Is being able to provide in an LTR optional?

[Skills]

Do these high-T, career-power women have much respect for their supportive non-Chad husbands? I saw one case where the couple switched traditional gender roles like this but the wife seemed annoyed with the husband and even negged him in public a couple of times.

yeah this is the problem, the high t women are:

- workout types into fitness more than normal fitness girls.
-extremely high sex drive (good for some of us but it gets annoying)
- a lot of color women (black)
-some have a bit of hair and some acne issues....
-as women get older they lose estrogen get a bit of a masculine look (very subtle) not all some.

But high test women are not the same as hardened western women, that have been hardened by break ups, climbing corporate ladders being entrepreneurs... It similar to hardened women pre final break up, you feel you are dealing with a dude.....

Most of us will not go for this women or if we do i doubt they make it to main.... I am personally not attracted, some puas love them i remember tank used to like this type...there is another guru i wont mention like this type too... but most of us not into them...

women's body types

Different women's body types and what the top seducers in the world like body wise in women.

www.theskillsmethod.com

7 on the post maybe at times 5 and 6 on the post

 

[Skills]

1. on testy women

my own experience was they had horrible acne, more body and some facial hair, less curvy, and occasionally I had the thought "she'd be a great lesbian"

Imo I have not run into women with high test who are attractive...they literally are like dudes with vaginas.

Chicks who have a lil more test have had muted or boosted feminine nonverbals ime but are more attractive than high test women as have extra aint the same as ms hairy sheman




2. I have however met a career woman who sorta layed it out on the table during our date about her goal to become a lawyer and have a house husband.

She was young, but reminded me of "single" milfs if you know the dynamic as a young man.

is a pretty interesting thread reflecting on all these and actually direct relation to @Skills states

i have plenty of deadbeat family men or aquaintances I know of who have wives for long periods while they scoundrel and she pays for them and nearly everything...big thing to note is these women get knocked up by these men...i wouldn't also consider them the highest value, but when push comes to shove they are always going back to these

probably ties into dark arts, knocking her up, and something else (maybe moving a lot), isolating her

Sorta reminds me of Chase's concubine thing where eventually she'll leave when familial and social pressure wears down her resolve

either these men had her in environments where it was the norm or they moved before as things got shakey.

I find it frankly funny i picked this up, but yes

these relationships were long

they are very possible

Not a discussed part of society though

feel free to delete this post if it is too on the edge and a hazard

I will state I am not recommending this course of action merely showcasing i have seen it and these men are very much well and fed

at the end of the day men and women choose their relationships

they deserve eachother and if they are drowning together they have chosen to do so.

relationships are only "accidental" to the irresponsible

this happened a few naturals get them prego to lock in, but i can do the same with a dog.... Getting a girl prego horrible idea, but yea good observation...

 

[Dough]

Kind of a weird flip to go from “I want virgins to alpha-provide for” to “I want to be alpha-provided for by a woman.”

Whatever floats your boat, I guess???

The mental model I had originally was "I'm the prize and I'm not willing to fulfill her desire for provision if she doesn't have the counterpart trait I want of inexperience". You did say to me that I should adapt to modern society and disabuse myself of outmoded mental models. So I've been trying to figure that out. Trying to figure out why I feel that way, etc.

The impression I get is a guy trapped in theory-land who is not actually in-the-field at all, and is just doing a bunch of mental masturbation in his head.

Not wrong. I really like tech, and I thought I could use cold approach to bypass needing to platonically interact with IRL humans. I realized that I had crap non-verbal social momentum and it was hurting my ability to learn game. So I've been working on improving my social life. I just joined a swim group yesterday etc. In that sense, yeah I'm doing more thinking than I'm doing gaming.

 

[Chase]

@Dough,

The mental model I had originally was "I'm the prize and I'm not willing to fulfill her desire for provision if she doesn't have the counterpart trait I want of inexperience". You did say to me that I should adapt to modern society and disabuse myself of outmoded mental models. So I've been trying to figure that out. Trying to figure out why I feel that way, etc.

Oh, well, this just doesn't reflect the realities of the Western sexual marketplace. Any woman (except for the ones we discussed above) is going to expect provision in a long-term relationship, whether she's had 0 cocks in her or 50.

You can choose not to date women with a lot more sex experience than you. That's a choice you can make.

But if you try to offer those women a bad deal just because "they don't deserve the deal I'd offer to virgins" they are going to decline that deal. There's no reason for them to accept it. They can get a better deal from any of a number of other male suitors, unless you are targeting one of the types of women I mentioned above (e.g., a much older, post-menopausal woman who is desperate for a young stud, etc.).

Not wrong. I really like tech, and I thought I could use cold approach to bypass needing to platonically interact with IRL humans. I realized that I had crap non-verbal social momentum and it was hurting my ability to learn game. So I've been working on improving my social life. I just joined a swim group yesterday etc. In that sense, yeah I'm doing more thinking than I'm doing gaming.

Well, that's good. At least you're working on social skills, nonverbals, etc.

Your thoughts and opinions on women are going to change quite a bit once you start moving out of your head and into reality with them.

(it's a good change. Connecting more with reality always is)

Chase

 

[Chase]

@topcat,

Fascinating conversation.

I’m curious, what are the “tells” for such high testosterone women out in the field, versus say regular women. What characteristics immediately identify them?

Tells:

• Very energetic / high energy personality
• Will talk your ear off about their business or thriving career
• Extremely ambitious with a clear vision for their professional future
• Frequently tend to travel a lot for business
• More masculine / tomboy-ish; more direct than flirtatious
• Will be hitting on you / insinuating even after telling you they have a boyfriend or husband
• As @mist notes, they tend to have weird body proportions (broader shoulders, lean muscle, etc.)

@Train,

Do these high-T, career-power women have much respect for their supportive non-Chad husbands? I saw one case where the couple switched traditional gender roles like this but the wife seemed annoyed with the husband and even negged him in public a couple of times.

Yes, they respect them, for what they are (they will still CHEAT on them, but they respect them. The women just do not consider cheating to be disrespectful. They are pretty much all high count women for whom sex is unmoored from love). These women are NOT the “nag him to get back to his career” types. They like having the guy in that role. I had a chick like this describe it to me as that she feels like a more ambitious guy would just break up with her or forget about her (she was attractive, intelligent, successful, in-shape… though with the weird body proportions thing going on. Looked like a female athlete, even though she was a career chick, not an athlete).

The ones you see nagging the man are women who really would PREFER the man take on the role of provision, so the woman could get back to being the woman. The high-T power chicks enjoy being the earner — the last thing they want is the guy trying to assert himself as the breadwinner and likely clashing or competing with them.

Chase

 

[Dough]

Oh, well, this just doesn't reflect the realities of the Western sexual marketplace. Any woman (except for the ones we discussed above) is going to expect provision in a long-term relationship, whether she's had 0 cocks in her or 50.

Ok, then what are you getting in return for provisioning? As far as I can tell, the social contract currently is "she gets provision, you receive literally nothing". Especially for me because I'm trying to be the full package, not use provision to make up for being a blockhead or whatever. Its sole purpose is to take advantage of men who don't have the game skills to replace a woman when she starts expecting stuff that she hasn't earned. I try not to think of social interactions as a transaction, but provisioning is literally transactional.

 

[Chase]

Ok, then what are you getting in return for provisioning? As far as I can tell, the social contract currently is "she gets provision, you receive literally nothing".

Your comment is logically self-defeating:

1. You are willing to accept a high-count woman.
2. You claim that you "receive literally nothing" from such a woman.
3. Yet you are willing to accept such a woman.

WHY are you willing to accept such a woman, if accepting her gives you "literally nothing"?

It is out of charity? Chivalry? The altruism of your generous, virtue-filled heart?

Did the heavens open up to you one day and God said, "Dough, your mission in life will be to take care of all those poor women out there who nobody wants, who possess no value, whatsoever," and you said, "God, let this cross not be mine," but God said, "Dough, you must take this burden," and you said, "I will accept it, Lord, if it truly be your will, though I do so with a heavy heart"?

The very fact that you would get together with such a woman in the first place, instead of refuse her, means she has value to you.

Would you date a goat?

Would you date a man?

Would you date a killer whale? What if that killer whale was a virgin?

Presumably not, because they don't have value to you as partners.

Your whole thing here is, "Okay, these woman HAVE value to me, but I consider them LOWER value, so I want to try to negotiate with them for less strenuous investment on my part."

You are welcome to try to give women this relationship you want: "Hey baby, here's the deal: you pay for me and give me loyalty. I will do my best to look pretty for you. It's a pretty sweet deal, right?"

However that it is simply not going to work out. Not long-long-term.

The reason why is not "women are so demanding and totally irrational!"

The reason is you are in a sexual marketplace filled with other men and it is OTHER MEN who are willing to give these women want they want!

If you want women to accept your deal of "Dough's beauty IN EXCHANGE FOR women's fidelity + money" here's what you must do:

• STEP 1: Get all men to stop going for these women so women have no other choice but to accept your deal
  
  
• STEP 2: Make these women so desperate for love they become willing to accept your deal, which is far worse than the deals other men are offering them NOW, but would be better than nothing after you get other men to completely stop going for them

To do this, you are probably going to need some Professor X + Cerebro mind control power to make men stop going for women. Or else some kind of male-targeting virus that kills off most of your male competition but leaves you fortunately untouched (perhaps you, and only you, have the antidote).

It is pointless blaming women for not accepting your awesome deal.

They're not accepting it because they have other men offering them BETTER DEALS.

Your problem is not the women.

Your problem is other men, and your unwillingness or inability to compete with them.

Especially for me because I'm trying to be the full package

The full package for forever marriage for 99% of women consists of male provision.

not use provision to make up for being a blockhead or whatever. Its sole purpose is to take advantage of men who don't have the game skills to replace a woman when she starts expecting stuff that she hasn't earned.

You have zero understanding of reproductive dynamics.

What is the point of dating?

Dating is a tryout for marriage.

What is the point of marriage?

Marriage is to make babies.

What happens when women make babies?

Women take care of and rear the babies.

In many animal species, females do not keep males around long-term at all. Long enough to mate, and after that the female shoos the male away because post-mating males are nothing but trouble. They steal food from babies, get pissed off at annoying babies and hurt them, kill babies to induce estrus in the female so they can mate again, etc. Females DO NOT WANT males around long-term once they've gotten the sperm they needed from them in the VAST MAJORITY of animal species.

WHY then in humans do females seek long-term male partners, unlike so many animal species?

For provision to increase the odds of survival of the offspring.

What POSSIBLE other role would a long-term monogamous male serve in a woman's life?

Continued reproduction?

She can find another male for that.

Protection?

Every male wants to protect females (to secure reproductive access).

Companionship?

She's too busy raising children to need or want a companion.

Plus she has family.

Plus she has friends.

She doesn't need "a companion."

A male who does not provide is literally of no use to the average female past a certain point of relationship longevity.

He literally has no function. He is in fact anti-valuable, because he is sucking up time and energy from her she could use to find a male to provide.

Now, this can end up not being the case among more masculine women who are earners and don't need provision. These women can like having a male in the feminine role. However, he does not trigger dominant sexual attraction in them, so they end up needing to sate their need for sexual satisfaction through alternate (more classically masculine) short-term male mates (i.e., their affair partners).

You can get around the female need for provision in early dating and even in some relationships you stretch out up to a certain number of years with ordinary women. But the more it looks like you are angling for a lasting relationship, the more considerations start to shift to, "What is the point of having you around long-term?"

If you're not going to provide, there is literally no point to having you there for 99% of women that cannot easily and more enjoyably be fulfilled by other men on-demand.

I try not to think of social interactions as a transaction, but provisioning is literally transactional.

All interactions are transactional.

Some have longer-term considerations, in which reciprocity is not immediately expected, and people are instead focused on building a mutually beneficial long-term relationship. Some have shorter-term considerations, where you give only to more or less immediately hope to get.

Your problem is you do not understand reproduction or what it is you bring to a woman's life long-term, versus what she does.

So I'll make it real clear for you, in reproductive terms:

1. Whether she's had 0 cocks or 50 cocks, shooting your load up into her cervix will fill her uterus with your babies either way.
   
   
2. COMMAND OF HER REPRODUCTIVE RESOURCES so that you can use them to produce Mini-Doughs is what you evolved to secure. You get the SAME EXACT DEAL regardless her partner count. I know you're trying to reason that "Well I have this other criteria and blah blah blah" but evolution doesn't care; the ultimate goal is monopoly of her reproductive resources, and those are unchanged by number of cocks.
   
   
3. You are trying to argue that "Well she should just give me command of her reproductive resources for free if she's had that many cocks in her pussy" but no chick is going for that, not even if she has a 35 IQ.
   
   
4. The equivalent would be going to a used car lot, cornering the salesman, and insisting to him that since a car has a lot of miles he should just give you the car for free because the car has no value and you'd be doing him a favor driving the thing around for him.

What if you don't want children or she doesn't?

It doesn't matter.

The whole reproductive process EVOLVED to satisfy reproductive aims. The dating, fucking, and relationship process is literally a gigantic, pointless waste of energy if no offspring are produced. If humans suddenly discovered a more efficient way to reproduce without romantic partners while still producing offspring just as high quality as what sexual reproduction creates, we'd be a sexless, romance-devoid species within 50 generations.

If you are engaged in romantic or sexual processes, they are GOING to follow the reproductive scripts hard-coded into males and females, even if you're stopping some point short of switching on the baby assembly. She is still going to vet you the same way she would if she was planning a dozen infants with you.

You can CHOOSE not to date women who've slept with 10 men or 5 men or 1 man or whatever your standard is.

No one is going to force you to buy a car with high mileage. No one is going to force you to buy a car with even a single mile on it if you don't want!

However, you cannot walk into the dealership and say, "This car's been test driven for 30 miles. You need to give it to me for free." It's pointless and stupid.

You cannot go to a woman and say, "You're past Dough's Cocks-In Threshold. Therefore you need to give me your pussy for free and pay for me and accept that I will only give you beauty in return." She is just going to laugh.

Again, if you mind wipe all the men on the Earth and make it so they stop going for her, or you invent a male-targeting virus that kills all the other men but leaves you untouched, things can be different. Then she will be so crazy desperate for love she'll take whatever deal you'll offer her.

So long as other men are content to date her despite the N cocks she's had, and content to provide for her, you simply are not going to get her with that deal you're offering. Not for a long-long-term relationship.

You could also conceivably go for a woman who is so old and hideous and undesirable in other ways that she will take your deal because you're just so, so much better than what she could get with any other man. Even then she is still going to nag you for provision once it gets really serious (but probably not dump you over your refusal to provide it). Or just date the hyper-masculine chick who is happy to have you as her sweet & pretty house husband when she gets home from banging Power Chads at the office and on business trips.

The fact of the matter is though that the dynamics of truly long-term relationships are different. Humans evolved them for provision for the young -- not the woman, the YOUNG -- and if you can't provide that, what's the point of keeping you around? Because you're just so beautiful? There are lots of beautiful men, and she can get them to fuck her whenever she wants.

Chase

 

[topcat]

Your comment is logically self-defeating:

1. You are willing to accept a high-count woman.
2. You claim that you "receive literally nothing" from such a woman.
3. Yet you are willing to accept such a woman.

WHY are you willing to accept such a woman, if accepting her gives you "literally nothing"?

It is out of charity? Chivalry? The altruism of your generous, virtue-filled heart?

Did the heavens open up to you one day and God said, "Dough, your mission in life will be to take care of all those poor women out there who nobody wants, who possess no value, whatsoever," and you said, "God, let this cross not be mine," but God said, "Dough, you must take this burden," and you said, "I will accept it, Lord, if it truly be your will, though I do so with a heavy heart"?

The very fact that you would get together with such a woman in the first place, instead of refuse her, means she has value to you.

Would you date a goat?

Would you date a man?

Would you date a killer whale? What if that killer whale was a virgin?

Presumably not, because they don't have value to you as partners.

Your whole thing here is, "Okay, these woman HAVE value to me, but I consider them LOWER value, so I want to try to negotiate with them for less strenuous investment on my part."

You are welcome to try to give women this relationship you want: "Hey baby, here's the deal: you pay for me and give me loyalty. I will do my best to look pretty for you. It's a pretty sweet deal, right?"

However that it is simply not going to work out. Not long-long-term.

The reason why is not "women are so demanding and totally irrational!"

The reason is you are in a sexual marketplace filled with other men and it is OTHER MEN who are willing to give these women want they want!

If you want women to accept your deal of "Dough's beauty IN EXCHANGE FOR women's fidelity + money" here's what you must do:

• STEP 1: Get all men to stop going for these women so women have no other choice but to accept your deal
  
  
• STEP 2: Make these women so desperate for love they become willing to accept your deal, which is far worse than the deals other men are offering them NOW, but would be better than nothing after you get other men to completely stop going for them

To do this, you are probably going to need some Professor X + Cerebro mind control power to make men stop going for women. Or else some kind of male-targeting virus that kills off most of your male competition but leaves you fortunately untouched (perhaps you, and only you, have the antidote).

It is pointless blaming women for not accepting your awesome deal.

They're not accepting it because they have other men offering them BETTER DEALS.

Your problem is not the women.

Your problem is other men, and your unwillingness or inability to compete with them.



The full package for forever marriage for 99% of women consists of male provision.



You have zero understanding of reproductive dynamics.

What is the point of dating?

Dating is a tryout for marriage.

What is the point of marriage?

Marriage is to make babies.

What happens when women make babies?

Women take care of and rear the babies.

In many animal species, females do not keep males around long-term at all. Long enough to mate, and after that the female shoos the male away because post-mating males are nothing but trouble. They steal food from babies, get pissed off at annoying babies and hurt them, kill babies to induce estrus in the female so they can mate again, etc. Females DO NOT WANT males around long-term once they've gotten the sperm they needed from them in the VAST MAJORITY of animal species.

WHY then in humans do females seek long-term male partners, unlike so many animal species?

For provision to increase the odds of survival of the offspring.

What POSSIBLE other role would a long-term monogamous male serve in a woman's life?

Continued reproduction?

She can find another male for that.

Protection?

Every male wants to protect females (to secure reproductive access).

Companionship?

She's too busy raising children to need or want a companion.

Plus she has family.

Plus she has friends.

She doesn't need "a companion."

A male who does not provide is literally of no use to the average female past a certain point of relationship longevity.

He literally has no function. He is in fact anti-valuable, because he is sucking up time and energy from her she could use to find a male to provide.

Now, this can end up not being the case among more masculine women who are earners and don't need provision. These women can like having a male in the feminine role. However, he does not trigger dominant sexual attraction in them, so they end up needing to sate their need for sexual satisfaction through alternate (more classically masculine) short-term male mates (i.e., their affair partners).

You can get around the female need for provision in early dating and even in some relationships you stretch out up to a certain number of years with ordinary women. But the more it looks like you are angling for a lasting relationship, the more considerations start to shift to, "What is the point of having you around long-term?"

If you're not going to provide, there is literally no point to having you there for 99% of women that cannot easily and more enjoyably be fulfilled by other men on-demand.



All interactions are transactional.

Some have longer-term considerations, in which reciprocity is not immediately expected, and people are instead focused on building a mutually beneficial long-term relationship. Some have shorter-term considerations, where you give only to more or less immediately hope to get.

Your problem is you do not understand reproduction or what it is you bring to a woman's life long-term, versus what she does.

So I'll make it real clear for you, in reproductive terms:

1. Whether she's had 0 cocks or 50 cocks, shooting your load up into her cervix will fill her uterus with your babies either way.
   
   
2. COMMAND OF HER REPRODUCTIVE RESOURCES so that you can use them to produce Mini-Doughs is what you evolved to secure. You get the SAME EXACT DEAL regardless her partner count. I know you're trying to reason that "Well I have this other criteria and blah blah blah" but evolution doesn't care; the ultimate goal is monopoly of her reproductive resources, and those are unchanged by number of cocks.
   
   
3. You are trying to argue that "Well she should just give me command of her reproductive resources for free if she's had that many cocks in her pussy" but no chick is going for that, not even if she has a 35 IQ.
   
   
4. The equivalent would be going to a used car lot, cornering the salesman, and insisting to him that since a car has a lot of miles he should just give you the car for free because the car has no value and you'd be doing him a favor driving the thing around for him.

What if you don't want children or she doesn't?

It doesn't matter.

The whole reproductive process EVOLVED to satisfy reproductive aims. The dating, fucking, and relationship process is literally a gigantic, pointless waste of energy if no offspring are produced. If humans suddenly discovered a more efficient way to reproduce without romantic partners while still producing offspring just as high quality as what sexual reproduction creates, we'd be a sexless, romance-devoid species within 50 generations.

If you are engaged in romantic or sexual processes, they are GOING to follow the reproductive scripts hard-coded into males and females, even if you're stopping some point short of switching on the baby assembly. She is still going to vet you the same way she would if she was planning a dozen infants with you.

You can CHOOSE not to date women who've slept with 10 men or 5 men or 1 man or whatever your standard is.

No one is going to force you to buy a car with high mileage. No one is going to force you to buy a car with even a single mile on it if you don't want!

However, you cannot walk into the dealership and say, "This car's been test driven for 30 miles. You need to give it to me for free." It's pointless and stupid.

You cannot go to a woman and say, "You're past Dough's Cocks-In Threshold. Therefore you need to give me your pussy for free and pay for me and accept that I will only give you beauty in return." She is just going to laugh.

Again, if you mind wipe all the men on the Earth and make it so they stop going for her, or you invent a male-targeting virus that kills all the other men but leaves you untouched, things can be different. Then she will be so crazy desperate for love she'll take whatever deal you'll offer her.

So long as other men are content to date her despite the N cocks she's had, and content to provide for her, you simply are not going to get her with that deal you're offering. Not for a long-long-term relationship.

You could also conceivably go for a woman who is so old and hideous and undesirable in other ways that she will take your deal because you're just so, so much better than what she could get with any other man. Even then she is still going to nag you for provision once it gets really serious (but probably not dump you over your refusal to provide it). Or just date the hyper-masculine chick who is happy to have you as her sweet & pretty house husband when she gets home from banging Power Chads at the office and on business trips.

The fact of the matter is though that the dynamics of truly long-term relationships are different. Humans evolved them for provision for the young -- not the woman, the YOUNG -- and if you can't provide that, what's the point of keeping you around? Because you're just so beautiful? There are lots of beautiful men, and she can get them to fuck her whenever she wants.

Chase

Wow!

with the purpose and trajectory of male-female relationships lain so bare, it’s now quite clear to me why i really have no interest in long term relationships, AND have never felt compelled to desire fidelity or exclusivity from a woman.

It seems then that an ideal way (at least for me were i to become interested) to enter into a long term relationship with the right frame (assuming here a man of ambition and purpose), would be to date a pool of desirable women. Have one or many of those chase you for exclusivity. Select your favourite of these and basically make it clear that you will see to it that she achieves her fundamental biological imperatives through you, as long as she fulfills some nontrivial needs of yours. Then deliver on these, whilst seeing to it that she holds up her end of the bargain (i assume via reinforcing established precedent through a stringent system of reward and punishment ).

Yeah. No interest, at least for the foreseeable. I have neither the money, time nor extra mental bandwidth to successfully pull that off, whilst chasing purpose and building the financial independence i’d need to dampen the call of wilderness that claws at my heart.


@Dough you sound a lot like a younger me tbh. I’d say the advice you’ve been given to get out in the field is a fair one.

It sounds like you’re somebody who has great desires and expectations of himself (correct me if i’m wrong) though perhaps a little short on the implementation of it currently. And feel as though women’s romantic expectations present a threat to this idea you have of your future ambitions?

I’d say worry less about this at your current stage, focus on your mission, your self development yes. But also get in the field with the aim to master the attention of women also.
Then you will have a REAL understanding of your value, the value you expect of women and what transactions of the two you are willing to engage in.
Remembering too that your needs and wants will evolve over time.

Topcat

 

[Dough]

@Chase Maaan. I just want a girl that I find attractive who is devoted to me. Not me as a means to babies, but to me period as the end in of itself. As innocently as a dog without some grand scheme. I don't want women generally, I want a woman who is this specific thing. (yes, that is something that I would provide for! it's priceless! I would do anything short of murder!) This is the 'need' that I want a woman to fulfill for me, and it's the reason I started learning seduction in the first place because I thought I was "just not attractive enough to deserve it".

It feels like I'm trying to fit a 4-dimensional peg into a 3-dimesional hole, and I'm confused because I know that I am myself capable of loving someone in that way. I've been doing my best for a couple years now and no fucking wonder I've gone nowhere: No matter how amazing I become, it will never change another person's neurology into something that it isn't.

Reproductive resources are worthless to me. Japan needs to hurry up and invent me an android. I suddenly like women a lot less.

 

[Skills]

@Chase Maaan. I just want a girl that I find attractive who is devoted to me. Not me as a means to babies, but to me period as the end in of itself. As innocently as a dog without some grand scheme. I don't want women generally, I want a woman who is this specific thing. (yes, that is something that I would provide for! it's priceless! I would do anything short of murder!) This is the 'need' that I want a woman to fulfill for me, and it's the reason I started learning seduction in the first place because I thought I was "just not attractive enough to deserve it".

It feels like I'm trying to fit a 4-dimensional peg into a 3-dimesional hole, and I'm confused because I know that I am myself capable of loving someone in that way. I've been doing my best for a couple years now and no fucking wonder I've gone nowhere: No matter how amazing I become, it will never change another person's neurology into something that it isn't.

Reproductive resources are worthless to me. Japan needs to hurry up and invent me an android. I suddenly like women a lot less.

Nothing changes you can have whatever girl you want nothing changes:

- go out meet and fuck a lot of women
-date a lot of women
-one of them will have what you want
-as you are dating you will find everything you need to know about her...probation period
- if she pass probation you make her main or girlfriend...

Nothing changes this is another complex sofisticated coping post... i got good news the last coping post by the indian dude on the forum got laid... i was worried too long has past without a coping post...

 

[Skills]

Your comment is logically self-defeating:

1. You are willing to accept a high-count woman.
2. You claim that you "receive literally nothing" from such a woman.
3. Yet you are willing to accept such a woman.

WHY are you willing to accept such a woman, if accepting her gives you "literally nothing"?

It is out of charity? Chivalry? The altruism of your generous, virtue-filled heart?

Did the heavens open up to you one day and God said, "Dough, your mission in life will be to take care of all those poor women out there who nobody wants, who possess no value, whatsoever," and you said, "God, let this cross not be mine," but God said, "Dough, you must take this burden," and you said, "I will accept it, Lord, if it truly be your will, though I do so with a heavy heart"?

The very fact that you would get together with such a woman in the first place, instead of refuse her, means she has value to you.

Would you date a goat?

Would you date a man?

Would you date a killer whale? What if that killer whale was a virgin?

Presumably not, because they don't have value to you as partners.

Your whole thing here is, "Okay, these woman HAVE value to me, but I consider them LOWER value, so I want to try to negotiate with them for less strenuous investment on my part."

You are welcome to try to give women this relationship you want: "Hey baby, here's the deal: you pay for me and give me loyalty. I will do my best to look pretty for you. It's a pretty sweet deal, right?"

However that it is simply not going to work out. Not long-long-term.

The reason why is not "women are so demanding and totally irrational!"

The reason is you are in a sexual marketplace filled with other men and it is OTHER MEN who are willing to give these women want they want!

If you want women to accept your deal of "Dough's beauty IN EXCHANGE FOR women's fidelity + money" here's what you must do:

• STEP 1: Get all men to stop going for these women so women have no other choice but to accept your deal
  
  
• STEP 2: Make these women so desperate for love they become willing to accept your deal, which is far worse than the deals other men are offering them NOW, but would be better than nothing after you get other men to completely stop going for them

To do this, you are probably going to need some Professor X + Cerebro mind control power to make men stop going for women. Or else some kind of male-targeting virus that kills off most of your male competition but leaves you fortunately untouched (perhaps you, and only you, have the antidote).

It is pointless blaming women for not accepting your awesome deal.

They're not accepting it because they have other men offering them BETTER DEALS.

Your problem is not the women.

Your problem is other men, and your unwillingness or inability to compete with them.



The full package for forever marriage for 99% of women consists of male provision.



You have zero understanding of reproductive dynamics.

What is the point of dating?

Dating is a tryout for marriage.

What is the point of marriage?

Marriage is to make babies.

What happens when women make babies?

Women take care of and rear the babies.

In many animal species, females do not keep males around long-term at all. Long enough to mate, and after that the female shoos the male away because post-mating males are nothing but trouble. They steal food from babies, get pissed off at annoying babies and hurt them, kill babies to induce estrus in the female so they can mate again, etc. Females DO NOT WANT males around long-term once they've gotten the sperm they needed from them in the VAST MAJORITY of animal species.

WHY then in humans do females seek long-term male partners, unlike so many animal species?

For provision to increase the odds of survival of the offspring.

What POSSIBLE other role would a long-term monogamous male serve in a woman's life?

Continued reproduction?

She can find another male for that.

Protection?

Every male wants to protect females (to secure reproductive access).

Companionship?

She's too busy raising children to need or want a companion.

Plus she has family.

Plus she has friends.

She doesn't need "a companion."

A male who does not provide is literally of no use to the average female past a certain point of relationship longevity.

He literally has no function. He is in fact anti-valuable, because he is sucking up time and energy from her she could use to find a male to provide.

Now, this can end up not being the case among more masculine women who are earners and don't need provision. These women can like having a male in the feminine role. However, he does not trigger dominant sexual attraction in them, so they end up needing to sate their need for sexual satisfaction through alternate (more classically masculine) short-term male mates (i.e., their affair partners).

You can get around the female need for provision in early dating and even in some relationships you stretch out up to a certain number of years with ordinary women. But the more it looks like you are angling for a lasting relationship, the more considerations start to shift to, "What is the point of having you around long-term?"

If you're not going to provide, there is literally no point to having you there for 99% of women that cannot easily and more enjoyably be fulfilled by other men on-demand.



All interactions are transactional.

Some have longer-term considerations, in which reciprocity is not immediately expected, and people are instead focused on building a mutually beneficial long-term relationship. Some have shorter-term considerations, where you give only to more or less immediately hope to get.

Your problem is you do not understand reproduction or what it is you bring to a woman's life long-term, versus what she does.

So I'll make it real clear for you, in reproductive terms:

1. Whether she's had 0 cocks or 50 cocks, shooting your load up into her cervix will fill her uterus with your babies either way.
   
   
2. COMMAND OF HER REPRODUCTIVE RESOURCES so that you can use them to produce Mini-Doughs is what you evolved to secure. You get the SAME EXACT DEAL regardless her partner count. I know you're trying to reason that "Well I have this other criteria and blah blah blah" but evolution doesn't care; the ultimate goal is monopoly of her reproductive resources, and those are unchanged by number of cocks.
   
   
3. You are trying to argue that "Well she should just give me command of her reproductive resources for free if she's had that many cocks in her pussy" but no chick is going for that, not even if she has a 35 IQ.
   
   
4. The equivalent would be going to a used car lot, cornering the salesman, and insisting to him that since a car has a lot of miles he should just give you the car for free because the car has no value and you'd be doing him a favor driving the thing around for him.

What if you don't want children or she doesn't?

It doesn't matter.

The whole reproductive process EVOLVED to satisfy reproductive aims. The dating, fucking, and relationship process is literally a gigantic, pointless waste of energy if no offspring are produced. If humans suddenly discovered a more efficient way to reproduce without romantic partners while still producing offspring just as high quality as what sexual reproduction creates, we'd be a sexless, romance-devoid species within 50 generations.

If you are engaged in romantic or sexual processes, they are GOING to follow the reproductive scripts hard-coded into males and females, even if you're stopping some point short of switching on the baby assembly. She is still going to vet you the same way she would if she was planning a dozen infants with you.

You can CHOOSE not to date women who've slept with 10 men or 5 men or 1 man or whatever your standard is.

No one is going to force you to buy a car with high mileage. No one is going to force you to buy a car with even a single mile on it if you don't want!

However, you cannot walk into the dealership and say, "This car's been test driven for 30 miles. You need to give it to me for free." It's pointless and stupid.

You cannot go to a woman and say, "You're past Dough's Cocks-In Threshold. Therefore you need to give me your pussy for free and pay for me and accept that I will only give you beauty in return." She is just going to laugh.

Again, if you mind wipe all the men on the Earth and make it so they stop going for her, or you invent a male-targeting virus that kills all the other men but leaves you untouched, things can be different. Then she will be so crazy desperate for love she'll take whatever deal you'll offer her.

So long as other men are content to date her despite the N cocks she's had, and content to provide for her, you simply are not going to get her with that deal you're offering. Not for a long-long-term relationship.

You could also conceivably go for a woman who is so old and hideous and undesirable in other ways that she will take your deal because you're just so, so much better than what she could get with any other man. Even then she is still going to nag you for provision once it gets really serious (but probably not dump you over your refusal to provide it). Or just date the hyper-masculine chick who is happy to have you as her sweet & pretty house husband when she gets home from banging Power Chads at the office and on business trips.

The fact of the matter is though that the dynamics of truly long-term relationships are different. Humans evolved them for provision for the young -- not the woman, the YOUNG -- and if you can't provide that, what's the point of keeping you around? Because you're just so beautiful? There are lots of beautiful men, and she can get them to fuck her whenever she wants.

Chase

This sounds like the men go their own way description that is their goal and mission...mgtow the dudes fucking doll to get out of competing so women can make sexual market place favorable to men again...

 

[Chase]

@Dough,

@Chase Maaan. I just want a girl that I find attractive who is devoted to me. Not me as a means to babies, but to me period as the end in of itself. As innocently as a dog without some grand scheme. I don't want women generally, I want a woman who is this specific thing. (yes, that is something that I would provide for! it's priceless! I would do anything short of murder!) This is the 'need' that I want a woman to fulfill for me, and it's the reason I started learning seduction in the first place because I thought I was "just not attractive enough to deserve it".

It feels like I'm trying to fit a 4-dimensional peg into a 3-dimesional hole, and I'm confused because I know that I am myself capable of loving someone in that way. I've been doing my best for a couple years now and no fucking wonder I've gone nowhere: No matter how amazing I become, it will never change another person's neurology into something that it isn't.

Reproductive resources are worthless to me. Japan needs to hurry up and invent me an android. I suddenly like women a lot less.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse, man.

You are trying to plan out your entire life with some huge long-term strategy with (so far as I can tell) zero actual romantic/sexual experience with women. It's like trying to plot a career trajectory before you've ever worked or plotting out a video game winning strategy before you've ever played the game. It doesn't matter how many books or guides you've read, you're going to be so far out in la-la-land trying to suss out all this theory from a bunch of abstraction it will not be remotely close to what will happen when you finally plunge your feet and hands into the thing for real.

If all you want is devotion, you're going to figure that out once you start dating. Every virgin or guy in scarcity (unless he's got women throwing themselves at him... which is quite rare for guys like that) wants the same thing you want: "I just want some girl to fall in love with me and be totally devoted to me."

When you start dating, you will get that.

The first time you have some beautiful girl totally devoted to you, crazy in love with you, it's gonna blow your mind, man.

Don't worry about all this other nonsense, trying to plot your whole life trajectory before you even have any experience.

Just get out there, IN THE FIELD, start approaching women, start dating women, start laying women, and sooner or later you are going to have girls falling for you, trying to devote themselves to you, and the whole experience is going to feel a bit surreal because you didn't think it would happen, but... that is just what happens when you put men and women together and mix sex and chemistry.

It is the human experience.

It is just what happens.

Quit worrying about how you are going to get it, and go GET it.

Stop all this mental masturbation.

It's useless.

GET IN THE FIELD.

The rest will take care of itself.

Chase