Q4BP: How do you respond to the logic that women have more abundant options than men and therefore do not commit to a relationship in the same way that a man does?

sublimemongrel · 2017-05-26T19:23:26+00:00

It's retarded.

If she's committed to you, despite having more options, one could argue that's "more committed" than if you are committed to her because you don't have any other options. No one wants commitment from someone just because they can't do better.

[deleted] · 2017-05-26T21:00:10+00:00

"Do not commit to a relationship in the same way a man does"

You need to explain this. Do you mean men who cling to every relationship for dear life or those who understand Abundance Mentality?

Not all men commit to relationships the same way.
Not all women commit to relationships the same way.

Your trying to generalize everything and you really can't with a question like the one you're asking.

VermiciousKnidzz · 2017-05-26T18:43:26+00:00

i think its funny that Red Pill talks about spinning plates and that every man wants to spread his seed around as much as possible and then in the same breath shame women for doing the same

She isn't yours; it's just your turn

an entire novel of insecurity and misogyny wrapped up into 7 words. men (and women!) wrapped up in this insecurity want to own their SOs without being owned. they want to have sex but only if they can be the focal point of that person's sex life.

these men can't accept that women are as sexual as men. they're afraid they wont match up her past experience so they bandage that fear with "if she leaves me, its only in her womany hypergamous nature!"

BluePiller1776 · 2017-05-26T18:36:35+00:00

She will have another man come into her life, whether it be at work, at the gym, at church, wherever - and her hamster will view him as more desirable than what she has now. The grass is always greener on the other side. Then she will look at the man she is committed to, be disgusted, and that's it. It's over.

Gotta love the "logic" of having self-confidence be so low that you think your GF simply meeting a "more attractive" man will cause her to lose all attraction to you.

wub1234 · 2017-05-26T17:42:40+00:00

"She isn't yours; it's just your turn."

Another stupid phrase.

HugMuffin · 2017-05-26T17:52:07+00:00

By citing the statistic that men cheat more than women.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

The fact that men cheat more, despite women being choosier in relationships, shows that this logic doesn't hold up.

ProbablyBelievesIt · 2017-05-26T18:01:43+00:00

Logic? I'd just point out that they're terrified of two way emotional intimacy, and "it's just your turn" contradicts their obsession with "alpha widows" anyways, so who cares what they think?

It's like debating someone terrified of modern medicine, because they have a collection of horror stories. At what point are you just enabling their dysfunction?

wtknight · 2017-05-26T20:02:46+00:00

Most of the women I've known weren't attracted to most men.

Actually, Chad has more options than Stacey, because he is attracted to more women than she is to men, and many of these women are likely to sleep with him.

TheChemist158 · 2017-05-26T21:07:14+00:00

Women don't have more options in terms of relationships. There's equal number of men and women, and we pair off monogamously. Ergo, there are as many single men as women.

I'm not sure how men and women comitt differently. Or precisely, I don't know what you mean by that. What lengths we are willing to stay together? The repercussions of seperating?

Anyway, I'll say the same thing about this field report as the others. We cannot say how accurate it is. This means the OP can be downright fabricating some or all of it. Or he could be misreading the women's intentions. Or he could be suffering from selection bias where he only sees the women that fit his world views and are ignoring those who don't. And finally, even if this is entirely accurate, a single story doesn't prove anything about larger trends.

Lyanina · 2017-05-26T18:10:42+00:00

Logic? Nah. Even if someone has more options it doesn't mean they're incapable of selecting the one that fits best and sticking to it.

What do you mean by "commit"?

goatismycopilot · 2017-05-26T19:37:03+00:00

How does having more options makes them abundant options?

NewOrder777 · 2017-05-27T03:26:30+00:00

Women do exactly what men would do with their advantage: constantly trade up. They just lie about it and put the blame on the man they betray.

Which is why the solution is to create a system of sexual checks and balances to encourage long term pairing and protect men who invest in women from hypergamy. Society can't survive the rapidly increasing number of single-mothers and divorced, alienated men.

jintana · 2017-05-27T05:09:03+00:00

Well, this guy can see his fantasies in women's eyes..

I can see it in their eyes.

"Why didn't you move here sooner? That way I could have tried my luck with you, instead of being committed to my current husband/fiance"

"If only I had waited a little longer and held out and been a bit more patient...

"I wonder what it would be like had I decided to go with you instead of him"

Otherwise, he (and everyone else) is describing the shit with the honeymoon phase wearing off, which happens to men and women (he even slipped and said 'men' once in his post).

Which happens when we (men and women, as well as those who identify as neither or both) try to commit to relationships we shouldn't've and have the Oh Shit moment, or are narcissistic assholes who need another hit of The Drug.

rulenumber303 · 2017-05-27T05:19:03+00:00

Pregnancy and childbirth and lactation are pretty damn huge relationship commitments that men pretty much never do except for a very few transmen. So y'know, bit fucking dodgy to argue that women in general commit less and commit in ways that are more reversible, when it is women who are in their millions wandering round with babies hanging off their tits, busted pelvic floors, prolapses and episiotomy scars in order to secure the genetic heritage of their relationships and a relationship change(shared genetic parenthood) that bonds together families on multiple levels beyond the mere commitment of the two parents.

[deleted] · 2017-05-26T19:26:42+00:00

deleted ^{^{^What}} ^{^{^is}} ^{^{^this?}}

BPremium · 2017-05-26T18:37:39+00:00

Show me the scientific evidence that 1. women have more abundant options than men and 2. women do not commit to a relationship in the same way that a man does. That's a good starting point. Otherwise this is just navel gazing

AutoModerator · 2017-05-26T17:37:49+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Superfluous_Toast · 2017-05-27T17:40:32+00:00

Not true for me. If I choose to date someone, they are the one that I want to be with.

Pleb-Tier_Basic · 2017-05-27T19:57:17+00:00

I think TRP, among other things, suffer from being trapped in its own epistemological horizons. You insist that all human relationships are essentially just market relationships, and then deduct from there that people are essentially easily replaceable or can be "swapped out" based on a semi-standard criteria, or worded differently, people are fundamentally commodities in the dating "market".

If you start with the assumption that romantic relationships are at their core a market interaction, then sure anybody can just drop and swap when a "better deal" comes along. But I question to what extent romantic relationships are really market interactions?

I mean sure they certainly can be market relationships, and I believe this is the devise TRP is predicated on; to be successful romantically you need to bring certain things to the table; money, status etc and in exchange you receive a partner that provides sex, domestic labor etc. That essentially the TRP view of what a LTR really is.

But I don't think modern relationships really are built that way. For start's a man's buying power is lower than its ever been, and most women are financially independent. So the only thing a TRP can bring to a relationship is status, which puts them in a viscous cycle of constantly affirming and re-affirming that status. I think that's where a lot of TRP LTR "advice" and paranoia derives out of; not only must you show status at the start (during the pick-up) but even once in the relationship you can never just relax; you're always required to maintain the image of status as that's your only bargaining chip.

And that's really where TRP logic begins to break down. You insist on defining relationships in terms of market logic, but you don't have anything to bring to that market, except the illusion of status (which is always an illusion; people with real status don't need to re-affirm it constantly, as it is self-evident). This logic basically forces you into a a never-end game of push and pull, attempt essentially to enter market and "sell" with very little to actually put on the table; ergo TRP insists you double down by entrenching your only asset, your percieved status.

I think most TBP operate in the other direction. For me personally, I clued in a while ago that this give-and-take market dynamic is an unsustainable problem; as you already observed, the average guy has nothing to keep the girl from seeking a higher-status person; or to break that down, no matter what you bring to the table, there is always a "better deal", ergo romantic success can only ever be defined as playing the game indefinitely; but the goal of TRP is not to permanently reaching for romantic and sexual success, but rather to actualize it systemically; ergo success is impossible by TRPs own logic.

So what is a guy to do? Well, when you're faced with an impossible situation, the rational person will back-track until the6 find the condition that generated the impossibility. And I think any which way you cut it, the start to this impossible situation is the decision to define romantic relationships as a market relationship. That's the one condition that inevitably creates the no-win situation. If your goal is to achieve romantic success, this condition is impossible; ergo you need to find a new way of looking at romantic relationships that are not a market relationship.

So that's how I respond. Your question is worded as a "gotcha" but if you unpack it you realize the problem is not that women have abundance, but rather that you're operating from the base assumption that romantic relationships are market relationships. Issues of scarcity and abundance (as you are using them) are only relevant in a market relationship, because the presume partners are interchangeable commodoties and success is finding the "best deal". Cut out that commodification of the relationship, and the house of cards collapses; it is irrelevant how "abundant" thirsty dudes are if the goal is something beyond maximizing your ROI.

To leave on a note, one reply I'm expecting is for some dude to come along and be like "well dude all human relationships can be described as market relationships". All I have to say to that is that any human interaction can be described as a market relationship, if they so choose. There is no tangible object called a "market relationship"; it's a model we use to describe and understand certain interactions. Even a literal market place could be described as a social relationship, or a political one, or a geograohic one, etc. These models however also define how we understand these relations; especially when your in the realm of making prescriptive judgements, TRP is apt to do. Prescription is a a dangerous road because the model selected will influence the prescription and if you chose the wrong model, you will get inconsistent or contradictory advice. This is the trap I feel this question has fallen into; TRP assures us that it has the keys to romantic and sexual success, yet it seems unable to escape a world wherein that "success" is literally always in jeopardy of being lost; this to me is a modelling problem, where in the basic assumption (romantic relationships fit a market model) leads to a descriptive and prescriptive regime that can't permanently achieve the stated goals. That's why I began my comment talking about an epistemological boundary that prevents TRP from surpassing its own internal contradictions.

I'll leave with a quote. Somebody once said that true love isn't staring into the eyes of your partner; rather, it's holding their hand while you both observe a third object. The quote meaning that there are other ways to understand romantic success, and if you change your perspective, what you see and understand about the dating game will change altogether. Your question presumes people can be limitlessly swapped at no loss; but that for me at least has never been the case; while I've had different relationships with different women, they're never interchangeable; each one is unique and adds or takes away from my life in a unique way. I think the core of your question is the fear that you may be easily repleacable; and while it's true that your partner may leave you, that doesn't mean you've been replaced; what you bring to a relationship can (and should be) unique. But that only works if a) you don't operate on a worldview wherein people are essentially empty commodities to be used and throw aside, and b) if you're mature enough to recognize that love always comes with the risk of loss; that you can't have one without the other. That is not possible in a TRP worldview, which is why so much energy is devoted to finding techniques to sidestep these basic non-market problems.

IckyStickyPoo · 2017-05-28T03:45:41+00:00

I don't fear not being able to find another great guy if I were to break up with my partner. I do have abundance mentality.

But I also have oneitis mentality. He is the one and I want him to be the one to the end of my life. And I'll do everything in my power to ensure that he's happy and that things stay that way. Because it's so nice being with someone you have a shared history and a committed future with. I'm looking forward to 10, 20, 30 and more years of love and shared history.

Why on earth would I want to break up and get someone else just because I can???

TheRockingAbraham · 2017-05-28T23:49:17+00:00

Psychologists agree. 50% of women have someone else on the back burner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1GpMSIamnk

You can't rationalize it, you can only berate it as if it isn't true and then seek social recognition from your other females that what you said is true, when you know it isn't (kinda like a game). But then this would be an act of narcissism.

You can't argue with it, because science has proven it exists.

Comments