"Circling back to the plight of a feminized society, men, as Rian Stone would say, are being raised as defective women. With that comes the misconception that men have inherent value in being men— they do not. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Men have no value outside what they can accomplish and, if that is nothing, they are going to have a bitch of a time attracting the opposite sex."
How sad. Good thing God disagrees despite the foolishness and evil of man and all his wordly ideals born after the fall.
Truly the hallmark of an intellectual. I mean the Virgin Martyrs annihilate your point that men are the "disposable sex", they laid down their lives for Christ, their groom. Cease this slop. Being a seculsr masculiniyy guru just shows your a deviant and materialist.
I am a Christian and Stripper is right, men are fundamentally disposable, *to women*. Our metaphysical value under God is about our relationship with God. It's for us and for God but *not* for women. It's why there is such a fundamental disconnect between the sexes that will be forever unbridgeable. Women are not, and never will be, granted the power to see the true value of a man. She can only see the shadow, the symptoms. What she wants can't really be defined because she can't really *see it*.
This is OK. We used to know this. It's why we had explicitly male spaces.
Never underestimate how lazy and entitled people are, even to their own detriment.
Behavioral patterns are not easy to change and take a level of self-awareness that the majority of people lack.
Pareto principle. Maybe 20% of people have the capabilities to put in the work and out of that 20% another 20% actually follow through to some degree. I have seen it first hand. It is an extremely small percentage of men.
So well said. A perfect heuristic for not just dating but all human interaction. When I think of what it means to be a mature person, it’s someone who has come to terms with the hard truths of human existence- including, most importantly, that all relationships are transactional.
Is it more correct to say all relationships ‘should be’ transactional? Or that all ‘good’ relationships are transactional? Aren’t there bad relationships where one party is doing a disproportionate amount of giving and adding a lot of value to the other person’s life, but getting little or even nothing in return. In other words they should be transactional but they’re not.
Furthermore, even in a bad relationship the party that is getting next to nothing is sticking around for a reason. Even fear is an incentive, as dark as that can be.
Ideally, the incentives are not fear, hope that the person will change, a sense of duty, etc. but at the end of the day, someone getting a shit deal is incentivized to remain in a less than ideal relationship for some reason.
With that said, I write a lot about that side for men and I'll probably write something along those lines again soon.
If we adopt your framing that all relationships are transactional (even bad ones), we also need to acknowledge that sometimes the transaction is ripping you off, and you can do better by taking your business elsewhere. Or it could be you just think you’re getting ripped off, but the main problem is you’re not offering enough value to the other.
Often they’ll stick around because of what they’re going to lose by going (money, access to children, etc) rather than the positives they’re getting by staying. Or worse, a sense of guilt encouraged by the altruistic morality that says self sacrifice is a virtue and self interest is bad.
Whether you call that transactional or not, it’s very different to healthy relationships where both are adding significant real value to each other’s lives. On the other hand, expecting positives from the other can easily become a covert contract, and that’s what I’m grappling with. How to have healthy expectations of your relationship, and not become a sacrificial plough-horse on the one hand; whilst at the same time avoiding covert contracts and entitlement.
I don’t have the complete answer, but seems it requires forming a judgement of what ‘should’ be. Not ‘should’ in terms of what you owe to others, but what you owe to yourself. Not amorality - but a morality of rational self interest rather than a morality of sacrifice.
You can offer a ton of value and if you think you are getting the short end you can go get a second opinion. That doesn't mean cheat, but it does mean test the waters to see if other women are attracted to you.
If not, then perhaps you need to look in the mirror. If you leave the house and other women give you the signals then you know you aren't a complete unless tit.
None of this is easily, especially if you are being taken for granted. But sometimes tough choices and risks have to be taken to have a better life.
I write enough about all of this that you should be able to get a cursory understanding.
Try reading "Time to act as though your wife is dead".
I know a man who was faithful and loving to his first wife for decades after her MS diagnosis. He raised the kids, worked the job, cooked the meals, he did everything while she was confined to a bed in a care home. She finally passed away and he remarried a few years later.
I don't know how to even classify that relationship as transactional. Maybe somebody with a better noggin than mine can come up with something.
He got something out of it or else he wouldn't do it. The feeling of virtue, fulfillment, being responsible are all incentives.
Hence why I gave the example of the man giving a sandwich to the homeless. A transaction is more than a Western capitalist society has narrowly defined it as.
Brutal.
Answer is yes
"Circling back to the plight of a feminized society, men, as Rian Stone would say, are being raised as defective women. With that comes the misconception that men have inherent value in being men— they do not. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Men have no value outside what they can accomplish and, if that is nothing, they are going to have a bitch of a time attracting the opposite sex."
How sad. Good thing God disagrees despite the foolishness and evil of man and all his wordly ideals born after the fall.
K
Truly the hallmark of an intellectual. I mean the Virgin Martyrs annihilate your point that men are the "disposable sex", they laid down their lives for Christ, their groom. Cease this slop. Being a seculsr masculiniyy guru just shows your a deviant and materialist.
Be wise, not clever.
Hey, guess how much I care about your righteousness?
Go peddle your morality somewhere else bud. I ain't your guy.
I am a Christian and Stripper is right, men are fundamentally disposable, *to women*. Our metaphysical value under God is about our relationship with God. It's for us and for God but *not* for women. It's why there is such a fundamental disconnect between the sexes that will be forever unbridgeable. Women are not, and never will be, granted the power to see the true value of a man. She can only see the shadow, the symptoms. What she wants can't really be defined because she can't really *see it*.
This is OK. We used to know this. It's why we had explicitly male spaces.
Opinion discarded - “Men are disposable to women”
Men wouldn't be losers if they liked sex more. They don't like sex that much so they aren't motivated not to be losers
I can assure you, men wanting to fuck is not the issue.
Men having options to fuck the caliber of girls they are okay with showing in public or having a long term relationship with is the issue.
But that takes work.
And I would say that the work isn't worth it...because the sex isn't worth it? What else could be the explanation for not doing the work?
Never underestimate how lazy and entitled people are, even to their own detriment.
Behavioral patterns are not easy to change and take a level of self-awareness that the majority of people lack.
Pareto principle. Maybe 20% of people have the capabilities to put in the work and out of that 20% another 20% actually follow through to some degree. I have seen it first hand. It is an extremely small percentage of men.
What an entertaining piece! Ok, I will bite…
Thank you. Whether insightful or entertaining, I hope you find value in my writing.
So well said. A perfect heuristic for not just dating but all human interaction. When I think of what it means to be a mature person, it’s someone who has come to terms with the hard truths of human existence- including, most importantly, that all relationships are transactional.
Thank you, sir!
Is it more correct to say all relationships ‘should be’ transactional? Or that all ‘good’ relationships are transactional? Aren’t there bad relationships where one party is doing a disproportionate amount of giving and adding a lot of value to the other person’s life, but getting little or even nothing in return. In other words they should be transactional but they’re not.
No. "Should" is a moral imperative
Furthermore, even in a bad relationship the party that is getting next to nothing is sticking around for a reason. Even fear is an incentive, as dark as that can be.
Ideally, the incentives are not fear, hope that the person will change, a sense of duty, etc. but at the end of the day, someone getting a shit deal is incentivized to remain in a less than ideal relationship for some reason.
With that said, I write a lot about that side for men and I'll probably write something along those lines again soon.
If we adopt your framing that all relationships are transactional (even bad ones), we also need to acknowledge that sometimes the transaction is ripping you off, and you can do better by taking your business elsewhere. Or it could be you just think you’re getting ripped off, but the main problem is you’re not offering enough value to the other.
Often they’ll stick around because of what they’re going to lose by going (money, access to children, etc) rather than the positives they’re getting by staying. Or worse, a sense of guilt encouraged by the altruistic morality that says self sacrifice is a virtue and self interest is bad.
Whether you call that transactional or not, it’s very different to healthy relationships where both are adding significant real value to each other’s lives. On the other hand, expecting positives from the other can easily become a covert contract, and that’s what I’m grappling with. How to have healthy expectations of your relationship, and not become a sacrificial plough-horse on the one hand; whilst at the same time avoiding covert contracts and entitlement.
I don’t have the complete answer, but seems it requires forming a judgement of what ‘should’ be. Not ‘should’ in terms of what you owe to others, but what you owe to yourself. Not amorality - but a morality of rational self interest rather than a morality of sacrifice.
You got it dude.
That is the point of calibration.
You can offer a ton of value and if you think you are getting the short end you can go get a second opinion. That doesn't mean cheat, but it does mean test the waters to see if other women are attracted to you.
If not, then perhaps you need to look in the mirror. If you leave the house and other women give you the signals then you know you aren't a complete unless tit.
None of this is easily, especially if you are being taken for granted. But sometimes tough choices and risks have to be taken to have a better life.
I write enough about all of this that you should be able to get a cursory understanding.
Try reading "Time to act as though your wife is dead".
I know a man who was faithful and loving to his first wife for decades after her MS diagnosis. He raised the kids, worked the job, cooked the meals, he did everything while she was confined to a bed in a care home. She finally passed away and he remarried a few years later.
I don't know how to even classify that relationship as transactional. Maybe somebody with a better noggin than mine can come up with something.
He got something out of it or else he wouldn't do it. The feeling of virtue, fulfillment, being responsible are all incentives.
Hence why I gave the example of the man giving a sandwich to the homeless. A transaction is more than a Western capitalist society has narrowly defined it as.
What’s with the name/avatar?
You a fan of LeVar Burton?
Not so much anymore. Did you assume I was a blind black man based on my screen name?
100%. I was actually hoping you were the real LeVar Burton who was going to read me The Magic Schoolbus while dressed as Geordi La Forge.
Are you not a woman?
No, sir. I am not.
Snarky answer: Well, no. If I was fucking, I wouldn't be a loser, now would I?
No, Ken. No you would not. Lol
100%