AMA I am a 26 year old who has slept with over 50 girls, all 8s and above

[Onibun]

As far as actually running the relationship, the man has to be the one with the power and control in the relationship. He must ultimately be the one who makes the big decisions, sets the expectations, and guides the woman in the direction he wants the relationship to go. While women will whine and complain about "equal rights" and "a balanced relationship where both partners share equal responsibility," they absolutely SWOON over men they consider to be "more dominant" and "more in control" than themselves. As a matter of fact, some women might even cause more drama in a less balanced relationship where the man is in control, but she will also fall for you even harder.
- Franco

This is patently incorrect. This is an age old, refuses to die, dated anachronism from hundreds and even thousands of years of male-dominated relationships, and there's a thousand related or unrelated academic studies out there with proven facts that point towards this being purely a product of long-held social conditioning.

It's also the reason the rabid feminist movement hates anything that has to do with men or men's rights. It's pure, main-line bullshit. The most long-lasting argument towards this kind of garbage is that "it happens in nature", which is to compare the average human to a primate at best. A hundred years ago, 99% of our communication was verbal. These days, that number's more like 10% and falling every year. You're telling me that if people can vastly change the way they do something as primal as communicate, they are unable to change something as socially complex as the way a relationship runs?

And don't get me wrong -- I'm about the last person anybody would call a feminist, or feminist sympathizer. I'm moreso the kind of person who will call out feminists on their (equally stupid) belief systems.

Is it a successful strategy? Sure. Because it has been for a very, very long time. It's waning.

It's not the only one, and given the breakneck speed at which gender roles have shifted in the past 50 years (which continue and become stronger every year) holding onto a dated concept like this is the surest way to fail in the long run.

Again, it's completely failing to account for the social-shift-gap. It's completely failing to account for any of the thousands of academic studies regarding human nature and social conditioning in the past 30 years.

Are women attracted to this kind of thing? Sure, they certainly 100% are. Attraction is pretty raw and primal. A relationship is not 100% attraction. Is it the "surefire way" to run a ridiculously complex social construction, which changes every fifty or hundred years, largely not even seen in nature and originally invented by people as a means of creating and maintaining power? No.

It also fails to account for the fact that saying something as inherently complex as a relationship should be 'equal' is not a black and white equation. It doesn't mean sharing decision making 50/50, it means that at the end of the day both parties must feel as though some reasonable amount of equality has been achieved. Women are human beings, not items to be controlled, and human beings (rather male or female) have a natural desire towards equality in social situations.

It is a primal instinct. If you split an apple, each party should get half unless there's some overarching reason not to. If one person gets a larger share of this apple, it is expected through an enormous hierarchy of social constructs that at the end of the day this is still "fair". He gets a bigger share because he's the leader, a strong leader ensures my survival, therefore my survival is worth an inequity now. It's so incredibly primal and basic, and such an important emotion, that if you split a 50 cent chocolate bar with no actual value to either party (50 cents, calories that don't matter / you don't need, there is literally nothing important about it).. and if you split it, and someone gets a slightly larger piece, you may not comment or complain but your mind will instantly register it and it will leave you with a feeling.

You can go through your entire life not noticing all kinds of things that happen around you. You can get so inured to something that you completely fail to notice it -- background noise, smells, anything. You're 80 years old, get less than an equal share of a chocolate bar that doesn't even matter? Your brain registers this, almost every single time. Even if it's just for a second, and you instantly write it off as 'who cares?' and go on with your life your mind is still, still registering it. Because social equality in human beings is a deeply inherent mental construct. Your brain can ignore a thousand different things, it will never fail to ignore something like that.

It exists in a hundred different varieties. The whole age-old concept of doing someone a "favour" is a social construct of a primal feeling. Bartering is the same. Money is nothing more than far offshoot of this. At the end of the day, social equality/inequality is an inherently primal as breathing. It is a result of Darwinism.. the people that never cared about getting an "equal" share, whether direct or indirect, simply did not make it after a thousand generations.

It means if a male decides it is his duty to make the decisions, he must allow concessions in other relationship areas to create a harmony/balance. Otherwise, it will not work. Being as foolish as to think that a man should somehow "dominate" like an animal is to completely disregard the entire concept of human social evolution, literally one of the things that separates us from animals in the first place.

There are a few books I would recommend you read on the concept of social constructions, human nature and all these things -- but I'm not sure you would. This bullshit about male-domination is firmly entrenched, although it is changing slowly.

 

[Franco]

It also fails to account for the fact that saying something as inherently complex as a relationship should be 'equal' is not a black and white equation. It doesn't mean sharing decision making 50/50, it means that at the end of the day both parties must feel as though some reasonable amount of equality has been achieved. Women are human beings, not items to be controlled, and human beings (rather male or female) have a natural desire towards equality in social situations. It is a primal instinct. If you split an apple, each party should get half unless there's some overarching reason not to. If one person gets a larger share of this apple, it is expected through an enormous hierarchy of social constructs that at the end of the day this is still "fair". He gets a bigger share because he's the leader, a strong leader ensures my survival, therefore my survival is worth an inequity now.

It means if a male decides it is his duty to make the decisions, he must allow concessions in other relationship areas to create a harmony/balance. Otherwise, it will not work.

There are a few books I would recommend you read on the concept of social constructions, human nature and all these things -- but I'm not sure you would. This bullshit about male-domination is firmly entrenched, although it is changing slowly.

This might be the point where we finally agree to disagree, but I would like to point out that there is a very happy medium that you can achieve where the man "essentially" runs the relationship and the woman is extremely happy. My girl is certainly head over heels in love with me, although that comes from a certain level of respect she has for me (as both the ultimate decision maker and the man who also is attentive to her feelings). You are correct in stating that women have a natural tendency to float toward equilibrium, but I think you might fail to realize that fighting to achieve that equilibrium is actually where attraction comes from. True equilibrium in a relationship is actually an impossible feat -- there's always one party who is more in control than the other. And it's always better for the man to be on the more dominant end of this spectrum rather than on the less dominant end. There are absolutely no exceptions to this in my mind (and you would have a pretty difficult time convincing me otherwise based on personal experience and the experience of my friends going through their own relationships).

To some degree, you do need to concede some power to the girl if you decide to become exclusive (and that's primarily your leverage of being able to sleep with other women), but it's nowhere near the amount of power most men think they need to concede. If she ever feels like she "has" you, then you're running the relationship incorrectly. Even if you're exclusive to her (by verbal agreement), she needs to feel like there's always some element of you that she can't control, and she must always be chasing to try to gain control over that element if you want to keep her viewing you as the best and sexiest man she has ever met. As the age old saying goes, "you always want the one you can't have." And based upon basic attraction dynamics, this will probably stand true until the end of time.

I guess I should also mention that your woman should never be consciously calling you out as "too controlling" or "too dominant" toward her. If she's actually aware of this imbalance to the point where she has to make a comment about it, then it also probably means you need to tone down your level of dominance or aggressiveness toward her a certain amount. Men need to also understand that women want to view you as their rock -- the guy who is emotionally rock steady when she needs it the most. (My girl will also never catch me crying in front of her, for example)

- Franco

 

[Onibun]

I think the point where we can agree to disagree is your definition of relationship equality and mine. Yours is limited to a more specific scope.

Mine is a very, very generalized concept and one people tend to feel rather innately. It's the same system that defines how, for example, without ever having been taught or given rules, we classify and repay favours to very distinct levels. It's a built-in mechanism every human being has.

Helping somebody move is not the same as say, giving them a kidney.

Money has been instrumental in this process but the concept existed long before we had any idea of what "money" was. Before we had the concept of "barter". These days the easiest way to decide what a "favour" is worth is valuing it financially, because we value any sort of deed/service/product financially. It's handy, but we did all this without the use of money before. Sometimes we have entire internal "bank accounts" of favours. I'll help someone with this, because in the past he's always been there for .... (etc)

If your relationship doesn't "feel" equal, it isn't. If you need to tell yourself that you're running things, that's fine, but long-term everything will come out socially 50/50 even if it isn't immediately obvious.. at least in a healthy, long-lasting relationship. If it doesn't, it will be an underlying, primal feeling that "something isn't right".

In cases where you break up with someone because "it didn't feel right", this can be a reason and usually is. Our bodies evolved intricate emotional systems without ever explaining to us what they do. Nobody ever wrote the manual on our feelings. The concept of a "gut feeling" was forever assumed to be hokum, but today we know it's just a psychological mechanism of combining all of our knowledge on an issue subconsciously and trying to assert us to listen to our subconscious.

I'll agree with your points on certain things, but a healthy relationship will always be, on some level, equal. "Dominating" in one sector will mean "Submitting" in another. Your girlfriend lets you make decisions? Maybe it's because you are the financial leader. This makes sense. She enjoys the benefits of the extra and gives up control over it.

It's more complex than some black and white issue, but let me tell you, saying a (healthy) relationship is never truly "equal" is complete ignorance of human social behaviour and psychological/social constructs.

 

[Onibun]

And for the record I completely agree on what you're saying about men giving up too much, etc etc. Emotional rock, whatever you want. That's all fairly basic though, and I feel has been covered a lot.

We're only talking about a difference in scope, rather than a difference in opinion. If your girlfriend is happy, it's because she feels that she's receiving at least equal value for what she puts in. If she wasn't, she'd be out the door -- just like anybody would. If you feel you're putting in too much effort and not getting enough in return, you'll know it and you'll either attempt to harmonize the difference or find someone who will.

How that specific value is defined varies from person to person to person, every colour of the rainbow, but at the end of the day it exists. Which means deep down all (healthy) relationships will be equal. You expect what you put in, you will receive back. In all walks of life.

 

[Tim Iron]

Franco and ZacAdam, I don't even understand why you guys are even answering this post???

 

[trashKENNUT]

Tayo,

Franco and ZacAdam, I don't even understand why you guys are even answering this post???

Hey man, I imagine myself in a press conference, answering you this question like this. "We certainly want haters or people with opposing opinions to stay with us, but definitely, and i mean definitely, we love our fans more. ".

Now that i think about that whole process above, It seems pretty funny though. Haha!!

Zac

 

[Tim Iron]

Yea ZacAdam... the guy sounds like he is bragging

PS: I see you just change your profile pics... Your hairstyle looks cool...

 

[trashKENNUT]

Tayo,

Your hairstyle looks cool...

I wish i was that guy in the profile pic, but unfortunately, i have uploaded a photo of me, here, before. I think there's only a few guys who have real photos here.

-Chase
-Myself
-Somebody uploaded photos with clothes on, asking on that flowery shirt. (looks badass on him if he builds more muscles)
-Franco also uploaded his photo here before, although his face is not clear.

-Some recent guys uploaded their photos for the fashion advice.

So yea... I am not chinese nor i am a Korean. An Indonesian, Indian, Dutch, Malay mix, although my race is flatly a certain race. You probably might say that i don't love myself because i put somebody else photos. That does happen to every individual, it depends.

Zac

 

[Onibun]

Anyone who interprets what I'm saying somehow bragging may likely be somehow insecure.

Oh, and as an addendum to what we were discussing about "equality" - look at the concept of "doing better"

You rarely settle with someone unless you are firmly convinced that it's as good as you could reasonably do. Again, a concept of the deep down equality intuition. This is where I am getting the best return on my investment.

We'd all love to be dating a 100% loyal, head over heels in love, billionaire Jennifer Aniston (or insert name here) who was both a top chef and a blowjob machine, etc etc etc, throw a thousand different qualities in here. But it's not realistic.

If you honestly feel you can "do better" than a person you're with, it's because there's a deep seated inequality in the relationship. This can be anything - physical attractiveness, financial station, social class, actual relationship activities (whatever you want to call them), a thousand factors.

So being in a in a supposed happy and healthy relationship while at the same time trying to say it's not an equal one is total patent bullshit. If it wasn't, you'd be willing to "do better" to harmonize what you believe is equal value for what you yourself are worth.

Obviously it's something of a grey area, but we're talking a very small percentage point difference, if you could assign numbers. Basically, if you're "happy" with someone and they're "happy" with you (and it's healthy), it's because inherently you have valued yourself at a level where this is what you believe you deserve, or if you believe somewhat more, you've nonetheless made the decision that the discrepancy is not large enough to continue moving towards your self-determined "value" as a human being / relationship partner.

This shit is really simple human psychological economics. Telling me you're in a happy, successful relationship and saying it's not equal is a complete bipolar opinion to have if you know anything about how human beings operate on a social and psychological level. You wouldn't remain with a person if a $10 billion dollar, head over heels, loyal, caring, Katy Perry type etc etc was within your distinct realm of possibility.

By choosing the person you have, you're admitting to a very certain level of overall, general equality --- or are significantly undervaluing yourself on purpose, but that's another concept entirely, and if that's the case I wouldn't call it "healthy".

 

[Franco]

I'll agree with your points on certain things, but a healthy relationship will always be, on some level, equal. "Dominating" in one sector will mean "Submitting" in another. Your girlfriend lets you make decisions? Maybe it's because you are the financial leader. This makes sense. She enjoys the benefits of the extra and gives up control over it.

It's more complex than some black and white issue, but let me tell you, saying a (healthy) relationship is never truly "equal" is complete ignorance of human social behaviour and psychological/social constructs.

Hehe, I definitely chuckled a bit, because I think that saying that a (healthy) relationship CAN be equal is actually complete ignorance of human social behavior and psychological/social constructs. Then again, our definition of what a healthy relationship is might be different as well. If the woman views you as the best man she has ever been with and no one else comes close in comparison, then you've given her something that no other man was able to give her in a relationship. And while that relationship might come to an end at some point (including even the healthy ones), you still might have given her the MOST healthy relationship that she's ever had (and will have) in the sense that it's the most happiness that she'll ever experience, and it will likely be the relationship she longs for again the most in the future.

As far as me being the financial leader, I know that is certainly not the case. As a matter of fact, Chase advocates having women pay for drinks or meals on the first date if in any way possible. I actually somewhat disagree with this sentiment of his, but I understand his positioning and why it actually does work in his scenarios. My girlfriend pays for all of her own finances and often showers me with gifts with whatever spare change she has, and I don't really do the same for her (except on special occasions such as Valentine's Day or her birthday).

The one thing most guys miss that's arguably the most important thing in a relationship is the quality of the sex. Mind-blowing, orgasmic sex for women is something that is actually extremely hard to come by for them, and if you're constantly giving your woman sex that is better than she's ever had (or will have), she'll actually view you as the most dominant man she's ever been with. It's why you'll occasionally see "losers" with amazing-looking girlfriends, and the girlfriends shower them with financial goods, attention, and gifts; it's usually because the guy is at least doing his job in the bedroom and providing her with an amazing experience that she feels she won't be able to get anywhere else. So, in that case, if you consider me "dominating" sex with her so that she will "submit" in just about every other aspect of the relationship, then yes, there is an exchange of value there. The value she places on good sex supersedes just about every other aspect of the relationship in comparison.

This is also why you will see girls cling to guys who are complete assholes. It's logically nonsensical for a girl to keep chasing a guy who obviously doesn't want her (or cheats on her all the time), but emotionally, and possibly even biologically, she's clinging to the amazing experience he can give her in the bedroom. And the fact that she can't control him just adds to the attraction spike. That being said, you obviously can only go so far being an "asshole" before a girl has to finally pull away and realize that she can't have you (or at least without severe consequences). Cheating on a girl is one of the worst ways you can hurt a girl, and it's obviously something we do not advise guys on here to do.

- Franco

 

[Franco]

Obviously it's something of a grey area, but we're talking a very small percentage point. Basically, if you're "happy" with someone and they're "happy" with you (and it's healthy), it's because inherently you have valued yourself at that level, or if somewhat more, you've made the decision that the discrepancy is not large enough to continue moving towards your "value".

This shit is really simple human psychological economics. Telling me you're in a happy, successful relationship and saying it's not equal is a complete bipolar opinion to have if you know anything about how human beings operate on a social and psychological level.

It also sounds like you define a healthy relationship as a never-ending one. The best part of a relationship is usually the first 3 months (when the sex is rampant and the attraction is mutually large), but ultimately, there is one party that is more dominant than the other.

I expect to be happy with my girl for only a limited amount of time... as of right now, I want an amazing girlfriend, and she fits that role perfectly. But at some point, my desires may change, and I'll want to fuck other women. At that point, the relationship becomes unhealthy because I am not happy, so it comes time to end things. But for the time being, we are both happy, and I am certainly the one who is in control.

- Franco

 

[Tim Iron]

Ok ZacAdam, I thought that was you.... you are like a mixture of different races...

Tayo,

Your hairstyle looks cool...

I wish i was that guy in the profile pic, but unfortunately, i have uploaded a photo of me, here, before. I think there's only a few guys who have real photos here.

-Chase
-Myself
-Somebody uploaded photos with clothes on, asking on that flowery shirt. (looks badass on him if he builds more muscles)
-Franco also uploaded his photo here before, although his face is not clear.

-Some recent guys uploaded their photos for the fashion advice.

So yea... I am not chinese nor i am a Korean. An Indonesian, Indian, Dutch, Malay mix, although my race is flatly a certain race. You probably might say that i don't love myself because i put somebody else photos. That does happen to every individual, it depends.

Zac

 

[Onibun]

At this point it's gone on far too far. Suffice it to say, my definition of "healthy" also includes propagation of future generations. As a naturalist or biologist would, say.

I'm not really prepared to defend any points on that though. It opens another kettle of fish. Though the idea of a "life mate" seems to be the most successful method among most top tier mammals.

Whether it's good/better/best for you psychologically (perhaps another definition of healthy) can be debated from now until kingdom come, but I'm not interested in that argument.

As such a relationship with a designated / planned end date doesn't really fall into my naturalistic view of organism health. It could be good for both parties involved, that's fine. At some remove it might even be good for whatever follows.. but at this point it's all theoretical and semantic.

If you want to say a short term relationship can be truly healthy, that's fine. An unequal relationship that lasts long enough to produce genetically and socially viable offspring (18+ years) will never fall under such a dynamic though. It's unstable in the long run. The societies where it prevails have fallen behind the ones where it doesn't.

 

[trashKENNUT]

Tayo,

Ok ZacAdam, I thought that was you.... you are like a mixture of different races...

I am. Mistaken for a foreigner in my own native country way too many times. How rude this people can be..... (Haha!)

Zac

 

[Tim Iron]

well ZacAdam it means you have the novelty effect when it comes to meeting girls... they would wonder if you are a foreigner... at least try and enjoy your novelty status...

Tayo,

Ok ZacAdam, I thought that was you.... you are like a mixture of different races...

I am. Mistaken for a foreigner in my own native country way too many times. How rude this people can be..... (Haha!)

Zac

 

[Franco]

At this point it's gone on far too far. Suffice it to say, my definition of "healthy" also includes propagation of future generations. As a naturalist or biologist would, say.

Well, who's to say that you need to be in a healthy relationship to propagate your genes...? (But as you mentioned, this is a whole new can to open, so I agree we'll leave that one shut for now)

Though the idea of a "life mate" seems to be the most successful method among most top tier mammals.

Actually, most mammals aren't even cognizant of the idea of a "long-term" mate, and we're the only top-tiered mammals that have "socialized" mating to become a long-term endeavor. But again, that is a discussion for another day. =)

As such relationship with a designated / planned end date doesn't really fall into my naturalistic view of organism health.

To say that my relationship has a planned end date is to stretch out the words that I'm using. It may very well be that my relationship falters a month from now. Or it may be that my woman finds ways to keep my desires directed toward her, and we live a long, fulfilling life together. The thing to take away from this is that you should never expect your relationships to be never-ending, nor should that be your goal. You simply enjoy the relationship as long as possible with your partner, whether that lasts only 2 months or goes on for 50 years.

- Franco

 

[Onibun]

No, I agree. It's far too complex to get into.

But at the end of the day, studies repeatedly show that we have a deep seated psychological requirement to produce offspring. People without kids are simply on average less happy than those with them. It's common sense, it's the only method the species has to propagate, it's obviously going to be the strongest driving factor to overall, long-term mental health.

As such I would say taking the idea of a "never-ending relationship", the one likely to produce offspring, as the ultimate definition of a "healthy" relationship is common sense simply because it fulfils the most primal desire for "happiness".

That said, human nature changes. In 100 years we might just be birthing kids from tubes and all have 20 different girlfriends. Brave New World, whatever you want to call it. But as it stands, it's the way we do it, it's the way we've been naturalized to doing it, and the only way to do it successfully is to have a relationship capable of doing so, and the only way those survive is through this deep seated tendency towards ultimate relationship balance.

The only reason most animals don't have long-term "life-mates" is because they only need to have them as long as it takes to get the offspring ready to go do it themselves. Humans take forever to do this, so maybe "never-ending" is a misnomer. Just really, really long.

 

[Onibun]

As such relationship with a designated / planned end date doesn't really fall into my naturalistic view of organism health.

To say that my relationship has a planned end date is to stretch out the words that I'm using. It may very well be that my relationship falters a month from now. Or it may be that my woman finds ways to keep my desires directed toward her, and we live a long, fulfilling life together. The thing to take away from this is that you should never expect your relationships to be never-ending, nor should that be your goal. You simply enjoy the relationship as long as possible with your partner, whether that lasts only 2 months or goes on for 50 years.

- Franco

This is a completely fair point, and I agree. The only thing I would change is the fact that, while you should never expect a specific relationship to be never ending, long term, whatever you want to call it, you should still be rating the most 'healthy' one as the one that eventually achieves this.

And human nature and social psychology tells us that the one that eventually achieves this is not through pure blind luck, it's through appeasing the internal desire at a presumed level of general equality. Whether you attempt it consciously, subconsciously or just happen to date enough people that you eventually hit this level through law of averages -- at some point your healthiest relationship is going to be the one that more or less does.

 

[Onibun]

And as a result, by extension, a relationship will not be truly "healthy" (and "happy") until you've hit this balance. Until it's quite literally an "equal" relationship.

It's not something everyone knows innately. A lot of people don't discover the true depths of their self-determined inner worth until later in life, and some people never discover it at all. But those that do will never be completely satisfied living with an 'unequal' relationship. It goes against a hundred thousand years of human evolution, which is seldom a conflict that ends particularly well.

 

[Onibun]

Oh, this is also probably one of the top 3 reasons for breakups. You "outgrow" somebody, which only means that what you valued as an equal balance (what made you feel happy at a specific point in time) didn't stay that way.

If your girlfriend is happy, it's not because you're dominating and there's a huge inequality and she secretly needs that. It's because as far as she's concerned, when every one of the thousands of factors are balanced out, she believes she is in the most equal relationship she is possible of achieving. Which may be true? It may not. But she certainly feels that way, and so do you.

But I would never go as far to say a happy relationship is an unequal one, not by a long shot. It goes against the entire theory of human evolution, when you break it down to its fundamentals.