spindlewicket

100%. I live my life thinking, “I’m already married to her, but I don’t know who she is yet, so I must carefully find out, taking care not to do anything that she would hate for me to do after I’ve found her, or anything that I would find unthinkable to do after I’ve found her, and taking care not to soil any woman who is NOT her but is fact that woman for another man maintaining hope and standards like myself.” And I expect her think and act the same towards me and towards other men before she has found me. If I fail to uphold this mantra, or she fails to uphold it herself, I don’t see any hope of our two souls finding each other in worthy states.

@YOHAMI Very good, I read it all. One remaining question: When you say “the answer is yes,” are you answering this version of the question?: “Will an identical masculine and an identical feminine always interact in the same way if no other factors vary?”

@spindlewicket Read the breakdown x.com/i/grok/share/5…

"If I am the perfect man, will she stay??" The question is wrong. Here's the problem. When you ask "will she stay" the question is coming from a woman. The man doesn't ask "will you stay" the man offers "stay with me" then she follows or not. It's not "will you date me" it's "lets go on a date" It's not "will you come with me in a trip" but "come to vegas" If at any point the woman is stupid enough to fuck up her own privilege of being with you that's sad but it's her loss and shit happens. The next one will be there. The question for that one is NOT "ok will you stay" But "Here's a free seat, leaving in 20 min, get ready" Masculinity commands, doesn't ask. And THIS is what creates the conditions for her to actually come, stay, be pleasant, because your masculine polarity sends her to her feminine polarity. But it's not forced. It may not happen. You lead. If she doesn't follow, there's abundance. In other words your question is wrong.

Respectfully: the question is just physics so it can’t be wrong. A physics question has a physics answer. Remove me, and remove you. Just male and female “molecules” with the described traits. There’s only three possible answers, 100%, 0%, or necessarily some/any number between them. I’m asking you what the physics answer is. Sounds like you are saying “it’s some/any number in between 0 and 100, but it’s not 0 or 100.”

@spindlewicket Grok got it x.com/i/grok/share/f…

Integrating into a structure is feminine function and her job. Your job is to build it. If she doesn't integrate she's out. This cannot be forced.

@YOHAMI Assume a 100% perfect man (God-like, unrealistically so) who has no worry that she stays. And the woman is the absolute best realistically possible. Would it be 100% that she stays?

@spindlewicket "But I’m asking more what women at their best are capable of." Women at their best are amazing. You worrying that she stays is the hidden contract. Delete it. You would want her gone before she actually breaks the agreement. It doesn't happen overnight.

It makes sense that being the best archetypical man leads to the best outcome, of course. But I’m asking more what women at their best are capable of. If we assume the man is 100% perfect, God-like, he still must expect a less than 100% chance that the woman will remain integrated. No? Maybe this is precisely Women’s nature, after all, not even Paradise satisfied Eve.

You treat her the way you want to treat her. You don't need permission from anyone to do so. If it's not compatible that's fine and eject her. "Chances" You can't win going half way. But remember. You are the structure. Your commitment is to structure. It has to be 100 percent firm and solid, anchored in what you want. Only there you can evaluate her behavior. She's not your guide and ultimately your commitment isn't to her.

@YOHAMI This seems like the single biggest issue. Loyalty to a structure is what men do, but women are incapable of it, if true, then it’s impossible for a man “integrate” a woman into any structure that is meant to form a stable foundation in his life. He has to treat her as temporary

Women live in their emotions and have no object-permanence other than how they feel about something at a specific moment. "But whats the point of a relationship then?" You maximize the chances that the emotions will be good by providing a structure that protects them. "You can never have a loyal girl" Loyalty to a structure is a male idea. Women are loyal to themselves and how they feel. Wanna have a stable relationship, get a stable woman. "Because they can't be moral" Love has nothing to do with morality. Better ask, how can love be true. "Why don't just cheat" That's hell. "Or stay single?" That's emtpy.

@YOHAMI “Control is feminine. Self control is self castration.” This only makes sense from the amoral female lens. From that lens, dominance is the only axis, morality doesn’t add or subtract points. From the male moral/abstract perspective, control and self control are necessary.

Control is feminine. Self control is self castration. The winning male is not controlling and not self controlling. He's DOMINANT. He asserts his will in the world. It's the anti-cage. That makes him attractive. Makes women go crazy and turn into groupies. Women make themselves disposable for a chance. Most of them get discarded and told they are disposable. Then they complain about "unfair treatment" As if the dominant male could marry them all or as if they deserved it.

@Meta_Trav Is this wildly different from how you see it “bridging the gap”?

There’s a lot I could say but I’ll try to keep it as brief as I can: I feel like this article here is “the real red pill” or “the hard red pill”. The easy redpill is recognizing hypergamous tendencies and all the common related observations, but the hard redpill is realizing what the headline of your article states: that essentially women are completely incapable of the type of bond that most pro-marriage men think should be possible and imagine is an achievable ideal. This shifts the conclusion from: “We have to figure out how to save monogamous marriage and get women to actually match up with their SMV level equivalent male” (which seems to be the broadest held red-pill-aware opinion) to “OK, monogamous marriage is absolutely doomed, but we can’t just replace it with nothing because that will be degenerative to society and relationships and fertility, so what do we replace it with that will be generative?” This seems to be where everyone gets stuck: nobody can conceive of any society-wide system that actually “works” or leads to a “virtuous cycle”. Your Marsh people article was the first example I’d ever heard of a system that works well with unrestrained hypergamy and also seems like it could actually plausibly make people in each group (both types of men and the women) happier than the current system, and while not exactly perfect or ideal seems to have a virtuous cycle built into it that could improve relationship forming itself and also fertility. And the fact that this society really existed makes it seem quite plausible that something similar could work today. The key aspects seems to be: - embrace hypergamy as the engine of everything - embrace the split between males - the females are driven to gain access to and status trophies (children) from the tournament males - the tournament males are happy to oblige them with sex and children, especially if we reduce legal liability on these men to provide for those women/children to zero or as minimal as possible to reduce their hesitance - hypergamy alone will probably be enough to make women choose to have children, even and perhaps especially if they’re not sure they can get the tournament males to “commit” (if failing to recognize female inability to pairbond is the male mistake, the equivalent female mistake may be failing to recognize she has no real leverage against a tournament male who doesn’t care and doesn’t have legal liability) - some of the pairbonder males will see that the top males get the women and will be driven to climb the male competence hierarchies to increase their shots at the women, rather than them today being hopeless and checking out increasingly - the resulting women with children will be more likely to need provider males once they have children, so even some of the provider males will be happy enough to provide this service - the spreading of the child rearing burden beyond just the father/mother decreases the friction of having and taking care of the children - if women embrace hypergamy over everything and the social structure doesn’t punish it, they may actually trend toward exiting male hierarchies (employment, work, etc.) in favor of more directly chasing hypergamous wins. - if men embrace achieving tournament ranking/dimorphism, they’d trend towards climbing higher in any competence hierarchy they can find, knowing it’ll give them options with women. - overall, it seems like if modernity is to make male/female relationships generative instead of degenerative, a marsh style system may actually be the way to do that OK I didn’t succeed at all in making that short. In sum, it seems like a path forward for our biggest re-productive problems, although it still on an individual relationship level has a perhaps inescapably dissatisfying nature. My next curiosity becomes whether you yourself consider a Marsh type society the answer for our era and the future, I selfishly hope you’ll have an article exploring this soon if you don’t already.

@fffffjjjvvvyy @Meta_Trav It’s made me see Adam and Eve differently. She proved herself flawed: she couldn’t be satisfied with even paradise. Woman’s curse was getting kicked out of paradise. Man didn’t make this mistake and didn’t prove himself unworthy. Man’s curse is only that he still wants her.

@spindlewicket @Meta_Trav I think the regime you described is inevitable, yeah. And as someone with no kids... Lol. Just have to do your best I suppose

@fffffjjjvvvyy @Meta_Trav Ah, so you weren’t disagreeing with what I wrote, but agreeing that the observations match what you’ve seen and that the conclusion is depressing?

@spindlewicket @Meta_Trav I grew to love love over my years. Slowly starting to accept that it isn't real. Still in denial

@fffffjjjvvvyy @Meta_Trav Why? Genuinely curious

@spindlewicket @Meta_Trav This is one of the most heartbreaking things I've read in, honestly, my entire life

@Meta_Trav The Marsh people article is here in case others are curious which one I meant:

@Meta_Trav This feels like THE missing piece in the whole discourse. This and your Marsh people article need to get into mainstream or at least redpill awareness. It actually bridges the gap from “OK everything is fucked” to “there may be a way to make this work”. Fantastic work.

@YOHAMI Would that be enough?

@spindlewicket I would increase the pain sensitivity to lying to yourself.

"Do you let women know about this side of themselves?" Yes, but women already know this side of "themselves" - they just view it clearly on women they don't like. Because what they hate about each other, in specific - is what they all share. And nobody hates women more than other women. Do the math.

@YOHAMI Seems like this means it’s always a mistake for a man to think “she shares my values [morality]”, because this is structurally impossible.

@spindlewicket Basically.

Loyalty is a male idea. It's an abstract. It's - this is the construct now, and I stick to it regardless of how I feel about it. The woman is loyal to her feelings. Or, when she's in love, she doesn't stray. You can impose a construct but not feelings - and trying to impose them destroys them. Control in itself is feminine. It's an embracing force that tries to suffocate dissent. Control breeds resentment. Resentment breeds rebellion. Or, you can't create loyalty through control either. Anti magnetism. What generates the type of love feelings for a woman to not stray, is her involuntary, non forced, submission to your strength by awe. Freedom. Or. Be the man and let her be the woman. It can't be negotiated.

@TakeThiamine I use this one every day with an iPhone. Like it because it feels exactly like the Apple wireless keyboards from a few years ago and is dirt cheap. You have to prop up your phone on something else is the only down side. amazon.com/dp/B0CXXL7115

Anyone have a recommendation for a good portable Bluetooth keyboard to use with a phone? Need something small for writing on the go.