"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

[Noxx]

I think BD's point was that she needs to be more honest or else she's going to rip their hearts out and feel guilty in the long run. Her point is that being honest doesn't work since apparently the men she dates don't want her to see other guys because they're too insecure and/or territorial.

 

The terms they use are from here

She's not the one ripping their hearts out though, that's the thing. Well... it's not entirely her doing. Like i already explained, most men can't distinguish between love, lust, infatuation. They [bleep] a girl, they get all emotional about it, they "fall in love". But really, they're just mesmerized by the fact that she's willing to have sex with them without taking payment for it. They "fall in love" with that concept. Not her. It could be any woman offering the same "relationship" and they would feel the exact same feelings. I think the guy who wrote that is trying to justify the behavior of pathetic men. Men who're unable to control their emotions, men who are emotionally immature. If you need to ask you partner what their intentions are, then it's usually a pretty good sign already. And if you're asking questions like these a few days or a week into a relationship... well then you're doing something wrong as well. I find it laughable that this guy's making men out to be victims when we're no more a victim than the average woman. 

[RpgGamer]

Tldr; you have a better chance at controlling your emotions and the risks you put them in than you do controlling women as a whole

[Boris5000]

nice job my man

what do you think of her?

She's pretty neato-burrito.

[Sir_Squab]

 

I think BD's point was that she needs to be more honest or else she's going to rip their hearts out and feel guilty in the long run. Her point is that being honest doesn't work since apparently the men she dates don't want her to see other guys because they're too insecure and/or territorial.

 

The terms they use are from here

 

 

on the terms it looks like I was right on the money then. 

 

As far as her behavior you should check out assortment theory. Which basically says like attracts like.

 

That she gets men who are insecure and territorial as a direct result of her not being willing to express her intentions either.  That if she is 100% upfront about everything in that article those types of insecure men won't want to be around her making the only men interested in her the independent men (which is what she wants).

 

 

 

Or another analogy, girls who refuse to shave and are vocal about the fact that they will not shave naturally assort men who don't mind hairy women. Like attracts like.

 

 

Pretty much.

 

Also, this is BD making the article: looks for specific dating habit some women have -> finds anecdote of woman with dating habits he's looking for -> empyrical evidence that this is how women act!

[muggiwhplar]

 

 

 

 

 

I think BD's point was that she needs to be more honest or else she's going to rip their hearts out and feel guilty in the long run. Her point is that being honest doesn't work since apparently the men she dates don't want her to see other guys because they're too insecure and/or territorial.

 

The terms they use are from here

 

on the terms it looks like I was right on the money then.

 

As far as her behavior you should check out assortment theory. Which basically says like attracts like.

 

That she gets men who are insecure and territorial as a direct result of her not being willing to express her intentions either. That if she is 100% upfront about everything in that article those types of insecure men won't want to be around her making the only men interested in her the independent men (which is what she wants).

 

 

 

Or another analogy, girls who refuse to shave and are vocal about the fact that they will not shave naturally assort men who don't mind hairy women. Like attracts like.

Pretty much.

 

Also, this is BD making the article: looks for specific dating habit some women have -> finds anecdote of woman with dating habits he's looking for -> empyrical evidence that this is how women act!

What experiences and/or statistics of yours suggest that his conclusions aren't valid?

[Boris5000]

Unless BD is a Sociologist that uses high sample-number 'case vs controls' then Squab is allowed to refute BD's claims. Countering with "What inferential statistics do you have to prove BD wrong?" isn't going to make Bd anymore correct, seeing as that "BD" has not performed any inferential statistics to prove that he is also correct, or has found anything that is significant enough to suggest otherwise.

 

Squab (I assume) is recognizing that BD's "case study" is handled in such as way that he doesn't agree with.

 

Squab does not, and likely, will not have any empirical evidence to suggest that BD's conclusions are incorrect, but BD has no empirical evidence to suggest he is correct either.

[muggiwhplar]

Yes that's correct, but that logic basically concludes "nobody's right about anything and women as a whole are a complete enigma because we haven't had any large peer-reviewed studies to examine this phenomena." However that's a silly conclusion to draw since BD's systems wouldn't be proven to work for thousands of guys across the western world in such a consistent and replicable manner if that were the case.

 

As I've said before, if anyone can develop a proven repeatable system that can make things such as monogamy "work" for the majority of the population, then I'm all ears. But so far nobody has been able to develop such a thing, which basically suggests that BD's observations are correct and those whose experiences tell otherwise are the case studies.

[Boris5000]

Well... If I was being picky... How many thousands of people?

Because 15,000 (judging from his mailing list) men out of 50,000,000 men (this is an estimated figure, male pop of US - # of >18 and <40 that are unmarried) is still 0.03% of the "active" male population. There are more people with very rare genetic diseases than have been helped by BD's work.

 

n.b. there probably is not 50,000,000 desperately single men out in the US.

For the record, I am unfamiliar with BD's purpose, or how BD's system functions, and what the end goal is for his system. I understand that he is under the impression that a polygamous male is a more successful male owtte. Aslo would BD's system apply for certain Socio-economic classes (I am curious). I would peruse his glorified blog but I am just slightly too busy atm :(

PS: I don't want to get into a Monogamy vs Polygamy debate :P

[muggiwhplar]

AFAIK it's pretty much a 100% success rate from those who choose to follow his system. Those who cannot make his system work are those who willingly choose to violate certain principles within his system. In other words it's their fault it doesn't work, but they could make it work if they chose to; the system itself works.

 

Assuming those 50,000,000 men share the same goals as BD (which is to have frequent sex and loving relationships with beautiful women with minimal drama), then there's no reason why his system wouldn't work for the vast majority of them. The reason why 50,000,000 men across the world are generally unhappily single or unhappily married or cheating is because they're doing things wrong. They don't have a system to follow, or they do have a system to follow but the system just doesn't work. One of BD's core arguments is that long-term monogamy as a system doesn't work for the vast majority of the population.

 

The system works for all socioeconomic classes, however some people have to put in more initial effort to make it work than others. For example, if your method of meeting women is online dating and you're unattractive, you're either going to have to dedicate a few months to cleaning up your looks or you're just going to have to message many more women than a good-looking person would need to in order to achieve the same results.

[Boris5000]

So my impression is that the system involves soliciting sexual activity with x amount of (subjectively) beautiful women and thus the probability would tend towards 1. (much like the existence of humanity)

 

I mean 50,000,000 out of 120,000,000 is still a minority of the male population (in the US) so I guess we can assume the other 70,000,000 men are either happy or too young. This is under the assumption that the 50,000,000 men are all desperately unhappy and fall into BD's target demograph (which would be much much smaller than this).

 

And this system probably works due to the sheer distribution of how men in the area operate. It would be interesting to see what the stats would be like if all 50,000,000 singletons in the US did BD's stuff and those cheeky-monogamist-scrublords would be the new BD method.

 

I mean at somepoint during human evolution we switched from polygamy into monogamy. Genetic imprinting seems to suggest (the evidence of polygamy) so anyway.

 

Nonetheless, interesting stuff.

[muggiwhplar]

I was just using your number of 50M. Like I said, anyone who wants what BD has can get it by simply emulating his behavior. The same thing cannot be said for those who want what their grandparents have, for example.

[obfuscator]

. The same thing cannot be said for those who want what their grandparents have, for example.

That's not entirely true, it's just much more difficult for them than it was for their grandparents.

[muggiwhplar]

 

. The same thing cannot be said for those who want what their grandparents have, for example.

That's not entirely true, it's just much more difficult for them than it was for their grandparents.

 

 

Correct. And if there's anyone out there who can create a system for people to follow in order to consistently and reliably achieve what their grandparents have, then that person will become very rich :P After all, I think most people would prefer that over BD's lifestyle

[Boris5000]

Mass genocide. Or at-least compulsory euthanasia for anyone above 55. 

[muggiwhplar]

At the risk of opening a can of worms...

 

I saw on OKCupid that people can set their sexual orientation to "sapiosexual." I looked it up and apparently it means you're sexually attracted to intelligence.

 

Really? Is this actually a thing? Were there sapiosexuals sitting next to me in college lectures getting boners and jizzing their pants whenever the professor discusses the next PowerPoint slide? Are there people jacking off to TED Talks instead of porn?

[Hedgehog]

I think it's just a new way of being pretentious

[Boris5000]

sapiosexuals are those that confuse "oh that's interesting" with sexual arousal.

[muggiwhplar]

I think it's just a new way of being pretentious

 

Yeah. Whenever I see someone's profile with their sexual orientation as sapiosexual I just roll my eyes and think, "wow what a douche" and move on to the next profile. Unless they're hot, of course, in which case I message them anyways because I'm trying to get laid. :lol:

[Sir_Squab]

 

 

. The same thing cannot be said for those who want what their grandparents have, for example.

That's not entirely true, it's just much more difficult for them than it was for their grandparents.

 

 

Correct. And if there's anyone out there who can create a system for people to follow in order to consistently and reliably achieve what their grandparents have, then that person will become very rich :P After all, I think most people would prefer that over BD's lifestyle

 

 

I find it ironic that you're both the most outspoken against* that lifestyle yet at the same time probably have the highest chance of achieving it if you put your mind to it. It'd be interesting to see you 5 years (and 25 years from now) if you suddenly shifted all the effort you spend towards your polyamorous lifestyle and focused on a monogamous lifestyle instead. I truly believe you'd be happily married 25 years from now.

 

*by against I mean you don't believe that lifestyle is realistically obtainable, not that the lifestyle itself is bad.

[muggiwhplar]

There's like no benefits that monogamy offers me which poly doesn't. Do you really think a guy like me who's become used to sexual variety could remain happy with just one partner for 50+ years? Imagine only being allowed to jerk off to just one porno for the rest of your life or eating the same meal every day. Even if it's your favorite, it's not enough to overpower the basic human need for variety. I'd be better suited for monogamy if I were still a virgin :P

[Major Dash]

I think that he was talking more hypothetically.

[Low Levelled]

Jerking off to a single porno.. Damn.. There better be a moneyshot

[obfuscator]

There's like no benefits that monogamy offers me which poly doesn't. Do you really think a guy like me who's become used to sexual variety could remain happy with just one partner for 50+ years? Imagine only being allowed to jerk off to just one porno for the rest of your life or eating the same meal every day. Even if it's your favorite, it's not enough to overpower the basic human need for variety. I'd be better suited for monogamy if I were still a virgin :P

At least you're realistic about it. That's a huge problem in our society today - it's so easy to have massive amounts of sexual variety when people are young (college age), but then they think that drive can just be turned off by finding "the right one".

 

Marriages were much more successful before widespread promiscuity was commonplace, because people were much more likely to be satisfied by having only one partner.

[muggiwhplar]

I think that he was talking more hypothetically.

 

my answer remains the same either way

[Major Dash]

 

There's like no benefits that monogamy offers me which poly doesn't. Do you really think a guy like me who's become used to sexual variety could remain happy with just one partner for 50+ years? Imagine only being allowed to jerk off to just one porno for the rest of your life or eating the same meal every day. Even if it's your favorite, it's not enough to overpower the basic human need for variety. I'd be better suited for monogamy if I were still a virgin :P

At least you're realistic about it. That's a huge problem in our society today - it's so easy to have massive amounts of sexual variety when people are young (college age), but then they think that drive can just be turned off by finding "the right one".

 

Marriages were much more successful before widespread promiscuity was commonplace, because people were much more likely to be satisfied by having only one partner.

 

 

 

This is where the whole 'no sex before marriage' thing comes from. If a long term marriage (closed relationship) is really your endgame, having a lot of sexual partners before you find 'the one' is just going to make sticking with 1 person a whole lot harder. This can (and will) cause issues in your marriage later on, namely cheating and sexual frustration.