Exes  How to Be the Best Guy a Girl's Ever Dated -Question

Skills

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
4,212
Location
South Florida
@Will_V,

That’s quite a story! Gotta pity the guy a bit.

I think for your first few relationships it’s pretty natural to try to lock girls in as tight as can be.

After that though hopefully you have matured enough that you aren’t going wild trying to find every which way to tie a woman to you and you can have a more relaxed relationship.

Another thing I will say — there are clearly certain personality types of woman that are much more vulnerable to becoming alpha widows than others. The two that always seem to fall prey to it IME are a.) the really romantic ones and b.) the really clueless ones who get attached to totally the wrong kinds of guys over and over again.


@Skills,

I don’t know anything about Rollo Tomassi but based on his website I just visited I was talking about this concept with guys 2 years before he was online, and knew about it pretty much all my life. It’s common sense… not sure how you wouldn’t know sometimes people get hung up on other people, sometimes for long/ridiculous stretches of time?

I will say if Rollo Tomassi coined the term “alpha widow”, hats off to him, KJ or not… I don’t like the term “alpha” the way the manosphere uses it, but “alpha widow” is hilarious…

As to your point about men… yes, it definitely happens to them too.

One of my students was a dude who had an ex-girlfriend he never got over… he hadn’t fallen in love in 10 years since they broke up. He’d shagged ~40 women, some of them quite hot, many with cool personalities, some of them he dated, but he just couldn’t get himself to feel anything for them; he said they just did not compare with her. I thought the thing was crazy… kept trying to sick him on girls I thought would break the spell, some of them he shagged and I’d think “He’s gotta fall for that girl, she’s so sweet and really hot” but nope. I have coached and talked to other guys in situations like this. SHB Widower? Dunno what you’d call that…

But yeah dude, people get hung up on stuff.

Some people never do. Some people do. It’s like cocaine. Some people can do it fine and never get hooked. Some people do it once and they will keep coming back to it and thinking about it and maybe relapsing for the rest of their lives; it will always stay with them. Cocaine triggers happiness feelings in the same part of the brain as love does, btw.


You wouldn’t date a former cokehead would you?

Don’t date alpha widows :D

Chase
oh @Chase happy you did not took this from him, i thought you did, big relief, i did not know you were talking about this stuff i thought he came up with the subject...
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,539
@Will_V,

That’s quite a story! Gotta pity the guy a bit.

I think for your first few relationships it’s pretty natural to try to lock girls in as tight as can be.

After that though hopefully you have matured enough that you aren’t going wild trying to find every which way to tie a woman to you and you can have a more relaxed relationship.

Another thing I will say — there are clearly certain personality types of woman that are much more vulnerable to becoming alpha widows than others. The two that always seem to fall prey to it IME are a.) the really romantic ones and b.) the really clueless ones who get attached to totally the wrong kinds of guys over and over again.


@Skills,

I don’t know anything about Rollo Tomassi but based on his website I just visited I was talking about this concept with guys 2 years before he was online, and knew about it pretty much all my life. It’s common sense… not sure how you wouldn’t know sometimes people get hung up on other people, sometimes for long/ridiculous stretches of time?

I will say if Rollo Tomassi coined the term “alpha widow”, hats off to him, KJ or not… I don’t like the term “alpha” the way the manosphere uses it, but “alpha widow” is hilarious…

As to your point about men… yes, it definitely happens to them too.

One of my students was a dude who had an ex-girlfriend he never got over… he hadn’t fallen in love in 10 years since they broke up. He’d shagged ~40 women, some of them quite hot, many with cool personalities, some of them he dated, but he just couldn’t get himself to feel anything for them; he said they just did not compare with her. I thought the thing was crazy… kept trying to sick him on girls I thought would break the spell, some of them he shagged and I’d think “He’s gotta fall for that girl, she’s so sweet and really hot” but nope. I have coached and talked to other guys in situations like this. SHB Widower? Dunno what you’d call that…

But yeah dude, people get hung up on stuff.

Some people never do. Some people do. It’s like cocaine. Some people can do it fine and never get hooked. Some people do it once and they will keep coming back to it and thinking about it and maybe relapsing for the rest of their lives; it will always stay with them. Cocaine triggers happiness feelings in the same part of the brain as love does, btw.


You wouldn’t date a former cokehead would you?

Don’t date alpha widows :D

Chase
Is it not good for the longevity of a relationship to lock her in a bit though? Can it not be a good thing to have more investment and loyalty from her? I ask in the context of a prospective LTR heading toward kids/family etc.

The problem is that relationships (especially lifetime ones) are already fundamentally weak because of the way people are taught to perceive them and devalue them. Everyone is teaching both men and women to invest less and be ready to jump ship. Correcting that for my girl seems like simply good practice.

And on top of that .. why should I not naturally want a very high level of commitment from her? It's pleasant, brings us closer together, and good for when the road gets bumpy.

The only downside I can see is she might get 'alpha widowed' if we break up, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to operate on that basis.
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,539
IMO, relationships come in far too many flavours to make this a requirement. Ideally, relationships should be a positive part of both people's life journey, regardless of whether they last to the grave or not. Otherwise, what is the point, really? So I agree that it's best for her to able to move on to functional relationships with others; and by and large, girls are surprisingly resilient and pragmatic, even if can take a bit of time to "move on". (It's hardest if she believed in pre-packaged notions of "The One", and decided that that's you. I had this happen to me as a young man, and the break-up was horrendous.)

Currently, I'm fishing around for an NSA/FWB on the side of the main. But as I cannot offer exclusivity, and will be available inconsistently, I don't expect exclusivity on her part, or any of the deep emotional bonding that might go with that. So that would be a potentially successful relationship (and it could deserve to be called that) where I could not expect - and actually wouldn't want - her to be fully locked in. Otherwise, she'd potentially end up wanting to turn my life upside down.
Some good points here, I agree that every relationship should be viewed as a positive part of someone's life journey. That's what I aim for.

Also totally agree there are all kinds of relationships to serve different needs. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I was talking in the context of an LTR that was prospectively going toward marriage and kids. I think that does need to be run with a very keen eye toward reinforcing commitment.

The problem is that everyone is being taught to be afraid of commitment. Even red pill guys just waffle on about spinning plates as if that's a realistic solution for a guy wanting to start a family. There's overall a complete lack of trust in the capability of a man to exact what he needs from his woman, and over all of it is the misguided notion that a man should just keep raising his value (which works to a point but even a woman's perception of a man's value is very unstable). I also don't believe that 'value' fulfills the psychological needs of a relationship.

I naturally desire to have a woman locked in, it seems good in virtually every way. It seems that human psychology is built for high investment and sacrifice, but everyone is averse to it these days (suffering as a result in meaninglessness and apathy, pretending to be happy while searching for ways to reawaken their dying spirit). Are we destined to simply invest and demand less of ourselves and others, as a society, until we have nothing left to worry about losing? Things are so bad that men are losing even the instinct of conquest, and women are losing the instinct to be conquered.

I have long believed that life is best run as if one were at war with one's adversaries. It has been very good for saving me from all kinds of ailments and trepidations, I believe it is the natural state of the human condition. Every war demands commitment and sacrifice and punishes a lukewarm attitude. Is this not what I should expect from a woman who joins me in my war, especially if I will come to rely on her?
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,484
@Skills,

oh @Chase happy you did not took this from him, i thought you did, big relief, i did not know you were talking about this stuff i thought he came up with the subject...

Yeah I mean I know some of these guys' names but I don't read blogs and I don't have any idea what any of them are talking about.

The only ever manosphere guys I read were Chateau and Roosh, and then only from time to time. Chateau is gone and Roosh is doing something totally different these days so I don't even keep track of that now.

I have spent the better part of a decade warring against dumb stuff coming out of the red pill / manosphere side of the Internet.

I do like the term "alpha widow" though.

I haven't read most of what these guys have posted on it. I think I DDG'ed it last year and read the first 1 or 2 articles.

For me it's a term I am applying to a phenomenon I have seen repeatedly. Maybe I'm using it a bit differently than they are, or they are going extreme with it and claiming it happens with every woman who has a chad ex.


@Will_V,

Is it not good for the longevity of a relationship to lock her in a bit though? Can it not be a good thing to have more investment and loyalty from her? I ask in the context of a prospective LTR heading toward kids/family etc.

It could be. Depends on your objectives. If you are really looking for long-term forever, then probably yes.

Me personally, I like the idea of being with a woman long-term, and I like the idea of children with a woman, but I don't know if I like the idea of "rest of your life forever" with one woman. As soon as she is raising your kids and doing a bunch of other stuff for you she is already locking herself into the relationship pretty deeply. If at some point you end up splitting up... like say she gets older and her looks go and she gets fat and can't lose it and her sex drive falls off.. and it is time for you to go... that is going to be a lot easier to go through if you've locked her in as minimally as possible vs. if you've filled her with dreams of dying old together then you shatter them.

But if it wouldn't be an issue for you... say you're fine with women getting older and know you're not going to care when she gets old and wrinkled, and if her sex drive declines post-menopause you'll be cool with it and will adapt, and you do want that long-term forever thing, and you're pretty sure your mind won't change, then I guess yeah, lock her in and throw away the key :D

I'm trying to be responsible here knowing that I may not stick with a woman for absolutely forever.

You'll have to make your own call based on your own desires / how things work with you.

The problem is that relationships (especially lifetime ones) are already fundamentally weak because of the way people are taught to perceive them and devalue them. Everyone is teaching both men and women to invest less and be ready to jump ship. Correcting that for my girl seems like simply good practice.

And on top of that .. why should I not naturally want a very high level of commitment from her? It's pleasant, brings us closer together, and good for when the road gets bumpy.

The only downside I can see is she might get 'alpha widowed' if we break up, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to operate on that basis.

I think you noted in another post you haven't focused much on the pickup side of things.

That is probably going to push you in a different direction than, say, a guy like me here.

If it's going to be a big hassle and a lot of heartache and time to replace an outgoing woman, you probably aren't going to want to have to do that once you've found a good one.

On the other hand, if replacing her is FUN and you LIKE that process, and would enjoy going through it intermittently (even if not all the time), plus going through it after years with a woman means you get to swap out an older model for a newer one, there is a less strong impetus there to lock her in so much she never leaves.

Instead it becomes more "Well if she wants to stay she can stay. But if she wants to go at some point, that's cool too."

Which ironically may bind her to you more via a somewhat different route than the alternative "lock her totally in" one.

Chase
 

Just a Man

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
72
I was talking in the context of an LTR that was prospectively going toward marriage and kids. I think that does need to be run with a very keen eye toward reinforcing commitment.
Oh sure, yes. In that context, go for maximum lock-in.
 

Skills

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
4,212
Location
South Florida
@Skills,



Yeah I mean I know some of these guys' names but I don't read blogs and I don't have any idea what any of them are talking about.

The only ever manosphere guys I read were Chateau and Roosh, and then only from time to time. Chateau is gone and Roosh is doing something totally different these days so I don't even keep track of that now.

I have spent the better part of a decade warring against dumb stuff coming out of the red pill / manosphere side of the Internet.

I do like the term "alpha widow" though.

I haven't read most of what these guys have posted on it. I think I DDG'ed it last year and read the first 1 or 2 articles.

For me it's a term I am applying to a phenomenon I have seen repeatedly. Maybe I'm using it a bit differently than they are, or they are going extreme with it and claiming it happens with every woman who has a chad ex.


@Will_V,



It could be. Depends on your objectives. If you are really looking for long-term forever, then probably yes.

Me personally, I like the idea of being with a woman long-term, and I like the idea of children with a woman, but I don't know if I like the idea of "rest of your life forever" with one woman. As soon as she is raising your kids and doing a bunch of other stuff for you she is already locking herself into the relationship pretty deeply. If at some point you end up splitting up... like say she gets older and her looks go and she gets fat and can't lose it and her sex drive falls off.. and it is time for you to go... that is going to be a lot easier to go through if you've locked her in as minimally as possible vs. if you've filled her with dreams of dying old together then you shatter them.

But if it wouldn't be an issue for you... say you're fine with women getting older and know you're not going to care when she gets old and wrinkled, and if her sex drive declines post-menopause you'll be cool with it and will adapt, and you do want that long-term forever thing, and you're pretty sure your mind won't change, then I guess yeah, lock her in and throw away the key :D

I'm trying to be responsible here knowing that I may not stick with a woman for absolutely forever.

You'll have to make your own call based on your own desires / how things work with you.



I think you noted in another post you haven't focused much on the pickup side of things.

That is probably going to push you in a different direction than, say, a guy like me here.

If it's going to be a big hassle and a lot of heartache and time to replace an outgoing woman, you probably aren't going to want to have to do that once you've found a good one.

On the other hand, if replacing her is FUN and you LIKE that process, and would enjoy going through it intermittently (even if not all the time), plus going through it after years with a woman means you get to swap out an older model for a newer one, there is a less strong impetus there to lock her in so much she never leaves.

Instead it becomes more "Well if she wants to stay she can stay. But if she wants to go at some point, that's cool too."

Which ironically may bind her to you more via a somewhat different route than the alternative "lock her totally in" one.

Chase
here brother the hypergamy crap etc... https://therationalmale.com/2019/07/31/alpha-widows/ anyways, i don't say women are not alpha widows but the phenomenon happens again as i said before if she is post break up and not completely healed and over the dude....

- during the "breaking point stages/looking for exist stage of relationship.... where they are looking what are the options.

- if she hooked up with the "marriage type" aka beta but not fully fulfill in her needs.


I am not paranoid at all about this, again most girls guys will date were alpha widows at some point, if you are going to mess with an alpha widow based on the stages i described, obviously you will not ltr but keep as fb or fling... I mean but again this does not change anything anyways, during the bedding process nothing changes.....
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,539
@Skills,



Yeah I mean I know some of these guys' names but I don't read blogs and I don't have any idea what any of them are talking about.

The only ever manosphere guys I read were Chateau and Roosh, and then only from time to time. Chateau is gone and Roosh is doing something totally different these days so I don't even keep track of that now.

I have spent the better part of a decade warring against dumb stuff coming out of the red pill / manosphere side of the Internet.

I do like the term "alpha widow" though.

I haven't read most of what these guys have posted on it. I think I DDG'ed it last year and read the first 1 or 2 articles.

For me it's a term I am applying to a phenomenon I have seen repeatedly. Maybe I'm using it a bit differently than they are, or they are going extreme with it and claiming it happens with every woman who has a chad ex.


@Will_V,



It could be. Depends on your objectives. If you are really looking for long-term forever, then probably yes.

Me personally, I like the idea of being with a woman long-term, and I like the idea of children with a woman, but I don't know if I like the idea of "rest of your life forever" with one woman. As soon as she is raising your kids and doing a bunch of other stuff for you she is already locking herself into the relationship pretty deeply. If at some point you end up splitting up... like say she gets older and her looks go and she gets fat and can't lose it and her sex drive falls off.. and it is time for you to go... that is going to be a lot easier to go through if you've locked her in as minimally as possible vs. if you've filled her with dreams of dying old together then you shatter them.

But if it wouldn't be an issue for you... say you're fine with women getting older and know you're not going to care when she gets old and wrinkled, and if her sex drive declines post-menopause you'll be cool with it and will adapt, and you do want that long-term forever thing, and you're pretty sure your mind won't change, then I guess yeah, lock her in and throw away the key :D

I'm trying to be responsible here knowing that I may not stick with a woman for absolutely forever.

You'll have to make your own call based on your own desires / how things work with you.



I think you noted in another post you haven't focused much on the pickup side of things.

That is probably going to push you in a different direction than, say, a guy like me here.

If it's going to be a big hassle and a lot of heartache and time to replace an outgoing woman, you probably aren't going to want to have to do that once you've found a good one.

On the other hand, if replacing her is FUN and you LIKE that process, and would enjoy going through it intermittently (even if not all the time), plus going through it after years with a woman means you get to swap out an older model for a newer one, there is a less strong impetus there to lock her in so much she never leaves.

Instead it becomes more "Well if she wants to stay she can stay. But if she wants to go at some point, that's cool too."

Which ironically may bind her to you more via a somewhat different route than the alternative "lock her totally in" one.

Chase

Thanks for the reply Chase!

For me personally, I don't think I'd be keen on simply swapping out (as in dumping, is that what you meant?) a woman who'd raised my kids. I don't believe it's very functional for the family as a whole, especially the kids, and for the woman as well.

That said I very much concur with your sentiments about the sexual attractiveness of an old woman. I think it's natural that a woman trades off sexual value for social status (or family status, as it were) as she gets older and less attractive, and a younger woman fulfills the sexual role. As far as I understand (admittedly not much, mainly just the Shogun novel, and various tidbits of history here and there) about Japanese culture, older women moved to managerial and advisory positions and younger wives occupied the man in his bed. It seems like this sort of thing happened across cultures. It is of course perfectly natural and obvious but, of course, almost impossible to implement in this day and age.

This makes sense to me as I think there is a special value that a wise older woman can provide in a man's life (and the lives of his younger wives, his children, and even his friends and acquaintances) that cannot really be replicated by a younger woman. But not all women grow into this sort of role as they age - the same way that not all men become greater as they grow older, either. In any case perhaps part of the responsibility for whether this happens comes down to the man and how he trains and treats her as his wife over the years, which requires him to consider what role he wants for her and can realistically put into effect.

Curiously (and I only mention this because you've made some very interesting notes about lion pride behavior in your articles) I noticed that even in the life of the big cats, where females do all the work of hunting and lions sit around doing very little unless there's a fight to be fought with another lion, an old lioness is taken care of by the rest of the pride whereas an old lion is destined for an ignominious fate on his own dying of thirst and hunger. Obviously it's hard to draw parallels here, but it seems even here nature has found a particular utility for taking care of older females.

I don't really know what I will do when my wife/LTR gets older, perhaps I will simply have sex with other women and give her the choice to put up with it (and still receive plenty of quality time and attention) or leave. If she cannot accept the natural course of things well at least I gave her the chance. As it is I believe the entire family/relationship system is quite broken and disfunctional to the point where a man is almost guaranteed to be unhappy if he simply follows it.

I will reflect on your point about whether locking her in has the opposite effect (or vice versa). Against the backdrop of a disfunctional system, what would otherwise work might not, and what seems like it wouldn't work, might conspire to do so. Unfortunately things are just very unstable and difficult to predict in the long term.

That said, I do think that, generally speaking in the online 'conversation' about how men should run their lives, there is a somewhat lackluster and ineffectual attitude toward organizing and maintaining control of LTRs that is masked as some kind of smart or insightful control of one's investment. I don't see any type of successful organisation of any kind that runs well with a captain who is ready to jump ship, and I don't believe it works well here either. I know you have a thoughtful position on this sort of thing, and you try to balance responsibility for outcome with avoiding over investment. This is something that I'm actively studying right now as I have started to consider what I will do in the next phase of my life.

Anyway, it seemed to me the OP was considering the question of what made a woman 'locked in' to a man, and how having it in her past (or his present) might affect an LTR, so hopefully I haven't derailed this thread too much!
 

FunGuy

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
98
There are women who are the biggest lovey-dovey sweethearts in the world whom you would NEVER suspect would do anything behind your back who if one of their beloved exes calls they will be over their spreading their legs for him and sucking him dry in a heartbeat, then back with you cooking you food, doting on you, and sucking YOU dry before you're ever the wiser.

I have known these girls and could tell you some stories that would make your head spin.


Likewise there are some real shrews out there who are semi-useless in a relationship, aside from looking good and being good lays, but are logical and moral and more masculine in their values and will almost never stray on you unless you REALLY piss them off or neglect them for a super long time.

If the way she treats you is all you're looking at, the only thing you know is how she is when she's with you, not how she is when she isn't.
As someone who is LTR oriented, the bolded part is scary AF. Is there a way to screen out chicks who are susceptible to that type of behavior? I am also curious about what you mentioned about girls who are logical with good morals, what are some smooth ways to find out if a girl has a strong sense of morals and values
 

moom

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
314
Just wanted to stop by and thank everyone for their answers and thank you @Chase for the response, your answers really cleared things up for me.
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,484
@Skills,


Geez, that piece is a brain-twister.

My head exploded at the number of times the word 'hypergamy' is mentioned in that article.

That thing is filled with freewheeling passages about all these different things happening in all these different women's heads with no anecdotes or anything to back them up, like this:

Rollo Tomassi said:
An Alpha Widow can also be ‘widowed’ from the fantasy of her ideal male. This is fairly common among women who marry early in their Party Years. Most feel like they missed out on having made a good Hypergamous choice (or had it made for them by circumstance or social pressures).

Make you wonder where he's getting it all from.

anyways, i don't say women are not alpha widows but the phenomenon happens again as i said before if she is post break up and not completely healed and over the dude....

- during the "breaking point stages/looking for exist stage of relationship.... where they are looking what are the options.

- if she hooked up with the "marriage type" aka beta but not fully fulfill in her needs.


I am not paranoid at all about this, again most girls guys will date were alpha widows at some point, if you are going to mess with an alpha widow based on the stages i described, obviously you will not ltr but keep as fb or fling... I mean but again this does not change anything anyways, during the bedding process nothing changes.....

I think we're just all using the term semantically different, it looks like.

  • Skills definition: an alpha widow is a girl mourning a past relationship, but she'll get over it

  • Chase definition: an alpha widow is a girl hung up on an especially impactful relationship, which she may not get over (depends on the girl)

  • Rollo Tomassi definition: every woman is an alpha widow who pines for the high SMV man who pumped and dumped her during her party years, and she will never recover from that

Main difference being in Skills world girls always get over it, in Rollo's world they never do, and in Chase's world some of them completely do, while others may not, at least not fully.


@Will_V,

Thanks for the reply Chase!

For me personally, I don't think I'd be keen on simply swapping out (as in dumping, is that what you meant?) a woman who'd raised my kids. I don't believe it's very functional for the family as a whole, especially the kids, and for the woman as well.

That said I very much concur with your sentiments about the sexual attractiveness of an old woman. I think it's natural that a woman trades off sexual value for social status (or family status, as it were) as she gets older and less attractive, and a younger woman fulfills the sexual role. As far as I understand (admittedly not much, mainly just the Shogun novel, and various tidbits of history here and there) about Japanese culture, older women moved to managerial and advisory positions and younger wives occupied the man in his bed. It seems like this sort of thing happened across cultures. It is of course perfectly natural and obvious but, of course, almost impossible to implement in this day and age.

This makes sense to me as I think there is a special value that a wise older woman can provide in a man's life (and the lives of his younger wives, his children, and even his friends and acquaintances) that cannot really be replicated by a younger woman. But not all women grow into this sort of role as they age - the same way that not all men become greater as they grow older, either. In any case perhaps part of the responsibility for whether this happens comes down to the man and how he trains and treats her as his wife over the years, which requires him to consider what role he wants for her and can realistically put into effect.

That's the historically natural state of things, yes.

The older wife moves into a more senior position, managing the household.

The younger wives are there for producing additional children for the husband, but older wives hold seniority over them.

The ancient Chinese handbook for women titled Biographies of Exemplary Women has a number of wonderful passages designed to prepare a woman for life either as a first wife or a subsequent (lower-ranking) wife. It also talks about positive examples of wives working together, good wives protecting husbands against nefarious/scheming wives, and so on. Quite useful for getting a deep look into a dynamic that's somewhat alien to us today.

Curiously (and I only mention this because you've made some very interesting notes about lion pride behavior in your articles) I noticed that even in the life of the big cats, where females do all the work of hunting and lions sit around doing very little unless there's a fight to be fought with another lion, an old lioness is taken care of by the rest of the pride whereas an old lion is destined for an ignominious fate on his own dying of thirst and hunger. Obviously it's hard to draw parallels here, but it seems even here nature has found a particular utility for taking care of older females.

Yeah, the male lion being cast aside is interesting, but you really have to stretch to try to draw a direct comparison with humans.

Humans don't practice polygyny the same way lions or gorillas do, where one male has a harem of females, and other males try to beat him up or kill him and take over his harem.

It'd be like if you had five chicks, and I was like "I'm gonna whoop your ass, Will_V, and then your chicks will become mine!" and then that actually happened. Doesn't work that way.

With human polygyny, it is generally a much slower, more careful process of accumulating a first wife, then when a male is wealthier selecting a second one, then when older and wealthier still perhaps a third. But nobody is going to want to come and beat him up for his wives, because the older ones are past their child-bearing primes, and if you're going to attack a guy to get stuff from him, you're probably far better off raiding him for his wealth, then just using that stolen wealth to attract your own young, fresh wives of your own selection.

I don't really know what I will do when my wife/LTR gets older, perhaps I will simply have sex with other women and give her the choice to put up with it (and still receive plenty of quality time and attention) or leave. If she cannot accept the natural course of things well at least I gave her the chance. As it is I believe the entire family/relationship system is quite broken and disfunctional to the point where a man is almost guaranteed to be unhappy if he simply follows it.

Fascinating.

I've toyed with this exact idea -- particularly the morality / responsibility side of it. Etc.

I don't think I've ever discussed it publicly though. First off because I don't think it sounds good (i.e., 'good' as in 'not a complete knave'). Second off, I haven't field tested it, so it'd just be KJ talking about it at this point.

Yet here you are, voicing my unvoiced thoughts.

Perhaps those forum members are right; you really are me!

I will reflect on your point about whether locking her in has the opposite effect (or vice versa). Against the backdrop of a disfunctional system, what would otherwise work might not, and what seems like it wouldn't work, might conspire to do so. Unfortunately things are just very unstable and difficult to predict in the long term.

That said, I do think that, generally speaking in the online 'conversation' about how men should run their lives, there is a somewhat lackluster and ineffectual attitude toward organizing and maintaining control of LTRs that is masked as some kind of smart or insightful control of one's investment. I don't see any type of successful organisation of any kind that runs well with a captain who is ready to jump ship, and I don't believe it works well here either. I know you have a thoughtful position on this sort of thing, and you try to balance responsibility for outcome with avoiding over investment. This is something that I'm actively studying right now as I have started to consider what I will do in the next phase of my life.

I don't recommend reduced control as a means to reduce one's own investment, no.

That just sounds like skittishness / fear of commitment from guys who've probably been burned (or fear it).

Keeping themselves one foot out of the relationship so they won't get hurt as badly if it crashes and burns.

Doesn't sound like these are men terribly confident in their relationship management abilities...


@FunGuy,

As someone who is LTR oriented, the bolded part is scary AF. Is there a way to screen out chicks who are susceptible to that type of behavior?

Most folks are, sooner or later.

Yes, it's simple to screen for:

You look for a girl who is very romantic and also very charming and very clear on what she wants.

Bonus points if she shows you she knows a lot about men and understands male psychology very well.

Romantic tendencies + charm + clarity = a girl who loves to fall in love, has cultivated the ability to attract men to fall in love with, and knows she wants to experience that in-love feeling, usually again and again.

I am also curious about what you mentioned about girls who are logical with good morals, what are some smooth ways to find out if a girl has a strong sense of morals and values

You have to just see how she behaves in moral gray area situations.

If a checkout clerk accidentally gives her too much change, does she sneak it greedily into her purse? Does she feel awkward but not want to cause a fuss so she just accepts it? Or does she return the excess change? I have known women who would semi-scold the cashier ("You gave me too much change!"), but not in a mean way -- it might sound/look rude, but her being honest and even annoyed at the breach in correct behavior is a sign she wants things done in the 'right' way.

As you get to know a woman, you will discover what things in life she has clear morals/rules around and what things she doesn't.

For a bit of a shortcut, you can also play Strawberry Fields:


Her answer to the "What do you say to the Farmer?" question is revealing, and in my experience pretty applicable to how she'd feel to someone she was running around on having an affair behind the back of.

The most hilarious (and honest) answer I ever got from a girl for that one was, "Ugh, who CARES about him?" which ended up being dead-on to her general attitude toward lovers and partners, despite her being a very affectionate gal.


@moom,

I am happy to hear it :)

Chase
 

Kaida

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
541
The most hilarious (and honest) answer I ever got from a girl for that one was, "Ugh, who CARES about him?" which ended up being dead-on to her general attitude toward lovers and partners, despite her being a very affectionate gal.

For the strawberry fields game, how exactly do you smoothly give the results in a way that doesnt feel like you suddenly sexualized the conversation out of nowhere?
 

Rain

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
534
Humans don't practice polygyny the same way lions or gorillas do, where one male has a harem of females, and other males try to beat him up or kill him and take over his harem.

It'd be like if you had five chicks, and I was like "I'm gonna whoop your ass, Will_V, and then your chicks will become mine!" and then that actually happened. Doesn't work that way.

A quote from this article

If anyone has told you that women abhor violence, he lied to you.


If you were to get into a fight with another man in front of his girlfriend, and whoop his ass, I guarantee you she would get wet. The next time they have sex, she will think about you. It is her nature to love the most ferocious, violent man she can find. Every biological and imaginative drive sends her toward that man. He excites her in every conceivable way possible.

So beating up a man to take his girlfriend works, but it would fail if he had a harem? Or does the whole beat up a man in front of his girlfriend and then take his girlfriend doesn't work?

if you're going to attack a guy to get stuff from him, you're probably far better off raiding him for his wealth, then just using that stolen wealth to attract your own young, fresh wives of your own selection.
Does a large amount cash/bank balance count as wealth? Or does wealth have to be something like an asset(house, car etc) or a company? a business? Are there other forms of wealth?

In your article here, there are two statements about older men and younger women:

Neither are the men loaded with wads of cash
and then
However... these men have usually been either in very good shape, or were wealthy (or some mix of the two) - and across the board, all of them were intelligent, humorous, and very self-assured.
Based on the above, wealth can't just be a large bank balance. Is that the right way of interpreting your article?
 

Rain

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
534
SHB Widower? Dunno what you’d call that…
I reckon special HB doesn't sound different to that special girl or normal oneitis. Super HB means she's super HB, but if some of the guys have had oneitis for years, the woman surely can't be called a Super HB if shes no longer in her 20s? I think long term oneitis would be a label that says what it is and isn't confusing.

In this article, a man in his mid 60s ,could sleep with/marry women in their 20s, yet chose a woman whom had rejected him in high school after their first date. Considering this was 40years later, and he chose her despite his other options, could you say that that person had long term oneitis?
Did he end up going to a reunion and meeting her that way or how did he connect with her? Or was she the one that initiated contact with him in his mid60s even though she turned him down decades ago?
As to your point about men… yes, it definitely happens to them too.

One of my students was a dude who had an ex-girlfriend he never got over… he hadn’t fallen in love in 10 years since they broke up. He’d shagged ~40 women, some of them quite hot, many with cool personalities, some of them he dated, but he just couldn’t get himself to feel anything for them; he said they just did not compare with her. I thought the thing was crazy… kept trying to sick him on girls I thought would break the spell, some of them he shagged and I’d think “He’s gotta fall for that girl, she’s so sweet and really hot” but nope. I have coached and talked to other guys in situations like this. SHB Widower? Dunno what you’d call that…

But yeah dude, people get hung up on stuff.

Did any of the guys communicate to their long term oneitis their feelings, to get closure to move on(despite that probably not being the best way to actually get that person back in their life)? Or did they try the waiting game and if their long term oneitis became single, did they try and get in contact then or use preselection?

Did these guys ever get normal/temporary oneitis when their more recent relationships ended, and temporarily stop pining for the long term oneitis?

When these guys were with their long term oneitis originally, how long did their relationships/fwb last for? eg years or months or weeks?
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,484
@Kaiderman,

For the strawberry fields game, how exactly do you smoothly give the results in a way that doesnt feel like you suddenly sexualized the conversation out of nowhere?

Generally speaking, this is a game you should be playing when the vibe is already playful and somewhat sexual, so it should not feel out of place.

If you're playing it in the middle of an otherwise somber, platonic conversation... I would suggest livening up the mood a little first!


@Rain,

So beating up a man to take his girlfriend works, but it would fail if he had a harem? Or does the whole beat up a man in front of his girlfriend and then take his girlfriend doesn't work?

A woman might sneak off to hook up with you later after she's seen you whoop her man.

Most women will not walk right off with you immediately, or permanently drop their man and switch teams to you, if that happens though.

It's even less likely to happen with a whole harem, who a.) are not all going to be assembled at once to witness the beating, and b.) are not likely all to be of the 'super turned on by any guy who can whoop my guy's ass' persuasion.

Does a large amount cash/bank balance count as wealth? Or does wealth have to be something like an asset(house, car etc) or a company? a business? Are there other forms of wealth?

Sure. Material assets. Cash included. If you can spend it, store it, trade it, take out loans against it, it's wealth.

In your article here, there are two statements about older men and younger women:

I used "or" to express that in some cases, but not all, the men had wealth.

None of the men I referred to had lots of disposable income (at least not so far as I saw). Some of them however had nice homes or successful businesses, which are a form of wealth. Again, not all.

I reckon special HB doesn't sound different to that special girl or normal oneitis. Super HB means she's super HB, but if some of the guys have had oneitis for years, the woman surely can't be called a Super HB if shes no longer in her 20s? I think long term oneitis would be a label that says what it is and isn't confusing.

Oneitis just refers to being hung up on a particular woman to the point where your perspective gets badly warped. That's all.

In this article, a man in his mid 60s ,could sleep with/marry women in their 20s, yet chose a woman whom had rejected him in high school after their first date. Considering this was 40years later, and he chose her despite his other options, could you say that that person had long term oneitis?
Did he end up going to a reunion and meeting her that way or how did he connect with her? Or was she the one that initiated contact with him in his mid60s even though she turned him down decades ago?

IIRC they reconnected over social media.

I doubt it was oneitis. He wanted her decades ago and finally got a chance to have her... probably felt great.

He also generally seems to like women his age range -- probably more a 'comfort' type player (see my latest article). That sort will fairly consistently go for women their age.

Did any of the guys communicate to their long term oneitis their feelings, to get closure to move on(despite that probably not being the best way to actually get that person back in their life)? Or did they try the waiting game and if their long term oneitis became single, did they try and get in contact then or use preselection?

Not that I heard of.

Did these guys ever get normal/temporary oneitis when their more recent relationships ended, and temporarily stop pining for the long term oneitis?

I don't know if they were 'pining for' their exes.

They just didn't meet another who seemed to come close.

When these guys were with their long term oneitis originally, how long did their relationships/fwb last for? eg years or months or weeks?

I don't have that info, unfortunately.

Chase
 

Rain

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
534
and b.) are not likely all to be of the 'super turned on by any guy who can whoop my guy's ass' persuasion.
The article, on the website, (I'm aware you didn't write it), says

"If anyone has told you that women abhor violence, he lied to you. If you were to get into a fight with another man in front of his girlfriend, and whoop his ass, I guarantee you she would get wet. The next time they have sex, she will think about you. It is her nature to love the most ferocious, violent man she can find. Every biological and imaginative drive sends her toward that man. He excites her in every conceivable way possible."

The article says she would get wet, guaranteed. There can be exceptions to things, yes. But that article, the way its written, is saying the exceptions are very low or none("guaranteed"). It's not saying 50 women would get turned on and another 50 women in the same situation wouldn't. Its saying most women would get turned on. But now, you're disagreeing by saying "not likely all to be of the 'super turned on by any guy who can whoop my guy's ass'.

The article also says its in a womans biological and imaginative drive to send her towards "the most ferocious, violent man she fan find". But its unlikely all women, or not even close to all women, are like this according to what you mention in this thread?

Most women will not walk right off with you immediately, or permanently drop their man and switch teams to you, if that happens though.
The article says

"its in her nature to love the most ferocious, violent man she can find"

yet you're saying she is unlikely to permanently drop the man, who got beaten up, for violent man that did the violence, whom according to the article, is the man(violent man) thats in her nature to love. Why would she not drop the man got beaten, for 'new man(violent)' that she is driven to love(according to the article)?

It feels like, the article is too extreme in blanketing all/most women like this, or that what you wrote in this thread is quite off from what the article is communicating, ya know?
 

ulrich

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,651
It feels like, the article is too extreme in blanketing all/most women like this, or that what you wrote in this thread is quite off from what the article is communicating, ya know?

The article is somewhat hyperbolic.

On the other hand, women (and men for that matter) get turned on by a multitude of stimulus that not necessarily translates well to seduction or a LTR.
Yes, women get turned on by a guy beating another guy… from a distance… they also get extremely turned off by a threat of violence.

Would being pugilistic get you some girls? Maybe…
Is that a sound long term strategy for seduction? Not at all…
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,484
@Rain,

Two things here:

#1: "makes her wet" is a very different thing from "ditches her man and mounts your cock." There are myriad things that happen that make women wet; a tiny majority of them end up with the woman actually having a cock slide in her.

Did you know that a woman watching two chimpanzees have sex gets wet? They've hooked women up to plethysmographs and shown this. Women get turned on by just about anything violent or sexual. Chimp raping another chimp? Woman gets aroused. Man and woman having sex? Woman gets aroused. Woman licking another woman's pussy? Woman gets aroused. Man plowing another man up the butt? Woman gets aroused.

Women usually are not consciously aware they are being aroused when it is happening, however. It is up to the man to recognize the woman is aroused, then lead her to consummation.

Now imagine the difficulty of, "First, I am going to beat the crap out of this girl's man. Then, with him bloodied and whimpering in the corner, I am going to lead her happily away from this man she is in a relationship with, whom she has strong in-love attachments to, and get her to easily violate the female cardinal rule of 'never throw away a highly invested man you are also highly invested in right in that man's face' in exchange for some quick sex."

You need to get her to:

  • Switch off her sympathy for a man she has what is probably a close personal relationship with

  • Switch off the embedded female protective system that says "do not do things that cost yourself important, dependable men for men who are not proven to be equally or more dependable"

  • Switch off the fear she likely feels at a strange male who, sure, may be exciting, but unless he's also already heavily seduced her is most likely an unknown male she knows little about aside from the fact that he is violent (and may well be to her)

  • Switch off her reputation protection engine that guards her against engaging in behavior that makes her look like a woman who obviously monkey branches at the slightest opportunity

Those are some very tall orders.

I have seen guys get beat up in front of their girlfriends. I have never seen the girlfriend do anything other than run to the vanquished boyfriend to protect / nurture / defend him. Once or twice I have seen the girlfriends actually get actively involved in attacking their boyfriend's attacker.

Now, if you beat up some loser guy a girl doesn't like, who is not her man, then yes, you can get her that way. We even have a few lay reports on the Boards here about that... I believe @NarrowJ had one, and @monsterslimjim I think it was had the other that I saw. These are not boyfriends though.

Even if whooping her man makes her horny for your cock, human beings are not simply sex organs. It is not "horny = have sex with whoever makes me horny." Especially not with women. There is a range of other considerations you need to overcome for sex to happen.

In this case, when she is out with her man, it is almost certainly not going to happen, unless a.) she REALLY hates his guts, and/or b.) she is completely insane.

In line with #1:

yet you're saying she is unlikely to permanently drop the man, who got beaten up, for violent man that did the violence, whom according to the article, is the man(violent man) thats in her nature to love. Why would she not drop the man got beaten, for 'new man(violent)' that she is driven to love(according to the article)?

If a woman's sole consideration for entering into or leaving a relationship with a man was "Big man. Beat other man good. Switch to big man" then yeah, maybe it'd work that way. It works that way with gorillas.

Dunno if you've noticed, but humans do not do things that way. If we did things the way gorillas did them, then you could have "Rain's Mansion", where you lived with your seven wives and twelve kids, I could show up there one day, kick your ass, then you would have to leave, I'd move into your mansion, kill your youngest still-lactating children to induce ovulation in the mothers, and immediately take to impregnating your seven wives, all of whom now belonged to me.

Perhaps humans operated that way at some point in the distant past. No humans operate that way today. Even the !Kung bushmen in the Kalahari Desert don't do that... they engage in monogamous marriage from their teen years until one of them dies (typically in their mid-30s). I don't doubt some !Kung beat up other !Kung, but their women don't switch teams to the victorious !Kung. It's just not human mating behavior.

The #2 thing here...

As @uriel notes -- the article is hyperbolic.

There are some chicks who REALLY get off on watching men fight. They will goad their men to fight other men... they get super turned on if their guy wins. If their guy loses, they also get super turned on -- by the guy who is the victor. Whether they will find a way to screw that guy without losing face or violating those other rules I outlined above is a different story. I assume girls who are really into fighting men might find a way (slip the guy their number of something).

Even still, even with a girl who's really into bruisers, it is not a guarantee you can shag her later. Beat her man down, she slips you her number, then later on he's acting all tough and strong again, she was having her doubts about him but he fucked her silly, and now she's back feeling in-love with him again. You start texting her, but she is torn between her bond with this guy and some lingering fascination she has with you as the guy who beat her man. Perhaps if you have strong game something may come of it, but you won't do it on virtue of having kicked his ass alone.

There are a lot of other women who do not consciously like fighting.

They might be subconsciously aroused to see you kick their man's ass. But all they consciously experience is revulsion toward you, while they rush to protect him. You are not going to pick these women up, even if they may have been turned on by the fight.

They may or may not have some fantasy about you later. The odds of you successfully shagging them at some future point though, unless you have solid game skills and can interact with them in-person again later, are not going to be high at all.

Chase
 

Rain

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
534
Sure. Material assets. Cash included. If you can spend it, store it, trade it, take out loans against it, it's wealth.
Rightio. Earlier you mentioned that far better to raid a man for his wealth and use that stolen wealth to attract a younger woman.
Surely most men won't have that much wealth on them to standout though? Like average man in the US wouldn't have more than ..... I dunno 10k on a credit card? Surely its low odds there to steal someones wallet/card/phone, highly unlikely a random on the street would be driving a lambo. So I don't understand, I don't know what you meant.

Did you know that a woman watching two chimpanzees have sex gets wet? They've hooked women up to plethysmographs and shown this. Women get turned on by just about anything violent or sexual. Chimp raping another chimp? Woman gets aroused. Man and woman having sex? Woman gets aroused. Woman licking another woman's pussy? Woman gets aroused. Man plowing another man up the butt? Woman gets aroused.
Are we sure the measurement for this arousal is accurate?

it’s entirely possible that women’s vaginas lube up at the slightest provocation. More than one sex researcher has suggested to me this might be the case because women have historically had to deal with sexual assault, and automatic vaginal lubrication might protect them, to some degree, from injury that would ultimately interfere with reproduction.
Does that change the original theory?
They even managed to design one that did not require lab personnel to hold it to the subject; this is one the subject can insert herself, alone in a laboratory test room. And what did they find when they strapped women up to this elaborate little lap puppy?
Are standard vaginal plethysmographs having to be held by lab personel during the test or only before? Or neither?

The new clitoral measurement approach “is a valuable additional tool, providing data that the vaginal photoplethysmograph cannot: it proved sensitive to inhibition of the sexual response, in contrast to the [vaginal device].” Meaning? By measuring the clitoris, the researchers were able to observe the women subjects’ downturn of arousal in response to being startled out of the moment. This was not so observable with the vaginal device. (The researchers staged the cold-shower moment by arranging a “problem” announcement over the intercom to suddenly interrupt the porn-viewing moment.) This difference seems important, no?
here's the pubmed
Conclusion: CBV is a valid and sensitive tool to measure the female genital response. In the present study, it was particularly useful in investigating sexual inhibition, when used in combination with SCL. Furthermore, high CBV appeared to inhibit VPA, suggesting that VPA reflects an automatic preparatory response rather than genital arousal per se.
Maybe using the clitoris as a measurement of arousal might be better suited?

Beat her man down, she slips you her number, then later on he's acting all tough and strong again, she was having her doubts about him but he fucked her silly, and now she's back feeling in-love with him again.
What happens down the track if man sees the bruiser man that kicked his ass, does said man need to get revenge on bruiser and kick bruiser ass?

women (and men for that matter) get turned on by a multitude of stimulus
Do you have some links, or anecdotal experiences, what things do men get turned on by that are not, face/tits/ass lol. Not saying you're wrong just wondered what they are.

The article is somewhat hyperbolic.
As @uriel notes -- the article is hyperbolic.
Would the average person realise this?
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,484
@Rain,

Rightio. Earlier you mentioned that far better to raid a man for his wealth and use that stolen wealth to attract a younger woman.
Surely most men won't have that much wealth on them to standout though? Like average man in the US wouldn't have more than ..... I dunno 10k on a credit card? Surely its low odds there to steal someones wallet/card/phone, highly unlikely a random on the street would be driving a lambo. So I don't understand, I don't know what you meant.

The average man has neither wealth worth raiding nor a harem worth raiding, so is not relevant to this discussion.

Are we sure the measurement for this arousal is accurate?

You've cited an article by a woman with a hypothetical paragraph handwaving both research and anecdata, citing an article showing the clitoris shows more signs of high arousal than vaginal lubrication (which, while true, does not at all invalidate the points she seeks to overturn).

Not to mention the fact that any sexually experienced man can tell you:

  • Every woman is at least somewhat bisexual

  • Aroused women (especially in nightlife/party/anonymous situations) are very easy to have the target of their arousal transferred from one man to another, or even to a woman

You'll need more than a feminist evopsych philosopher + a study showing both vaginal lubrication and clitoral engorgement to overturn decades of research + every experienced guy's direct personal experience.

What happens down the track if man sees the bruiser man that kicked his ass, does said man need to get revenge on bruiser and kick bruiser ass?

I don't know dude, we're so deep in hypothetical territory you need to paint a full picture here. The prescription changes based on the diagnosis.

Do you have some links, or anecdotal experiences, what things do men get turned on by that are not, face/tits/ass lol. Not saying you're wrong just wondered what they are.

Ever had a woman whisper something sexy into your ear?

Ever had a girl who wanted you start stroking your finger like she's stroking your cock?

Ever had a girl smile at you just the right way, wink at you, or lick her lips at you?

Ever had a girl flash you some leg?

Etc., etc., etc.

Would the average person realise this?

Yes.

Chase
 
Top
>