We can be friends but we can't date.

There are a whole bunch of people saying a whole bunch of nasty things about nice guys. That 'they're weak, they're inauthentic, they're manipulative, they're controlling, they're not really nice', blah blah blah. I have finally figured out why that is. It's because dating-coaches really profit from telling you 'you're being too nice, don't be too nice, do this instead'. If they told you the truth, which is that women want a man to be nice and loving towards them, and you should be nice (in smart and pragmatic ways, meaning, if someone asks you for an unreasonable favor, you help them not by doing the favor, you help them by suggesting a better, more convenient alternative), that would not be original. This is a problem. Because we are killing true masculinity by doing this. True masculinity is not about achievement and conquest, it is about giving. It is about sharing your gift with the world. Honestly, I am not proud of the fact that I live in times when 'being nice' is considered a bad thing and selfishness is glorified.

Kay.

Petty conflicts are not 'work in progress'. The one starting them is just being dumb. Either they're being dumb or they don't want a loving relationship. Both of which are dealbreakers for me. 'Work in progress' means that you're doing the work, you're not wasting time and energy on pointless bullshit. I gotta see the work to believe a 'work in progress'! Having issues is not enough to be a 'work in progress', you gotta show that you're doing something about the issues.

No, I don't want her to be perfect, I'm perfectly fine with her being a work in progress. Having said that, dealbreakers are dealbreakers. If you start a pointless conflict, that may or may not be a sign of immaturity. It's not a sign of immaturity, if you don't want a loving relationship and you're okay with petty conflicts. And this doesn't mean that she's unsuitable. She's hot and successful, most men would be happy to be with her. Just not me!

Kay. Just to be clear, you're also talking about a 'loving' relationship, right? Cuz in my definition of 'loving', starting a conflict for no reason is a dealbreaker. By growth, I mean, teaching the other to be in relationship with ourselves. We are unique individuals with unique needs and we should be able to coach the other person into meeting those needs. We shouldn't expect them to know everything coming into the relationship, we should not be relying on 'past experience', in fact, it is healthy to admit that you don't know the other person and how to relate to them before they teach you how to do so. 'Go for broke' is an American term for being ambitious and not clinging too much to security. As I said, careers come and go. You have to have the right priorities in life if you want to die without regrets. Also, relationship-wisdom is very applicable to business. So, there isn't much to lose by prioritizing the relationship and there isn't much to gain from prioritizing the career. The career is meaningless anyways if you're coming back to an empty house. The whole point of the partner wising up is so that she helps with the self-work. I don't see myself as a 'product' to put on the shelf so that 'consumers' (women) can come, see whether they like it and use and throw me. If you prefer a 'finished product' over a 'work-in-progress' which I will always be, cuz I'm not perfect (neither are you), don't waste my time.

My love-language is physical-touch, so cuddling. We are curious about each other, we have a genuine desire to be involved in each other's lives, because we have wisdom to offer to each other. We are good at resolving conflicts. (I was considering asking out one of the hottest women in my circle, but then, she argued with me about something really trivial that I knew better about. So, red-flag, didn't ask her out.) We are willing to help each other grow, because we personally benefit from it. We are willing to go for broke, financially, meaning, we won't hold each other back on that front. We have an abundance-mindset. I cook, she cleans. I like cooking and I have no problem finding women who prefer cleaning. We prioritize the relationship over other things, like the career. Careers can come and go, people can't. These are some good pointers for me apart from sexual-compatibility. You can figure these out just talking to them. Then, when this part works out and there's chemistry, I can ask them out. And, the point of dating would be to figure out sexual-compatibility. Then, once you figure that out, you can marry her and have her babies!

Yeah. I don't approach women because 'she make my dick hard, so me go approach'. I need more knowledge about her to ask her out, I am actively looking for red-flags in hot women. I am very committed to the process of getting into a loving relationship.

A man who is authentic, who wears his heart on his sleeve and who doesn't think with his dick. In other words, a man who actually feels love for women. The reason this is 'nice' for women, is that he has an intrinsic motivation to be morally sound with women. Because such an individual will never cheat on a woman.

@TheGod First of all, good job getting to this point in your personal growth. Most people are not asking this question. It is a very important question and if those who want romantic-relationships ask this question, this can lead to a lot of reform in the family-system, in law, in religion, everywhere. That is exactly right. Sex is not worth all of that effort. For the same reason that going to fancy restaurants, going on fancy vacations and having fancy stuff is not worth slaving away for 60 hours a week at a job you hate. Consumerism does not give you long-term happiness! When you believe that the point of a relationship/dating, as a man, is to 'get laid', you have the dating-mindset of a consumer. You're asking her the question 'how can you make me happy?' You think there is a definite answer to this question, you want her to do something that would make you happy. You define 'compatibility' like this, you go through the struggle of finding this person and in the end, it doesn't work. The root-cause of this dating-mindset is because of the sex sells media and because of online-dating. Sex sells on social-media, actual media, movies, pop-culture and porn. Even in parties, sex is seen as nothing more than a 'fun activity'. The consumeristic mindset is the default mindset for everyone. And, the 'red pill' ideology talks about 'SMV', which is, how to pander to the consumeristic mindset of women. What this leads to, is a dating-culture that's heavily transactional. So, if your question is 'Why has this worked up until this point?' or 'Why is this mindset so widespread in dating?', this is the answer. And, you will have to do something out of the ordinary to resolve this situation. So, what do you do to resolve this situation? Take a step out of sexual-relationships for a bit and focus on seeking out people you can actually connect with. If you have an avoidant attachment-style, focus on healing that. Focus on being vulnerable with these people with whom you don't have any important transactions going on. When you do this, you may see the ways in which you're being inauthentic in your life and this may give you an existential-crisis. Because you would have been wrong about who you are up until this point. Even if you were right, now, you're changing and this will call for big changes in your life. So, the next step would be to focus on finding yourself, redefining your values in life and behaving authentically in your life, embodying authenticity. This will radically change your life. Then, when you self-actualize (or when you get back on track towards self-actualization), the next step would be to reassess your understanding of relationships and to learn about relationships. This, potentially, could be doing inner-child work, trauma-resolution, learning about emotions, changing your conditioning about relationships, rewriting your life-story into something more realistic (as opposed to what you're conditioned to believe about yourself), understanding psychology and figuring out how to have realistic expectations from people, figuring out your unmet needs in relationships, changing your vision in relationships, redefining 'the right person' for yourself and coming up with a different dating-strategy to find this 'right person'. Then, finally, the next step is to embark on the journey of 'getting ready' for this relationship, where you align your life towards creating this new lifestyle with this person (or people, depending on your vision). It is in this process of 'getting ready' to actualize your vision, in which you will find the 'meaning' in dating-activities, or the 'point' of dating-activities.

First of all, good job making it! 400-600 bucks a day is pretty decent money. Are your bills getting paid? I'm assuming they are, you're not falling short of money. (Especially if your perceived issue is that you're unthankful and that you're obsessed with making back lost money, just because you have an ego.) Now, what's happened with you is that you lost some money and your ego got hurt as a result of it. You thought you were right, when you were wrong. Nothing wrong with having this ego, it's natural and normal. My first question to you is - did you learn from your mistake? Or will you repeat the mistake? If you haven't learned from your mistake, it's important that you learn from it. Or else you will repeat it and lose more money this time. It's normal to have negative feelings towards a game you lost. Business and investing are no different. If you lose money, you will feel bad about it. It sucks. Just learn from your mistake and move on. And, 400-600 bucks a day is decent money. But, if you're resentful about losing money and you want to make it back, this tells me that you want more. So, learn from your mistake and get over this hump.

It is good to see people starting to use their brains in the way they date. It starts to restore your faith in humanity, for sure.

boy^2+girl^2=1. I just have to stay true to my troll-face character sometimes!

Yupp. Don't be loving and compassionate towards yourself, be hateful and angry with yourself. That's how you 'work on yourself' and 'fix yourself'. Yupp. All marketing is low-consciousness, there is no way to do marketing in a high-consciousness way. Yupp. Being nice and loving is not how you make a woman feel safe, it's being an asshole. That's who will give the 'protective, caring space-holder'. Lol. All of the posts I responded to here, have something in common. They lack faith in humanity, that it is possible for humanity to survive in a more conscious form than it currently does. That, just because things have worked a certain way in the past, that they will never change in the future, because 'human nature is inherently brutal'. I urge you to have some more faith in humanity and to entertain the possibility that it is possible for a man and a woman to be loving towards each other and make a good relationship work.

Actually, I'm asking you to disprove the positive. Just give a counter-example to the positive, that'll suffice. Which things?

Okay, then. Please enlighten me. What is the practical reality? What is the practical reason being a loving and compassionate individual would NOT work to raise the level of consciousness of the world?

So, I'm being 'theoretical' when I say that being a loving and compassionate individual will raise the level of consciousness of the world?

We're talking about a 'cruel world' here. Meaning, all kinds of shit happening in it. There are abusers and there are victims. There are oppressors and there are the oppressed. That's the practical meaning of 'cruel world'. If you say that 'you can't reason with the evil people in this world', I would agree. What you can do, though, is stand up to them for their victims. A nice guy will be helpful and kind in general. But, if you want to look at it relative to the 'asshole' or the 'cruel world', your role could be to fix the cruel world. That's how you be constructive in it! And, when it comes to other people's paradigms not accounting for the possibility of being helped by you, this is where marketing comes in. You know what they need, but they don't know what's possible. So, through marketing, you advertise a better possibility of how things could work. This is how you outcompete the unconscious assholes in the marketplace and this is how you change the world for the better, this is how you make it less cruel. This is what all conscious business boils down to. Being a kind and nice person. This is what conscious marketing boils down to! We're being very practical, goal-oriented and achievement-oriented here, we're not just being theoretical and talking about a moral debate.