Last night I had a discussion about relationships with my sister and her husband. I found that NAWALT does hold true in some rare cases. I steered the conversation to some of the topics I have been thinking about regarding the SMP and to my surprise my sister agreed with nearly everything I brought up. DHVs, hypergamy, teasing, shit-tests; we discussed them all and she gladly confirmed them. She was surprisingly aware of what attracts her. Perhaps being in a stable relationship allows her to feel less insecure about her self and thus more willing to acknowledge her behavior. For me the conversation was enlightening, because I understand things better when I can talk them out.
In the majority of the blogs I have read, the dating scene is always referred to as the Sexual Market Place (SMP). This analogy is an apt one, but I never really considered its deeper significance. It makes sense as there is an exchange of goods between two people but it can be taken much further. During last night's discussion the implications of treating dating as a marketplace gained a great deal of weight.
In the beginning of a relationship a BETA's tendency is to invest himself and his resources on the girl. He will buy flowers, treat her to expensive restaurants, make every date memorable and special, put aside most of his time, comfort her, and generally pour himself into making the relationship work. His goal is to receive some reciprocation from her. The problem with this approach is it screws up the exchange rate. By giving everything he has and not negotiating for a larger return he is subsequently devaluing his currency. If it takes a hundred dollar meal, and trip to the ballet to get a peck on the cheek, how much is it going to cost him in resources to get her into bed? Unless he is ridiculously rich he will not have enough resources to afford the exchange. What makes it worse is the assumption that if the girl is still not interested, or reluctant, then the solution is to continue to spend resources on her until she comes around, which further devalues the man's currency. While this approach is not the most efficient, it can result in a relationship, though not the one man wants. The problem with any relationship based on such a disparate exchange rate is that if a better offer comes along the woman will have very little incentive to stay.
For any guy in this scenario the solution is not to continue spending, but rather to increase the value of his wares, by either increasing his objective value i.e. working out, getting a better job, dressing better, or negotiating for better prices i.e. game. This improves the exchange rate in his favor and gives him an advantage while shopping for what he wants.
These realizations may be obvious for most people but until recently for all I knew relationships ran on fairy dust and magic*. I was so blind I did not see that every relationship, not just sexual ones, runs on these principles. For a friendship to last all parties must invest time and energy into each other, but freely and with the trust that the others will do the same. Every relationship involves transactions. They may be unspoken and implicit, but there is always an assumption of exchange. This is a foreign concept to me (social retard here), and I always thought it was very strange when people were willing, and more recently, wanting to hang out with me. But it makes sense in light of the fact that I am no longer actively devaluing myself to everyone through insecurity and self doubt. I have value and people seem to be happy to exchange friendship with me because of it.
Happily, because of this, I now know that rejection is rarely personal. The girl either does not want what I have to offer, or I have not spent sufficient time displaying what value I have. It takes longer that five minutes during an approach to convince a girl that she wants what I have to offer. Persistence is key. I need to keep the interaction going until I get a clear no. Even then I should not give up, she may be testing me to determine if she can get a higher price. It is a negotiation and a negotiation is not over until both parties are satisfied.
*Literally. I though relationships worked because God intended the two people to be together.
37 comments:
yep, this nails it
This is a very nice post! :) I do believe God plans for people to be together, but THEY still need to both put work into it in order to stay together.
What is the Biblical basis to believe that God has a special person for everyone or even every Christian?
The Bible many times describes our purposes here, and we all are different with unique gifts. The Bible also consistently shows people of harmonious natures and purposes uniting in marriage.
Jenifer,
I don't think you've read your Bible much. I say this because just about every relationship in there, much less marriage, is messed up in one way or another.
I can list them if you like.
Honey, the Bible is one long story about man being saved despite his pride and rebellion and all by the grace and mercy of God.
"...harmonious natures...", ha, that's funny.
Yes, and relationships are still messed up; that's because people are. And if there's one common factor among the disasters, it's turning from God.
I would say that there is as much evidence for saying that God has that special job out there just waiting for you to work at as there is for saying there is that one special person. Truth is that I do think that God's plans get that specific, but there is nothing any more special about relationships than any other part of life.
And if you look at God's attitude towards marrige: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." it is much more casual than those people who go on about that special someone and soul mates and what not. Marriage is just a gift from God to make life on Earth easier. Nothing more.
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
CR, you're describing PAUL'S attitude towards marriage.
And Jesus' attitude. The second quote which is directly form Jesus' mouth makes it very clear that marriage is a temporary thing. Just like your house and your possessions, you do not take it with you when you die.
Very true. Just sayin', Jesus never quite said the actually humorous things that Paul said.
It isn't uncommon really for a woman in her 40s to become self-aware about what attracts her and by extension, similar women. Its not even all that rare for a woman to come to this realization in her 30s. What is very very rare, especially for neurotypical women, is to get this in their 20s.
Maybe women just listen more to the culture than they do to themselves, then; I know what I like.
Jennifer: "Very true. Just sayin', Jesus never quite said the actually humorous things that Paul said."
What Jesus DID say was this:
Mat 23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
----
What they teached was the law of Moses. So, if the last word on the issue is indeed Jesus's, then we still need to stone homosexuals to death, for example. Lucky for them that orthodoxy holds that Paul gave newer revelation.
Great, the theological discussions are now taking place in this blog too.
It's not so much a guy has to build objective value, working out, get a better car etc.
All these things can help, but these things are done for you. Because you want it. Not because you're doing it to get a girl or anyone attention. Because then you just back at square one. Making ur self cool to get people to liek you. Spending energy on the wrong mindset.
It's all about realizing that there's is no reason you are not good enough already. You have nothing to prove.
Good post. I've observed all of these things.
As for the Bible... David Collard(a traditional Catholic just in case you guys don't know him) has referred to the Bible as "the story of look what happened when Adam listened to his wife" hahaha. That line in some ways relates to game, but I find it humorous as well.
I'm down with theology, not sure how well game theory goes with it however.
That's great, Anon. The basics of game help modern clueless men regain what the Bible supports: male confidence, assertivenes, leadership, etc. Some online gamer stuff is directly anti-Christian, but the general idea of it is just giving people good social skills that make them more attractive.
Svar, no one should buy the idea that they should never listen to their wife. If anything, the Eden story shows what happens when a husband knows something's wrong, keeps clammed up, then blames someone else later.
Not "never", no. But it is clear that Adam utterly abdicated his role as her head and covering.
He not only ate of the fruit she gave him, but he stood by while she ate first, and also while the Serpent tempted her with it. His abdication began when he did not rebuke the Serpent for twisting the words of God and attempting to beguile his wife.
The lesson is that men should not, *ever*, heed the words of their wife if they are not in accordance with the word of God. Furthermore they should not stand by idly while their wives are beguiled by godless chatter and ideas alien to her walk as a woman of God. And, as is outlined in the epistles, it is their duty to take an active role in nurturing their spiritual maturation, "washing with the water of the Word", as it is said.
Adam makes a pretty good case study of a beta failure.
Adam was never described as her covering and certainly not her boss. But he did know more of God's instructions (I think) and he failed them both.
Right, because the divine blueprint for man and wife changed somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, didn't it?
No indeed, it never went from partnership to one ruling the other.
Ah yes, a theologically confused American feminist. I should have known.
You don't like Paul, you say? Perhaps you should read Peter* instead. If Peter's a tad too clear on the topic for you, then I'm sure you have additional gyrations and rationalizations to remake the scriptures to fit what you want to believe. This feminist heresy is precisely the kind of godless chatter and alien ideas I referred to.
Jennifer if you think to call upon Game as the cure for the spineless Gamma male losers that inhabit the typical American church pew--that somehow Game will make them more attractive without actually altering their nature as Gammas--you need to face the fact that those few who actually wake from their stupor will, eventually, discover that the Evangelical Christian version of feminism is every bit the bullshit lie of the Enemy that its secular Cultural Marxist sister is.
It takes far too much erasing of inconvenient scripture and twisting of what is left to arrive at this "equal partnership" view of the divine pattern of marriage, for the man awakened to the true nature of woman to overlook for long. He will see it, and if he has indeed shaken off the shackles of Gammatude, he will respond to the Word as it is given.
The result should not be at all displeasing to the true woman of God, as the pattern is Christ and His Church.
*For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. I Peter 3:5-6
You know Desert Cat, JCclimber is right, it is difficult enough for Vox to keep the constant theological derailing at VP in check, so let's at least try to nip it at the bud over here.
Sorry Marku, I'll try to do the same.
Sure NP Markku. I was hoping to pull at least two legs of the trifecta before we were done tho.
Perhaps another time. :)
That's what I always think over there, too. "Just this ONCE can't hurt much."
But it never quite works like that.
No, the "men must rule or perish" thing never does work on everyone.
I sure do hope this is an honest misunderstanding, and not a passive-aggressive shot. If it is the former, I, of course, meant that just posting one off-topic, theological message never works. Someone will always start debating the issue and the thread gets completely derailed.
If the thread is over a week old, does it matter that it has been derailed?
The lies of Satan that parallel the closest to the truth are the most deceitful. Look, for a moment, at the new feminists (Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin). Woman power with conservative talking points, how clever. Has this country really become so devoid of MEN that we now need to entertain this? How close to Isaiah 3:12 have we become?
I am with SarahsDaughter, if the site was busier with posts and comments then the theological discussions might detract from other conversation. As it is, the theological IS the only conversation so let it flow imo.
I'm not the discussion police, and from my part, people are free to discuss whatever they like. I'm just saying that us old farts from VP have been behaving remarkably well here, and it's probably because nobody wants to be known as the one who started it.
So, there is a danger of a moral hazard.
The specter of Spacebunny's Mighty Ban Hammer Of Doom hangs over us even here. ;P
Perhaps we are a tad gun-shy, as I've never seen her wield it in this forum.
I agree with SarahsDaughter. If the thread is indeed weeks old, its original meaning and intent have most likely been well-mined in the comments section, so if some posters want to go off on a tangent, I don't see the harm.
I also agree with Desert Cat that the west has precious few men acting as they should. No wonder the few who actually can be found draw so much attention from the ladies.
You guys realise that what's being proposed here is an evolutionary psychological model of human mating. And what I mean by that is none of it makes sense unless you start with the assumption that our brain works a certain way because that way is evolutionarily advantageous.
So great, get into theological discussions, but realize that if you can't get behind evolution then you definitely can't get behind concepts like alpha, beta etc.
BS. For as long as men and women have been pairing up and mating, since our days on the African Serengeti, we have yet to evolve into a separate species.
The validity of TENS is irrelevant to whether game works.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.