The Girls Who Broke Your Heart Thread

I find it endearing that the human mind is capable of so much imagination. So what we've done, and society often does, is categorize relationships into different levels, with different gates separating them. No longer is it about 'initial physical attraction', it's about 'attraction' after a length of time. But then, after an even longer length of time, it's about 'love', but we can't define that really -- since it's just too complex and deep of an idea to describe in words, am I right? You'll know it when you feel it, and it'll be based on even more fluffy words like mutual-respect, reciprocity, understanding, yadda yadda. So it'll always be this ephemeral thing, where we can't pin it down fully because it's just so magical -- that's the narrative that's been pounded in our heads since, what, early Disney.

Don't you see what you're doing here? You're using your imagination to fill in gaps according to the way you want reality to be. It's the same exact thing religion does. In concrete reality, there's no gates to different levels. There's attraction to a person, or there isn't. This can come and go: an attractive woman can get fat, an asshole alpha can turn into a beta daddy.The attraction triggers don't change regardless of where you are or when you are in a relationship. They only change according to to your capability to fulfill your sexual needs.

Those words sound nice, and it's great if someone can behave that way, but those words are independent from and have no connection whatsoever to what's attractive, for both sexes.Hypergamy doesn't carehow respectful you are; how good of a father you are; how you're kind and considerate; the impulse to procreate doesn't care about these things, which leads us to the biggest err in your posting:

Proc_sl said:

Do not suggest that biology counters our intellect, emotion, and whims. It is dehumanizing to both women AND men to suggest we are mathematically simple. Initial physical attraction is simple. Attraction is not.

Click to expand...

Biology (well, neurochemistry) IS the emotion -- it is the whims, and it counters our intellect every single moment of our lives. That's humanizing because it's what we are. Dehumanizing is what you've done: inserting a type of religious thinking into interpersonal relationships, trying to explain with nice words mechanics that aren't suitable for them. The mind is mostly used to rationalize decisions decided by that hindbrain of ours. It's why women sleep with assholes, and it's why men try to get with the best-looking girl in the club, regardless of her bitch factor.

Famm_sl said:

Women's socio-sexual strategies thrive partly on a paradigm of keeping this false sense of mystery alive. "Oh don't even try to understand women guys! LOL!" But other women understand each other just fine, they aren't mythical beasts, they have motivations and biological imperatives just like men. I first heard of this "mysterious woman" cliche in a women's studies class that I took as an elective in college way back in the 90's, its not some misogynistic made up crap.

Click to expand...

Yep,exactly right.

There aren't different levels of 'attraction' that're accurately described by imaginary ideas. There's LT pair-bonding, which is what you're describing, when the honeymoon phase is long, long over and you've got a 40 year roommate who helps change your diaper.

The problem is you're taking the words to have meaning in and of themselves, outside of what they're trying to describe. Love isn't some magical, mystical thing -- it doesn't exist in and of itself. It's only use as a word is in describing real life phenomenon, the neurochemistry that goes on when two people have sex or are together for 40 years in a relationship. Because of its vague and nebulous definition, it's pointless to use it to describe concrete things, like relationships in reality. It can be used to describe someone I 'fell for' last week; it can be used to describe my family; it can be used to describe my preference for chocolate, my cat, the games I like, or the person I've been in a LTR with for 40 years. It has no meaning concretely.

The only way to describe relationships are by the lexicon I use, if we're to really reach true understanding, not words that have a quasi-religious, nebulous definition to them.

When I say attraction, I don't mean a paired relationship of 40 years -- because that's not what attraction means. I mean the guttural, limbic response in mate preference. That preference is dictated by hindbrain mechanisms, not logical choice. And that mechanism will easily discard 40 years of a relationship for one night with what it perceives as better genetic material if the capacity is there (i.e., a person is still attractive after 40 years) to fulfill that imperative.

Dumar_sl said:

There aren't different levels of 'attraction' that're accurately described by imaginary ideas. There's LT pair-bonding, which is what you're describing, when the honeymoon phase is long, long over and you've got a 40 year roommate who helps change your diaper.

The problem is you're taking the words to have meaning in and of themselves, outside of what they're trying to describe. Love isn't some magical, mystical thing -- it doesn't exist in and of itself. It's only use as a word is in describing real life phenomenon, the neurochemistry that goes on when two people have sex or are together for 40 years in a relationship. Because of its vague and nebulous definition, it's pointless to use it to describe concrete things, like relationships in reality. It can be used to describe someone I 'fell for' last week; it can be used to describe my family; it can be used to describe my preference for chocolate, my cat, the games I like, or the person I've been in a LTR with for 40 years. It has no meaning concretely.

The only way to describe relationships are by the lexicon I use, if we're to really reach true understanding, not words that have a quasi-religious, nebulous definition to them.

When I say attraction, I don't mean a paired relationship of 40 years -- because that's not what attraction means. I mean the guttural, limbic response in mate preference. That preference is dictated by hindbrain mechanisms, not logical choice. And that mechanism will easily discard 40 years of a relationship for one night with what it perceives as better genetic material if the capacity is there (i.e., a person is still attractive after 40 years) to fulfill that imperative.

Click to expand...

You're a nutter lol.

Dumar. Are you interested in a romantic partnership with the sex of your preference?

You have your definitions of attraction, and you reject the nuanced/nebulous ideas of attraction. Fine.

Do you respect women? can you see a woman as an equal? despite being able to see the gears turn slowly in their heads?


I don't see how you can respect women (let's not even speak on self-respect) with your views. and if you can't, then you have no business in this thread with people who actually do want romantic partners.

Proc_sl said:

Dumar. Are you interested in a romantic partnership with the sex of your preference?

You have your definitions of attraction, and you reject the nuanced/nebulous ideas of attraction. Fine.

Do you respect women? can you see a woman as an equal? despite being able to see the gears turn slowly in their heads?


I don't see how you can respect women (let's not even speak on self-respect) with your views. and if you can't, then you have no business in this thread with people who actually do want romantic partners.

Click to expand...

Relationships, yes. A partnership, no.

Of course: see my earlier post on the difference between 'not the same' and 'unequal'. I have no idea where this position that I disrespect women comes from. Women aren't the same as men -- that doesn't mean they're not equal. Just because I see their gears doesn't mean I see them as the lesser. Men have gears too, just different ones.

Phazael_sl said:

Dumar, tell us again about how your whore mother is the one exception of her entire gender.

Click to expand...

I've given a precise answer to this objection on more than one occasion. Your insults are boring. Please try harder.

Fair enough Dumar. I hope you recognize your limitations in this thread. I believe the majority of posters here do in fact have the goal of a romantic partnership. Sure, working on themselves, getting experience, casual dating, fucking, etc, in the short-term, but a romantic partner for the long-term.

If your views have led you to the conclusion that you do not want a romantic partnership, I do not see the benefit of leading others down your path.

That rug really ties the room together.

nice kitchen

Proc_sl said:

Fair enough Dumar. I hope you recognize your limitations in this thread. I believe the majority of posters here do in fact have the goal of a romantic partnership. Sure, working on themselves, getting experience, casual dating, fucking, etc, in the short-term, but a romantic partner for the long-term.

If your views have led you to the conclusion that you do not want a romantic partnership, I do not see the benefit of leading others down your path.

Click to expand...

I'm not leading others astray from partnerships (although I think they're a bad decision, less so if it isn't a legal one). I'm telling others to be smart in them by concretely describing women's behavior.

Jackie Treehorn_sl" said:

pics

Click to expand...

I'm flattered. Save the pics of your kitchen and my sign for posterity.

Dr. Mario Speedwagon_sl said:

Dumar, what does your perfect long term romantic relationship look like?

Click to expand...

That's a bad question: every man's answer is the same if you ask about the 'perfect' one. If you mean my ideal arrangement, then my ideal isn't long-term. It's a string of short-term ones over the course of a lifetime.

The qualities I would expect in a long-term mate would have to come before the qualities of what the relationship would look like. ~3-4 partners, treats herself and her body not as a good, no narcissism -- which means no FB/Insta/Twitter -- and is accepting of following my lead. All of this, as I said previously, is just a bonus: if her body doesn't pass my test, then none of these nice-to-haves matters.

edit: WAIT, DID I JUST DESCRIBE MIST.

Eidal_sl said:

Dumar, my perception, along with many others on this board, is that Antarius' trip around the pussy-carousel 100+ times has absolutely altered him negatively. Fucking trannies off Craigslist in Walmart parking lots is not a distinguishing trait of a happy, well-adjusted man.

But yea, I get it... its a subjective thing: if the Antman thinks hes a better man after fucking 100 women then maybe he ought to continue. It's not as if I know the guy well enough to appraise him or what he does accurately. For what its worth, I also think most women with 100+ sexual partners would also be negatively impacted.

Click to expand...

The tranny was one of the first 5 people I was ever sexually active with. The wallmart parking lot girl was in the first 10-15

Proc_sl said:

Dumar. Are you interested in a romantic partnership with the sex of your preference?

You have your definitions of attraction, and you reject the nuanced/nebulous ideas of attraction. Fine.

Do you respect women? can you see a woman as an equal? despite being able to see the gears turn slowly in their heads?


I don't see how you can respect women (let's not even speak on self-respect) with your views. and if you can't, then you have no business in this thread with people who actually do want romantic partners.

Click to expand...

I see gears turn in guys head constantly. I help train people at work, and it's great when things click and they finally understand a difficult concept. I use it to my advantage and their advantage so they can complete their training.

It doesn't mean I respect them less. Similarly, seeing how women operate, how they think and WHY they think, does not make me respect them less. I use it to my advantage and their advantage so that we both get what we want.

Dumar_sl said:

~3-4 partners, treats herself and her body not as a good, no narcissism -- which means no FB/Insta/Twitter -- and is accepting of following my lead. All of this, as I said previously, is just a bonus: if her body doesn't pass my test, then none of these nice-to-haves matters.

Click to expand...

Pretty much describes my current relationship. She claims to have only had sex with 2 men, a highschool boyfriend and a husband (but it's certainly possible it's been higher, she just hasn't told me about it). She does have social media (wechat) but it seems to be mostly her family scrolling through her feed (although with language barrier, it's hard to tell). I guess chinese people don't use facebook or something. Her shit tests are SUPER easy to pass because of the language barrier makes it easier to tell when she's testing me versus legitimately upset about something (it's like she speaks in a different tone when she's shit-testing). I've been working on trying to increase her narcissism actually, she didn't ever wear makeup and no perfume when we met, I've been encouraging her to become more feminine in that aspect (also, more dresses). And yes, the fact she is 7 years younger than me and weighs 110 lbs is awesome. I'm really glad that I've been working on my SMV and can attract higher quality women than what I used to.