There are no stable relationships

It is sometimes disheartening to see people learning Game only to end up with a girlfriend and call it quits. Game at its core is a life enhancing skill, so I am bringing into attention here, the constant need for Game.

The harsh reality is that no relationship is stable over the long term. Studies in relationships have shown that there is a honeymoon phase, that can last 6 months to 1 year (if you are lucky) and then it evolves into a friendship type of arrangement. In short, what people call "relationship" full of passion is a 6 months window. This realization is a big inner game leap: that guy dating a 10 for 2 years now... probably would be more excited to bang a (new) 7 than his long time girlfriend.

Neurochemically, love is operating on 3 axis. Sex based relationships operate based on lust from the reptilian brain. Early dating mainly operates dopaminergically and long term relationships operate on oxytocin. This information doesn't re-invent the wheel, but it sure enough proves a few things:

- As each area is processed in a different part of the brain, the brain naturally supports polygamy. You can date casually and have a long term girlfriend. They are in totally different parts of your brain.

- As the same girl transitions from one system to the next, the way you see and feel around her will change.

In particular, my claim is that all 3 areas are mandatory each with its own side-effects:

- Lack of lust (i.e., lack of sex): many of the male functions fail, for example lower testosterone

- Lack of dopamine: inedvertably, you will get bored with the girl. No matter how hot or smart she is, no dopamine = boredom

- Lack of oxytocin: this is lack of life stability. You will be subjected to whims of luck and the responses of the girls without an emotional anchor.

Therefore, here it is laid simple: One girl is not enough. For Game to be life enhancing needs to tick all 3 boxes. It is sisyphean and requires mate variety in addition to LTRs

If you enjoyed this post, you can find more here

[–]ChicoBrillo 17 points18 points19 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 4 points5 points6 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PostAvailable9966[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saryiahan 28 points29 points30 points 5 months ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]CelicnisGhost 6 points7 points8 points 5 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CelicnisGhost 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That only speaks to your inability to recognize it.

How to Conquer Approach Anxiety in Three Seconds

by Tommy Charmer

I used to think confidence was something you summoned—like a spell—right before you walked up to someone. What I eventually learned is that confidence is usually what shows up after you act, not before. That’s the logic behind the three-second rule: if you notice someone you want to talk to, say hello within three seconds. Not because three seconds is magic, but because after that, your mind starts doing what it does best, giving you a hundred reasons why you'll go down in flames.

I remember standing in a bookstore café in Santa Monica, pretending to read the same paragraph of a Joan Didion essay for the fourth time. Across the room, a woman was flipping through a paperback, smiling at something on the page. I noticed her. Then I noticed the voice in my head: She’s busy. She’s probably waiting for someone. Don’t interrupt. By the time I had constructed a full biography for her, including a hypothetical boyfriend and a dog named Milo, she was gone. Sound familiar?

I’d seen the opposite play out years earlier with Mystery, yeah, that guy, the guy who started all the fuss, long before Neil Strauss' "The Game" had hit the streets. We were in a Vegas club and a dancer stepped off the stage during a break. She was, objectively, stunning, with the kind of presence that makes even the most glip guy stutter. I felt the room tighten. Two or three of us noticed her, and then we began noticing ourselves noticing her. You could almost hear the gears clanking in our amygdala.

Mystery looked at us like he had just taken a bite out of a bad piece of fruit. With a look of disgust, he said, "Apparently, I haven't taught you anything. He glanced at Jeri, the dancer, took maybe two steps, and said something unremarkable—something about how exhausting it must be to smile that much under lights that hot. That was it. It took a few seconds, if that. The point wasn’t that she responded well (she did), or that he was fearless (he wasn’t). It was that he moved before the moment had time to freeze him in his tracks.

Hesitation is the real enemy here. Because the longer you wait, the more the bigger the stakes get. A casual interaction becomes a high-risk performance without a safety net. And whatever authenticity you might have brought to the exchange gets replaced by strategy, posture, and self-consciousness. .

Some pop-psychology types like to dress this up with science. They’ll cite a study—usually from the early 2000s, conducted by a few behavioral economists whose names blur together—about decision paralysis. The gist is that when people are presented with too many options, they freeze. There’s a famous experiment involving jam: shoppers faced with six varieties were more likely to buy than those faced with twenty-four. Too much choice, the researchers concluded, overwhelms the brain and shuts down action. Somewhere along the line, this got translated into dating advice: act quickly to avoid analysis paralysis.

Is this a precise application of neuroscience? Probably not. Human interaction is messier than a lab table stacked with jam jars. But the analogy of the jam jars holds in one important way: the more options you generate in your head—what to say, how to stand, what might go wrong—the less likely you are to do anything at all.

I’m especially susceptible to this because I like thinking. Left to my own devices, I can analyze a moment until it evaporates. The three-second rule is just a way to short-circuit the tendency to overthink.

And here’s the thing that often gets missed: The ache that lingers isn’t being told no; it’s lying in bed knowing you didn't even have the balls to ask the question.

So if there’s a takeaway here, it’s not “approach women faster.” The advice offered is to notice where you hesitate in your own life, and why. It's coming to terms with the fact that sometimes you only get one shot to go for the gold.

[–]CelicnisGhost 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Of course, it does. It hasn't been put through a "Humanizer". Once it was, it went from 33% AI written to getting a 0% AI from Turniton.

How do you think that grad student got it past the faculty's AI detectors?--which are not failsafe but often damn reliable.

Humanized (to 0%)

I used to believe confidence was something you pulled out of thin air, like a magic trick, right before you talked to someone new. Turns out, it usually shows up after you make a move, not before. That’s the whole idea behind the three-second rule: if you spot a woman you want to talk to, approach her within three seconds. Not because three seconds is some kind of secret sauce, but because after that, your brain kicks in and starts handing you every excuse in the book for why you’re about to crash and burn.

I remember standing in a bookstore café in Santa Monica, pretending to read the same Joan Didion paragraph for the fourth time. Across the room, a woman was lost in a paperback, grinning at something on the page. I noticed her. And then, just as quickly, I noticed the voice in my head: She’s busy. She’s waiting for someone. Don’t bother her. Before I knew it, I’d invented her entire life story, boyfriend, dog, and all. By the time I looked up, she was gone. Sound familiar?

I’d seen how the opposite plays out, too. Years ago, I watched Mystery in action, the guy who kicked off all that pickup artist buzz before “The Game” became popular. We were in a Vegas club, and during a break, this dancer stepped offstage. She was stunning, the kind of person who makes everyone in the room sit up a little straighter. A few of us noticed her, then we noticed ourselves noticing her. You could almost hear the anxiety humming between our ears.

Mystery just looked at us like we’d all failed some unspoken test. He made a face, then said, “Apparently, I haven’t taught you anything.” He glanced at Jeri, the dancer, took maybe two steps, and said something totally ordinary—just a comment about how exhausting it must be to keep smiling under those hot lights. That was it. He moved before overthinking had a chance to freeze him. It didn’t matter that she responded well (she did), or that he seemed fearless (he wasn’t). The point was, he acted before hesitation set in.

Hesitation is the real killer. The longer you wait, the more the stakes balloon. What could’ve been a simple interaction suddenly feels like a high-wire act. Any genuine part of you gets swapped out for a rehearsed routine.

Some people try to back up all this with psychology studies. They’ll trot out that old experiment, the one where shoppers could choose from six jars of jam or twenty-four. It turned out that shoppers who could only choose from six different kinds of jam bought more than shoppers faced with twenty-four. Too much choice, the researchers said, shuts us down. Somewhere along the way, this became dating advice: act fast so you don’t get stuck overthinking.

Is that an exact science? Not really. Real life is way messier than a table full of jam jars. But the metaphor still sticks: the more options you spin up in your head—what to say, how to stand, what could go wrong—the less likely you are to do anything.

I’m a champion overthinker, so I know this trap well. Left alone, I can analyze a moment until it disappears. The three-second rule is just a hack to get around my own brain.

Here’s what really stings, though: It’s not getting rejected. It’s lying awake, wishing you’d just had the guts to try.

So if there’s anything to take from this, it’s not “talk to women faster.” It’s about noticing where you freeze in your own life, and asking why. Sometimes, you only get one shot, and you’ve got to take it.

______________________-

You missed the larger point, though, AI or not, his major premise wilts in the light of common experience: it is glaringly false that many relationships remain stable for much longer than a year--unless by "stability", you skim the deck and define a natural, predictable fall-off in sex, "unstable".

His second preposterous given is that the man who is deeply in love with his "10" would be more fulfilled by the two-year mark screwing a "7" than the woman with whom he shares a deep bond. Inherent in this ridiculous assumption is that the new woman would be 1) more skilled as a lover and 2) know what turns the guy on as well as his wife.

Where does he get this shit? More importantly, why does he feel the need to trot out his own skewed views of human sexuality.

Why do I get the feeling you're a shill for this guy or his doppleganger?

[–]CelicnisGhost 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Still a few sentences in there that scream AI, like "Turns out, it usually shows up after you make a move, not before." and "Real life is way messier than a table full of jam jars".

You missed reading comprehension class. I originally stated I disagree by the general definition of it.

OP did specifically "Skim the deck" and define his own definition. By which he is right.

I am in a nearly 2 year LTR with genuinely the most beautiful girl I know IRL.

One-off sex with a new 7 would be worth to me more than one-off with my girl.

It's variety, and men crave it.

I'm never gonna do it for many reasons, but I still desire it.

Because you're a midwit heavily affected by confirmation bias.

[–]Matter_Still 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That had to pop up—the threadbare “confirmation bias”. It almost always does with those leaning heavily on promiscuous scientific terminology to buttress a claim as tenuous as tissue, and such people never tell you what kind of bias is suspected because they can’t. They wouldn’t know the difference between a biased search for information and biased recall, and if they could say, “Oh, yeah, you cherrypicked your data,” they couldn’t tell you how. Was it belief perseverance, primacy effect, or illusory correlation?

One last thing that escapes you: men do crave variety but what you fail to realize is that you can have a great deal of variety with the same woman. The “where, when, and how” offer tantalizing possibilities, and, eventually, even variety loses its spice. Here’s something you didn’t know: that phrase was popularized by the poet William Cowper. Apparently, dining from life’s buffet table didn’t work out too well for him: he was institutionalized for insanity and believed he was doomed to eternal damnation. It is also believed by literary scholars that Cowper was gay, which might have fueled his belief in the sustaining power of “variety”. We do see him, in one way, like Erik Marcovik, the most well-known PUA, who like Cowper, was put away after being found on the floor, suicidal in the fetal position. Variety didn’t prevent him from a hard landing; nor did it stop Neill Strauss’s sexual compulsivity, or curtail Mark Manson’s alcohol abuse. And these are the luminaries bowed to as sages. No thanks, the sticker price on variety is too high given its short “Best By” date.

I’ll ride with Aldonza, Don Quixote’s raunchy prostitute who noted,

One pair of arms is like another I don't know why or who's to blame, I'll go with you or with your brother It's all the same, it's all the same. This I have learned: That when the light's out, No man will burn with special flame, You'll prove to me before the night's out, You're all the same, you're all the same.

The day will come when you’d swap your seven for a five. It’s called “hedonic adaptation “ and variety only staves it off, like a Hershey bar that slows down hunger but that ultimately is empty calories.

[–]CelicnisGhost 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]DropInTheSky 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aIbe20 -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PostAvailable9966[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Matter_Still 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m guessing if Chat has pulled off a successful Master’s thesis, it could spin out a superficially compelling witch’s brew of scientific-sounding falderal on how to get laid.

And it has. This appeared last year on Redditt:

“I've been holding onto this for a while now, and I really need to get it off my chest (pun sooo intended). A few months ago, I successfully defended my Master's dissertation and passed with flying colors. On the outside, it looks like a huge accomplishment, and everyone around me is so proud. But the truth is... I didn't actually write it. ChatGPT did.”

“When it came time for the defense, I was terrified someone would see through the facade. But no one did. I answered questions based on what I had "written" (thanks to the AI), and I passed with no issues. My advisors were impressed, and I should be celebrating... but I just can't shake the guilt.”

Chatgpt also does a more-than commendable job of sounding like Rod Serling, and, with a single prompt, even Dickens describing a man in the yard of a debtor’s prison:

“The place possessed palpable affection for damp which only long acquaintance with misery can perfect, and seemed to exhale a chill not merely of air but of spirit. In the narrow yard of the debtor’s prison, where the stones were worn smooth by anxious pacing, Mr. Harbury made his morning circuit as faithfully as any gentleman once kept his appointments. His coat, though brushed with care, had surrendered its color to a weary brown; his cuffs shone with the polish of use rather than prosperity. He carried himself erect—out of habit more than hope—and bowed gravely to the turnkey, as if civility might yet prove a kind of currency acceptable in that austere establishment. Around him drifted the low murmur of reckonings unfinished and fortunes undone, while above, a thin square of sky—parsimonious and pale—looked down like a creditor who had come, at last, to see what might be recovered.”

So, the answer is ChatGpt, which can also pull off Richard Feynman talking about the limits of observation:

“Observation sounds like the most honest thing in the world. You look, you measure, you write it down. Very straightforward. But the trouble is, you don’t just look—you decide what to look at. You build a gadget that’s sensitive to this and blind to that, and then you’re surprised when it reports exactly what it was built to notice. It’s a little like asking a thermometer about poetry. The instrument isn’t wrong; it’s doing its job beautifully. It’s just that the job was limited from the start.

And even when you do see something unexpected, you don’t see it raw. You see it through a theory, the way you might look at the stars through a telescope with a particular set of lenses. Change the lenses and the universe rearranges itself. So observation is never pure. It’s a conversation between nature and the questions you had the nerve—or the imagination—to ask.”

Pretty damn impressive, don’t you think? A victorian novelist and a 20th century physicist without breaking a sweat.

And now with certain entities touting tools to avoid AI detection (i.e., humanize your AI text), the game is really afoot.

[–]PostAvailable9966[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfitisAlethia 2 points3 points4 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hydroplanet 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	There are no stable relationships
Author	PostAvailable9966
Upvotes	17
Comments	22
Date	February 25, 2026 6:28 PM UTC (5 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/seduction
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1relgkv/there_are_no_stable_relationships/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/seduction/there-are-no-stable-relationships.1574233 https://theredarchive.com/post/1574233

Comments