- Joined
- Jul 5, 2013
- Messages
- 182
Countless times I have encountered the phrase "high-value man" here on GC, and here's my best attempt to understand what is typically meant, followed by some of the implications therefrom:
On Girls Chase, when the writers talk about "high-value", they are talking about men being good allies, in particular good allies to women -- i.e., mates. There are recognized to be three categories of mates on GC: lovers, providers, and friends. Each of these categories denote a primary focus on providing oftentimes mutually exclusive attributes that are considered valuable to allies.
Lovers are providers of viable offspring and primal sexual energy -- so they get laid the most. Yet because of their higher risk creative strategies (reproductive and typically otherwise) they tend to not be ideal for fatherhood.
Providers provide economic support in exchange for a more stable long-term relationship. This is the primary historically conditioned optimal strategy for men since the agricultural revolution. The problem with them is that they are not very emotionally stimulating in the short term, so the freedom of whim -- as opposed to will -- that recent sexual liberation movements in the West have actualized are dramatically reducing the effectiveness of this strategy. However, in the end, it is safer for all involved, and more often will lead to long term stable growth than the more often erratic growth tendencies of lovers. Less chance for huge wins, but also less risk for huge losses. If you have a multi-generational, family-based orientation, this will lead to steady economic growth and general opportunities and well-being for future generations. However, for men and women in the West, this strategy has fallen out of style and has become increasingly incompatible with typical pathologies of love.
Friends typically provide neither economic support nor do they stimulate sexually, however, they do provide a safe environment for horizontal growth (learning about the world, rules, experimentation, jockeying for status/ladder climbing, etc). Friends provide a framework of social support for people and is the foundation for creations (like other more vital relationships) to grow from. Without friends, societies would become rigid and be less effective at surviving change. People cannot be "on" all the time, so friends provide both an edifying and a fall-back role. For example, Wwmen can, if they fail to marry an ideal lover or provider when they are young, marry one of their friends, as their market value inevitably decreases after the age of 30 or so while the man's is much more inclined to increase.
Many would say the primary purpose of relationships is reproduction. However, I'd say that that this is a bit reductionist. Instead, I believe the purpose of relationships is creation in general. It's the dance; the fusion then separation of energies, not just for the purpose of bearing children (though that is a fundamental necessity), but for perpetuating existence as a whole. "We are!" might make a good mantra here.
If this is true, then when we say that high-value men are men who makes great mates, we are actually implying an unrealistically narrow scope. Instead, we could say that high-value men are men who make great allies, and not just allies to other people, but allies to existence -- to the continuation of life/"is-ness".
This is I think roughly the conclusion Chase reaches, though perhaps through slightly different premises, when he concluded that a truly high-value man unifies and transcends (or at least mindfully varies between) these categories. A high-value man is a man possessed with characteristics of all of them -- the king, or Kan-ning; Ableman. The man who "can". Or more, he doesn't just posses the characteristics, he is them.
The man who truly "can" must also be the man who "does", as the nature of self (fortunately or unfortunately) is the relationship between apparently external and internal stimuli and events. A cause with variant potential to an effect, which then becomes a cause with variant potential, and so on and so forth. A true high-value man is both internally and externally high-value, because "he" is the relationship of these two realities: the psychological and the physiological. Can+Do=Be. That means that a high-value man is a social creature and is typically a generalist. And if he is an effective generalist we call him a renaissance man, if he is not, we condone him a jack of all trades, or worse, a mere conformist/poser. But perhaps the most one can really say about such a man is that he is a player, in the term's broadest sense.
-Oskar
On Girls Chase, when the writers talk about "high-value", they are talking about men being good allies, in particular good allies to women -- i.e., mates. There are recognized to be three categories of mates on GC: lovers, providers, and friends. Each of these categories denote a primary focus on providing oftentimes mutually exclusive attributes that are considered valuable to allies.
Lovers are providers of viable offspring and primal sexual energy -- so they get laid the most. Yet because of their higher risk creative strategies (reproductive and typically otherwise) they tend to not be ideal for fatherhood.
Providers provide economic support in exchange for a more stable long-term relationship. This is the primary historically conditioned optimal strategy for men since the agricultural revolution. The problem with them is that they are not very emotionally stimulating in the short term, so the freedom of whim -- as opposed to will -- that recent sexual liberation movements in the West have actualized are dramatically reducing the effectiveness of this strategy. However, in the end, it is safer for all involved, and more often will lead to long term stable growth than the more often erratic growth tendencies of lovers. Less chance for huge wins, but also less risk for huge losses. If you have a multi-generational, family-based orientation, this will lead to steady economic growth and general opportunities and well-being for future generations. However, for men and women in the West, this strategy has fallen out of style and has become increasingly incompatible with typical pathologies of love.
Friends typically provide neither economic support nor do they stimulate sexually, however, they do provide a safe environment for horizontal growth (learning about the world, rules, experimentation, jockeying for status/ladder climbing, etc). Friends provide a framework of social support for people and is the foundation for creations (like other more vital relationships) to grow from. Without friends, societies would become rigid and be less effective at surviving change. People cannot be "on" all the time, so friends provide both an edifying and a fall-back role. For example, Wwmen can, if they fail to marry an ideal lover or provider when they are young, marry one of their friends, as their market value inevitably decreases after the age of 30 or so while the man's is much more inclined to increase.
Many would say the primary purpose of relationships is reproduction. However, I'd say that that this is a bit reductionist. Instead, I believe the purpose of relationships is creation in general. It's the dance; the fusion then separation of energies, not just for the purpose of bearing children (though that is a fundamental necessity), but for perpetuating existence as a whole. "We are!" might make a good mantra here.
If this is true, then when we say that high-value men are men who makes great mates, we are actually implying an unrealistically narrow scope. Instead, we could say that high-value men are men who make great allies, and not just allies to other people, but allies to existence -- to the continuation of life/"is-ness".
This is I think roughly the conclusion Chase reaches, though perhaps through slightly different premises, when he concluded that a truly high-value man unifies and transcends (or at least mindfully varies between) these categories. A high-value man is a man possessed with characteristics of all of them -- the king, or Kan-ning; Ableman. The man who "can". Or more, he doesn't just posses the characteristics, he is them.
The man who truly "can" must also be the man who "does", as the nature of self (fortunately or unfortunately) is the relationship between apparently external and internal stimuli and events. A cause with variant potential to an effect, which then becomes a cause with variant potential, and so on and so forth. A true high-value man is both internally and externally high-value, because "he" is the relationship of these two realities: the psychological and the physiological. Can+Do=Be. That means that a high-value man is a social creature and is typically a generalist. And if he is an effective generalist we call him a renaissance man, if he is not, we condone him a jack of all trades, or worse, a mere conformist/poser. But perhaps the most one can really say about such a man is that he is a player, in the term's broadest sense.
-Oskar