Link: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/the-one-vs-my-one-and-only/

Not a long time ago, a woman found her way into our modmail protesting that not all single mothers are sluts and that some just might have had bad luck with the men they chose to procreate with. Although she was employing a very obvious tactic to redirect the conversation by highlighting the exceptions and was being nonchalantly dismissive of the opposing viewpoints, what stood out was her stated intention for why she reached out in the first place: “to help her choose her men better in the future as she did not believe one does not need to submit completely in order to live a mutually loyal and respectful life.”

Although there are two prominent things to analyze here, we will start with concentrating on the first: the idea of finding “The One” vs the idea of finding one’s “One and Only”, the mentality behind this phenomenon and what it eventually leads to. The idea of finding “The One” has been one of the most detrimental influences on women. This idea is a veneer used to mask the intention of serial monogamy with the pretension that the quest for “The One” absolves women of their serial monogamy and their addiction. Members of our subs would no doubt have observed women bemoaning having to kiss a lot of frogs before finding their Prince.1 Notice the subtle twist of their intention in this statement: it is not that she kisses frogs because she wants to kiss frogs, but she kisses frogs because she wants to find the Prince eventually. This is a prevalent belief in women and while some obfuscate their real intentions by maintaining plausible deniability on their intentions, the woman referenced above did not. She was not looking for a husband with whom she was hoping to live happily thereafter. She was looking for several boyfriends. She was trying to understand the psyche of the opposition so that she can find herself several ones who are just dangerous enough to excite her but also pliable enough to mold them to her liking. In essence, she wants to find and tame the alpha and fully expects to dump them (or be dumped) and then to repeat the process all over again.

Hooking up vs Dating:

The object of hooking up and the object of dating are not the same. While hooking up is all about short term sexual release, the primary purpose of dating is to find a husband or an LTR that would turn into a husband. What is at display here (and what most women commonly display) is an amalgamation of both that is being passed on as dating.

We have seen a lot of people claiming that women who deploy a strategy of serial monogamy are morally superior to women who are just into hookups. But, as we have seen so far, the line that separates these two is not that clear. When we group women who have had several boyfriends along with women who have predominantly gone for hookups, we are doing it because we understand that the intention behind both women are the same. Neither of these women are looking for their One and Only. They are not looking for a husband that they intend to share their life with so that they can build something together. No. They are looking for several boyfriends who will give them the proper amount of respect and the plausible deniability to kiss some frogs under the pretense that they are trying to find their Prince. This is why the popular phrase “Dating is hard” gets thrown around a lot. With all the frogs one has to kiss, it can become very confusing to understand who could be a Prince or to even remember that the proclaimed intention was to find her Prince. The idea that women have to kiss a lot of frogs to become mature enough to find their Prince is not new or controversial.2 This fabled path to long term relationship and marriage is the script most societies live by these days.

Non-committal committed relationships :

Coming back to the woman who was referenced above, she was pretty clear to herself and to us that she was dating for the sake of “dating” or as a source of abundance mentality. This attitude is common to modern women and is the primary cause for all the profiles we display in our subs. Since they are not looking for their “One and Only” and are only shopping for “Ones”, the idea that they have to submit to a man in a relationship seems like slavery. In the eyes of women like this, submission is not something that they give a man voluntarily. Submission is not a thing of love and trust. They look at submission as a compromise and tyranny because they are used to short term sexual submission and long term relationship submission just seems too long term. Thanks to their mentality and practice, they just don’t want to submit completely. Marriage just seems, terribly, so permanent.3 This is not to say that they do not expect you to invest completely. They absolutely want you to invest everything, eventually. They want you to start out being aloof and to reach a point of complete investment by virtue of their pussy and presence.

The justification that the woman above presented (and one most modern women agree with) for her unwillingness to submit was that: “men and women who are in a relationship are independent people who chose to be together and to support each other through highs and lows; that they should be willing to provide what the other one needs and are willing to push each other to be the best they can be without holding each other or being selfish; that neither owns the other; that they are together because they want to and love each other, not because they have to and that hence they do not owe each other anything."

Notice the claim here that men do not owe women anything in a relationship. If that is true, then why should a man help a woman, whom he is in a relationship with, at any given time? Why should he guide her through life at any given time? Why should he stay faithful to her at any given time? Why should he love her at any given time? They are supposed to be individuals who are not beholden to each other, right? The common rebuttal given to this argument is that the love that they have for each other will make him do all of this. Isn't that a man owing a woman certain things in exchange for his love? While women do not mind lack of commitment (for a time) from the Chads they fuck, how many of these women will stay with a man who does love them but would not do anything for them in a relationship?

What these women are actually saying here is that they don't want to owe anything to a guy. They value their "independence" more than they would value a partner. And because of that, they would not compromise for their partner. They would not put his needs above theirs. This is why they won’t get a husband but have been able to and can get several boy friends, fuck-buddies and one night stands who will all eventually check out of the relationship. The underlying belief that love will make a relationship go the distance will fail because love is an emotion. No emotion lasts forever. When a woman is not committing to a man herself, she cannot expect him to commit to her or to stay in that “relationship”.

Any relationship needs a healthy amount of give and take from both sides. There needs to be compromise, selflessness, care, kindness and maturity on both ends for the benefit of the other party. These women lack most, if not all, of these qualities. While women have been successful in selling the idea that marriages are not permanent and are only permanent until someone decides to opt out, the truth is that marriage is not a legality. It is a commitment. Both parties agree to provide the best of each other to the other person. When you're selfish, when you're holding back, when you're unwilling to compromise, when you're not offering your best or even your best effort, you cannot expect the “marriage” to last. Women often try to justify that their education, sophistication, confidence, looks etc. are their best qualities, that that is what makes them attractive and that is what they bring to the table. This is not even a factor for men. What men expect in a woman are not the same things women expect in a man. Women who have conditioned themselves to shop for “The One” do not typically display these qualities.

Deliberate obfuscation:

Certain women have been very proactive in molding the way societies define sluts. The commonly accepted and popular definition of a slut is that of a woman who wantonly fucks around, flaunts it and has no qualms about living like this as opposed to women who are “unlucky in love”: women who mean well, women who want to find love but unfortunately cannot since they are unlucky, lack good judgement, is just not an adult capable of taking responsibility for her actions or because they cannot find good men who measure up to their vision of the Prince that they have built up to in their years of sampling.

Most people have no problems with definition of the slut that is described above. And certainly, we do not look down upon such sluts ourselves. Sure, she is a slut. But at least she is honest about it. Men know exactly what they can expect from her as long as she is honest about what she is. The latter one is more problematic and needs to be dealt with caution because she herself does not know what will happen to her next and (especially) does not know how she would react to it. She is going with the flow, has no real plan for her life, has no judgement or a plan that would prevent her from getting hurt again. She is just a jumped-up teenager in the body of an adult and if that is the case, men would rather deal with actual teenagers who might listen to an adult and give him the benefit of the doubt and the authority that would go with the responsibility that is expected of him. What these women call “bad luck” looks like unwillingness to take responsibility to us.

Is it possible for a woman to be chaste, to look for a moral and good man, to vet a man who she believes to be such a man, marry him to only find out that he was not such a man? Sure. But that would not be bad luck. That would be inexperience, inability to cross verify with others who are more experienced than you, lack of maturity and inability to notice subtle signs that indicate the character of a person. The fact that women want to dismiss this as bad luck (as opposed to taking responsibility for their choices) tells us that they would rather not take responsibility for their actions and would prefer to abdicate their agency as an adult.

The fundamental argument these women present is based solely on one thing and one thing only: their unwillingness to compromise with men and to value their man's opinion just as much (if not more than) they value their own. Successful family life is not driven by some ideal notion. In reality, if you want something, you have to give first to get more of that in return. For example, one has to invest money to make wealth. If you are incapable of investing your money, you are not going to become wealthy. How much money you make depends on the level of investment you choose to make. The same holds true for investing in a family and a relationship. If you are incapable of investing emotionally in a relationship and to put your spouse's interest above yours, you are not going to have a family life (and definitely not a successful one). These women had a clear choice to make and we all know by their behavior what choice they made. Women who chose their ego over a loving family should not be placed under the same category of women who chose a loving family over their ego. As men, it is our duty to distinguish one from the other and to only reward what each deserves.

Notes:

1 Even if you have not, refer here. Archive of source in comments here.

2 Post on "The maturity myth" here.

3 Dalrock's post here.

Additional reading:

Romantic love as the basis for marriage.