ezio6
Pareto
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
- Posts
- 1,399
- Reputation
- 1,142
The mistake many men make is associating what a girl feels towards us, and taking it more personally than we should.
What happens is that she associates whatever she feels with you as an object rather than as a subject.
What does it actually mean? The feeling you provide to her is what she anchors herself with.
You are technically a dealer of emotions.
It can be passive. A validation because she thinks she is getting with someone better than her. Whether it is based on looks, money, status or whatever she values as what is the most important to her.
It can also be active. The fun experiences that you provide. The security she feels with you. The emotions, the drama, the uncertainty, the reassurance etc...
In the end, she will never really be able to appreciate you for who you really are. Even though it may appear as such on the surface. You are a utility to her. In the end, it was she can extract out of you.
Even when you do not do anything in particular to get in her good graces, and you are "just yourself". Your personality reflects something within her that makes her feel whole, understood and appreciated.
Think about it this way. When you feel appreciated for actually being who you are, do you actually love the person or do you love the fact that you can be yourself with that person? It is about not confusing the tree for the forest.
That principle of association is closely related to the principle of co-dependency. A principle that has been beaten down thanks to the Shrink complex to be labelled as unhealthy and toxic, where it is the cornerstone of a union.
Where in every association there are costs and benefits. What we are trying to make people believe is anchoring their respective selves separately turning the association between them into 2 independent contractual individuals. Ironically enough, it is indirectly approving arranged marriages or marriages of convenience. So much for modernity
It is in essence magnifying the transactional nature of relationships turning the magic of human closeness into a dry "partnership agreement". Women are the first to bring that set up as a positive framework. But like Jim Cramer, they are the best contrarian indicator of what not to do for the success of the relationship from a human standpoint.
If you don't believe this, just do what they say they want, and enjoy the consequences of it.
It is not because something is transactional that making it look overtly transactional brings success.
E.g. In dating, both people have a baseline level of attraction, but it is in creating that illusion of uncertainty of the outcome where investment, infatuation, and attachment are created. Where if you establish terms and conditions before the getting to know phase one another it is off-putting for both sexes who want to have something wholesome rather than practical.
The meat of it when it comes to the principle of association: women can only attach themselves to either something new or something better. As the vast majority of us are interchangeable in reality, it is about creating the subjective reality that we are not, for us to anchor ourselves in their mind and create that investment that makes us stick.
The challenge is even harder these days due to many reasons.
Many people focus on body count, and it has become a poster child of this underlying concept. The idea of going with a virgin is based on the precept that there is a much lower chance for her to move on to "greener" pastures, and overall pair bonding due to her previous reference points.
This is where she attaches new emotions to the discovery of her sexuality, and the more it becomes usual, the more she starts to detach emotions from the act itself. The harder it is for the average man to leave a mark on her, and make her more attached to that man in question.
Another embodiment of the concept is how emotionally rinsed out are women past a certain age. They will say they know what they want and know what they don't want. When in reality, they just associate a negative view of a particular person due to the outcome rather than the experiences which had them bonded to that person. Another example of misattribution.
The more experience a woman has, the less "bondable" and this goes beyond sex as many guys would like to reduce it to. It goes also about the other experiences they seek.
It is no coincidence they love travelling, in today's economy experience type of gifts are being preferred to product type of gifts. In travelling they seek something new and eventually better. They want to get out of the everyday drag because they are easily bored.
Through their young years thanks to their newfound independence they get to experience things that before they would have only benefitted from under the stewardship of the men they ended up with. So by a certain age, they become blasรฉ of what would have originally been seen as a privilege.
Another example of that is damaged women. Where they have had their heart fried out by one too many guys. Where they can only respond to toxicity. When a man comes and behaves in a healthy manner they cannot resonate with it.
Why is that? Because it does not emote the rollercoaster ride she previously felt with her past experiences (aka alpha-widowed).
Once we take the moral side of the question out of the equation, you understand you can only stick out in her head by being more toxic than her past experience. Whether you want to go there or not, is a matter of personal arbitrage of whether it is worth it or not.
You could still be with her without using this, but you will have to bank on her security-seeking agenda (generally past a certain age for her), however, it would not be a relationship based on anything but through an overt transaction mechanism.
Thinking there is a healthy compromise when it comes to these women is just cope for clean up men. One is nothing other than that when you realise she allowed others but not you. She does not deem you worth to give more of herself.
Where another misattribution guys make, is that women want money. Therefore they are trying to broadcast and showcase it clumsily (i.e. overt) attracting only gold diggers looking to secure the bag. Overt communication brings in overt transactions. Another reason why women don't particularly like gifts unless they are looking to extract monetary resources from a man. The ones who still want to feel something real, do not want to be burdened by an overt quid pro quo.
Where communication has to be covert - lifestyle marketing vs screenshot of bank account balance. Money is a tool not an end. It allows you to be something which creates better lasting memories and the associated feelings that come with it.
What Money allows you is freedom and spontaneity. Having freedom as a man but not having spontaneity is the same thing as having money but being stingy. If you want to get and have the biggest impact on a woman, it is through doing things off the cuff. That unpredictability is what pulls them in.
You can create it in a positive way, by allowing yourself to create new and exclusive experiences that most men cannot offer and thus singling yourself out.
But you can also create it in a negative way, by fostering toxic behaviours which draw them in. If you don't have the means to offer it in a positive way considering the realm of options they have which they can exercise...that is your main option.
On top of that, negatively skewed emotions are more lingering than positive ones. People experience losses much harder than wins. In other words, Fear is a bigger driver than Greed.
This is why you will see women still stuck on some broke loser, despite having rich guys offered them positive experiences, but in the realm of attachment, the broke loser will have had her more into him than the other one when compared.
Where one would have given her the impression she bought her out (transactional) whereas the other one would have given her the impression that it was more "wholesome" (non-transactional).., event though it was but through a more sneaky way. Why when a woman is damaged there no other way to emotionally resonate with her than through toxicity
Despite the transactional nature of the relationship, the strongest feelings always appear through the illusion of non-transaction, however counter-intuitive that sounds.
Both positive and negative ways still function under the principle of association. It is not you, it is what feelings you provide. If she is not living with past relationships or even family traumas, you can more easily make positive associations between the acts you do and the way you are with her.
Considering all of the above, the liquid nature of modern relationships is a derivative of the over-exposure to relationships and overall experiences women benefit from where it is eventually harder for them to attach themselves to a particular man. They can move on much quicker than in the past.
There is a reason why men like to make women discover new things. It is part of their masculine inclination. It is in their feminine nature to receive and appreciate it.
When this cannot happen, what you are faced with is a market failure where both genders cannot fully appreciate one another.
So what is the solution if you want to find a woman under the right framework?
1) Cultivate your personality so that you appear to her as someone different from the vast majority of men she has encountered. Have enough resources to provide new and memorable experiences.
2) Go for younger ones, but bear in mind there are fewer of them in the West who have not benefitted from hedonism in their early life, so associations in a positive manner are less likely to take place.
3) Outsource abroad where what you can offer to a woman who has been curtailed by the local economic realities. experiences she most likely has not benefitted.
4) Or go for a negative association, but it has a half-life.
What happens is that she associates whatever she feels with you as an object rather than as a subject.
What does it actually mean? The feeling you provide to her is what she anchors herself with.
You are technically a dealer of emotions.
It can be passive. A validation because she thinks she is getting with someone better than her. Whether it is based on looks, money, status or whatever she values as what is the most important to her.
It can also be active. The fun experiences that you provide. The security she feels with you. The emotions, the drama, the uncertainty, the reassurance etc...
In the end, she will never really be able to appreciate you for who you really are. Even though it may appear as such on the surface. You are a utility to her. In the end, it was she can extract out of you.
Even when you do not do anything in particular to get in her good graces, and you are "just yourself". Your personality reflects something within her that makes her feel whole, understood and appreciated.
Think about it this way. When you feel appreciated for actually being who you are, do you actually love the person or do you love the fact that you can be yourself with that person? It is about not confusing the tree for the forest.
That principle of association is closely related to the principle of co-dependency. A principle that has been beaten down thanks to the Shrink complex to be labelled as unhealthy and toxic, where it is the cornerstone of a union.
Where in every association there are costs and benefits. What we are trying to make people believe is anchoring their respective selves separately turning the association between them into 2 independent contractual individuals. Ironically enough, it is indirectly approving arranged marriages or marriages of convenience. So much for modernity
It is in essence magnifying the transactional nature of relationships turning the magic of human closeness into a dry "partnership agreement". Women are the first to bring that set up as a positive framework. But like Jim Cramer, they are the best contrarian indicator of what not to do for the success of the relationship from a human standpoint.
If you don't believe this, just do what they say they want, and enjoy the consequences of it.
It is not because something is transactional that making it look overtly transactional brings success.
E.g. In dating, both people have a baseline level of attraction, but it is in creating that illusion of uncertainty of the outcome where investment, infatuation, and attachment are created. Where if you establish terms and conditions before the getting to know phase one another it is off-putting for both sexes who want to have something wholesome rather than practical.
The meat of it when it comes to the principle of association: women can only attach themselves to either something new or something better. As the vast majority of us are interchangeable in reality, it is about creating the subjective reality that we are not, for us to anchor ourselves in their mind and create that investment that makes us stick.
The challenge is even harder these days due to many reasons.
Many people focus on body count, and it has become a poster child of this underlying concept. The idea of going with a virgin is based on the precept that there is a much lower chance for her to move on to "greener" pastures, and overall pair bonding due to her previous reference points.
This is where she attaches new emotions to the discovery of her sexuality, and the more it becomes usual, the more she starts to detach emotions from the act itself. The harder it is for the average man to leave a mark on her, and make her more attached to that man in question.
Another embodiment of the concept is how emotionally rinsed out are women past a certain age. They will say they know what they want and know what they don't want. When in reality, they just associate a negative view of a particular person due to the outcome rather than the experiences which had them bonded to that person. Another example of misattribution.
The more experience a woman has, the less "bondable" and this goes beyond sex as many guys would like to reduce it to. It goes also about the other experiences they seek.
It is no coincidence they love travelling, in today's economy experience type of gifts are being preferred to product type of gifts. In travelling they seek something new and eventually better. They want to get out of the everyday drag because they are easily bored.
Through their young years thanks to their newfound independence they get to experience things that before they would have only benefitted from under the stewardship of the men they ended up with. So by a certain age, they become blasรฉ of what would have originally been seen as a privilege.
Another example of that is damaged women. Where they have had their heart fried out by one too many guys. Where they can only respond to toxicity. When a man comes and behaves in a healthy manner they cannot resonate with it.
Why is that? Because it does not emote the rollercoaster ride she previously felt with her past experiences (aka alpha-widowed).
Once we take the moral side of the question out of the equation, you understand you can only stick out in her head by being more toxic than her past experience. Whether you want to go there or not, is a matter of personal arbitrage of whether it is worth it or not.
You could still be with her without using this, but you will have to bank on her security-seeking agenda (generally past a certain age for her), however, it would not be a relationship based on anything but through an overt transaction mechanism.
Thinking there is a healthy compromise when it comes to these women is just cope for clean up men. One is nothing other than that when you realise she allowed others but not you. She does not deem you worth to give more of herself.
Where another misattribution guys make, is that women want money. Therefore they are trying to broadcast and showcase it clumsily (i.e. overt) attracting only gold diggers looking to secure the bag. Overt communication brings in overt transactions. Another reason why women don't particularly like gifts unless they are looking to extract monetary resources from a man. The ones who still want to feel something real, do not want to be burdened by an overt quid pro quo.
Where communication has to be covert - lifestyle marketing vs screenshot of bank account balance. Money is a tool not an end. It allows you to be something which creates better lasting memories and the associated feelings that come with it.
What Money allows you is freedom and spontaneity. Having freedom as a man but not having spontaneity is the same thing as having money but being stingy. If you want to get and have the biggest impact on a woman, it is through doing things off the cuff. That unpredictability is what pulls them in.
You can create it in a positive way, by allowing yourself to create new and exclusive experiences that most men cannot offer and thus singling yourself out.
But you can also create it in a negative way, by fostering toxic behaviours which draw them in. If you don't have the means to offer it in a positive way considering the realm of options they have which they can exercise...that is your main option.
On top of that, negatively skewed emotions are more lingering than positive ones. People experience losses much harder than wins. In other words, Fear is a bigger driver than Greed.
This is why you will see women still stuck on some broke loser, despite having rich guys offered them positive experiences, but in the realm of attachment, the broke loser will have had her more into him than the other one when compared.
Where one would have given her the impression she bought her out (transactional) whereas the other one would have given her the impression that it was more "wholesome" (non-transactional).., event though it was but through a more sneaky way. Why when a woman is damaged there no other way to emotionally resonate with her than through toxicity
Despite the transactional nature of the relationship, the strongest feelings always appear through the illusion of non-transaction, however counter-intuitive that sounds.
Both positive and negative ways still function under the principle of association. It is not you, it is what feelings you provide. If she is not living with past relationships or even family traumas, you can more easily make positive associations between the acts you do and the way you are with her.
Considering all of the above, the liquid nature of modern relationships is a derivative of the over-exposure to relationships and overall experiences women benefit from where it is eventually harder for them to attach themselves to a particular man. They can move on much quicker than in the past.
There is a reason why men like to make women discover new things. It is part of their masculine inclination. It is in their feminine nature to receive and appreciate it.
When this cannot happen, what you are faced with is a market failure where both genders cannot fully appreciate one another.
So what is the solution if you want to find a woman under the right framework?
1) Cultivate your personality so that you appear to her as someone different from the vast majority of men she has encountered. Have enough resources to provide new and memorable experiences.
2) Go for younger ones, but bear in mind there are fewer of them in the West who have not benefitted from hedonism in their early life, so associations in a positive manner are less likely to take place.
3) Outsource abroad where what you can offer to a woman who has been curtailed by the local economic realities. experiences she most likely has not benefitted.
4) Or go for a negative association, but it has a half-life.
