Know Your Relationship Goals
While dating is fun and interesting, it’s an investment in time and money (for both sexes). Embarking on the good ship Dating 2.0 requires knowing which port the vessel will ultimately dock. Your relationship goal will better focus your dating efforts. If pickup and seduction (what women call “serial dating”) is your goal, you’ll be hitting the PUA blogs and websites to learn Charisma (Game). I suspect that a relatively small number of men will go this route.
Most men and women alike would prefer to be in some sort of committed, exclusive relationship. The online dating profile should reflect this. As men and women are different, relationship goals might differ. Many of my readers are very sour on marriage from a legal and experience point of view. However, they are not anathema to exclusivity or even living together. I’m not a big fan of co-habitating, especially over a certain age. That’s a subject for a future blog post.
Without relationship goals, dating is too random and haphazard for men and women alike. Date with a purpose. But the Charismatic man who seeks an exclusive, committed relationship faces a dilemma. He has options with women and a series of mini-relationships might be the result, much to the dismay of the women he becomes involved with for a few weeks or months. Those women might be commitment-oriented but the man can easily bail out and pursue other options.
For women post trading season* who are seeking committed relationship, the difficulty is that men are the gatekeepers to commitment. Yes, I use that phrase over and over again. It’s true and increasing numbers of men are realizing it. So while a woman might have commitment as a relationship goal, she’s no longer the buyer, she’s the seller.
* Trading season is late 30s to early 40s when most divorces occur.
The Private Man 
Relationships can be fine, but lots of women want to hold out for the unicorn. “Never settle!”
And as the product…she should do everything to be attractive to perspective buyers.
Nobody wants to buy the dented up 1978 Pinto unless they have no other option.
I’m a simple man, with simple goals: find an attractive woman who is pleasant to be around, is reasonably intelligent and relatively laid-back, with whom I enjoy spending time and who is reasonably good between the sheets. If romance springs from that, I’m open to it.
That said, after 18 years of marriage, I’m definitely in no hurry to get hitched again, nor would I seriously consider co-habitating unless marriage was on the menu.
I’m not one of those people who has to have someone around all the time. I like living alone and having my place to do with as I please. Does that mean I’m not up for hanging out at my place? Not at all. But it’s my place and I know how to point to the door…
My aim in dating is to find a wife. I have a hard time trying to run game. I just want to be myself.
You do realize that having a wife means that you can’t really be by yourself?
The essence of Game is to be yourself, just a yourself that is SEXUALLY attractive to women. So called Inner Game.
As the feminasties often say nobody is entitled to sex or a relationship or a spouse. If you want one you have to be the yourself that a woman wants as a husband.
Or perhaps you mean that you want to make no effort, and you have the feminasty attitude that you “deserve” a spouse because you are “worth it”. Well, most women seem to agree that applies only to them, not to men.
If you don’t use game, you will have problems finding a wife and keeping her.
And NEVER ‘just be yourself’, no woman wants that…
not be by myself. but be myself. I am more beta than alpha. I attract them, then run them off with my neediness and wimpy sappy texts. You have to know where you are going wrong to fix it, I think I am getting the idea.
Heartiste’s 16 Commandments is the ultimate guidebook for this. Read it, internalise it, live it. You’ll never have to worry again about going beta in a relationship.
Pingback: Know Your Relationship Goals « PUA Central
Give me LTR with the right girl over serial flings. Not convinced whether I would do the cohabitation thing again – if so, this time round I want a significantly bigger place for it.
If you live with a girl in LTR, she starts to see you as a provider, you gave her all your power: commitment. If you have short relationships in your life, it takes much time and energy, but you satisfy your manhood as the hunter. The best option, both of them at the same time.
good points. -but on the last bit, about older women…aren’t women *always* the seller? i mean, aren’t men always the gatekeepers to commitment, ultimately, regardless of the woman’s age?
I’m happy with the wife I have now, but I’ll never cohabit again.
i know my goal when seeking a woman-
good looks, low self esteem, daddy issues, and some kind of mild chemical dependence. wokka wokka.
So, I’m thinking about implementing the 100 Approach Challenge or Infinate Loop Challenge to find the quality women. I don’t have a problem approaching (5 in the last week, calibration is where the work is needed).The end relationship goal is to find a highly compatible mate/friend which jives with my life goals and in between leverage game to take care of my needs until the challenge comes to a stop. Luckily, I survived the Divorce Industrial Complex as in didn’t go through it. Last LTR was a miss, actually I should have disqualified her based on criteria collective manosphere has identified as being not worthy. Lessons learned. (See Roissy, Athol Kay, Vox).
I’m on the slightly downside of my SMV (45), six-figures+, starting a new business, boot camp, Ducati riding, in other words, I can still get looks from 20 something’s, but even terrific game isn’t going to pull that age group, nor is that realistic. A bull’s-eye would be a 35 HB8. Approach to this effort is to play the numbers game with the caveat that all approaches must pass the boner test (Roissy). That’s not subjective, attraction is non-subjective. The decline of the American Women (Roosh) especially women in my target range (33-38 max) presents challenges. Finding the pre-wall, unbroken, non fugly/fatty, non daddy issue, non SSRI taking, entitlement princess, and so on (ad nauseum) in the DC/Bal area (and I’m not exaggerating) is like finding a diamond on the street. Not claiming to be perfect either, but I will run the Male Action Plan (Athol Kay) and ramp up attractiveness/charisma to better my position and offer.
So, if this is my relationship goal, it’s going to take day game, night game, laser/sniper game, realism game, and gorilla (marketing) game tactics to exhaust women within scope that meet quality women requirements and pass the boner test.
Taking inputs to fine tune and flesh out this idea..
As you can gather from my moniker, I’m in the DC area, too, and have encountered the same problems. I’m trying to find more DC guys to meet up with and compare notes. How about giving me your email and we start a correspondence? Quite serious about this.
I can say this at the outset, though . . . if you’re looking to get married someday, I’d avoid American women altogether and look overseas. The older I get, the more I see the wisdom in doing this, but this is something that you’d have to think through very carefully since, the way I see it, it’s a major life change.
But, if serial dating, then you can lower your standards a bit. The main thing is to make sure that she’s compatible with you, if only for the short term. She should add to and complement your life, not subtract from it.
@dcphil.
Lagunacrete@yahoo.com
As usual, you and HookingUpSmart and many others get the big picture completely wrong, because men are the gatekeepers to sex, and women are the gatekeepers to commitment.
Women are the gatekeepers to commitment because the only commitment that matters is that about children, and men can never be certain of paternity. Therefore the commitment that matters is that not to cuckold a man, as a man cannot cuckold a woman. He can cheat on hear, he can dump her, but neither compares to cuckoldry, which is a unique power of women. The commitment that matters is that to bear for 40 weeks and then raise your progeny. Sure men have to provide male parental investment, but women usually manage to get it from men who are not the fathers.
As to sex, men are the gatekeepeers to sex as women will go to extraordinary lengths to have sex and children with *attractive* men, of which there are many fewer than doable women. Perhaps in some sense women are the gatekeepers to sex for *unattractive* men, but the interaction between women and unattractive men is not sexual, as in “eew, a needy lamer”.
Most people get the above wrong because they don’t realize 1) that what really matters in sex and reproduction is having children, and 2) that there is a very large difference in women’s attitudes to attractive and unattractive men.
It is therefore impossible to generalize, and easy to get it wrong. Because what matters to men is assured paternity, and what matters to women is sex and children with attractive men.
When paternity is not an issue, or when women deal with unattractive men, there is nothing important at stake, so there is no gatekeeping.
I know a sizeable minority of guys who have absolutely no plans to have children (myself included) so I’d argue your point is at best semi valid. And in the age of DNA testing, it is further diluted, still.
If you have absolutely no plans to have children, then commitment from a woman does not matter to you. But then to you women probably are essentially twinks with boobs. And paternity testing is a very recent thing, it is a criminal act in several countries unless the mother consents, and it is not widespread (because cuckolding is very common).
In a discussion about “men” and “women” and attitudes that have formed over more than 100,000 years it seems rather churlish to base your argument on technology invented in the last 10-20 years and you giving up the prize by your own hand. It is impossible to understand man/woman interactions in general without considering the big deal, which is children, cucjoldry and male parental investment.
Unfortunately this kind of petty, narrow attitude is widespread, while women, collectively, are pretty good at working in concert to further their interests, threrefore all those laws against paternity testing.
Any man who lets himself deter by laws from getting a paternity test is frankly an idiot.
The cost benefit analysis between risking getting caught (unlikely) and risking to pay for 20 years for a cuckold seems pretty darn obvious to me.
Unfortunately, lots of women don’t get male parental commitment. That’s why we have a huge welfare state. That’s why most unmarried women vote for politicians that support that huge welfare state. Before that welfare state, women had to weigh the sexual attractiveness of the male against whether or not he would stick around and help her raise any children they had, in other words, his commitment. That’s why in the natural state of things men are the gatekeepers to commitment. The welfare state is not the natural state of things and won’t last.
‘women had to weigh the sexual attractiveness of the male against whether or not he would stick around and help her raise any children they had, in other words, his commitment. That’s why in the natural state of things men are the gatekeepers to commitment.’
His commitment to be invest in her children is as nothing compared to her commitement to make him and nobody else the genetic father of the children he is investing in, and she can withdraw that commitment at any time for any reason by fucking someone else and leave him none the wiser that she has done so. Who is the gatekeeper to commitment? The cuckold or the cuckoldress?
Also, on the theme of the welfare state, I see that you have swallowed unthinkingly the usual conservative fantasies on it:
‘Unfortunately, lots of women don’t get male parental commitment. That’s why we have a huge welfare state. That’s why most unmarried women vote for politicians that support that huge welfare state.’
The welfare state is not huge (65%+ of people work like always) and spends most money on the pensions and healthcare of nice old ladies that did not work much during their lifetime because they were traditional married mothers.
The costs of the welfare state are paid mostly by younger working men, and benefit mostly older nonworking women, because…
During their lifetime men to work many years more than women, and therefore tend to have longer careers, more promotions, end up with higher incomes at parity of age, and therefore pay more fees, contributions and taxes for longer than women. Except for large business and property owners who usually don’t pay taxes.
Men in part because of work related stress and sickeness tend to die rather earlier than women, that is soon after they start collecting their pension, and in many cases women can start collecting their pensions several years earlier. If a man dies at 70 and a woman at 80 and they both retired at 65, the woman’s pension costs 3 times that of the man (15 vs. 5 years) and her healthcare probably more than 3 times.
The impact of unmarried colored single mothers and deadbeat fathers on the costs of the welfare state is pretty small compared to the above. The famous welfare queens and strapping young backs with which Reagan bamboozled a lot of gullible voters are largely a myth.
A previous commenter is not talking about Game when he writes about his target women:
‘Finding the pre-wall, unbroken, non fugly/fatty, non daddy issue, non SSRI taking, entitlement princess, and so on (ad nauseum)’
Because Game is mostly a way to GET LAID, not to find a decent women to have some good time with. Game is a high effort, focused activity to GET LAID with a fuckable woman, and which woman does not matter, as long as she is fuckable (boner test indeed).
Therefore of the list above the only Game relevant goal is ‘non fugly/fatty’. The others don’t matter if the goal is to GET LAID. And if that’s the goal, as Heartiste has remarked, broken, daddy issues, SSRI taking, entitled princesses are particularly easy to Game and GET LAID with.
How to find and a have good time with a “good woman”? Well, there are two different answers from Game practitioners to this: one is that Game is purely about how to GET LAID, so it cannot answer that question, the other is that it cannot be done, except perhaps in remote societies that have not been poisoned by Big Business with feminasty attitudes.
In it’s original incarnation (dating back all the way to ASF, and then Mystery, etc) it was mostly about getting laid through emulating high value men. But because relationships only form AFTER the getting laid part, it is equally valid to use game to find a relationship (thus LTR game).
For me, a non-ugly girl does not do it – not for an ONS (anyway, those seem like a waste of effort to me, if anything) and most certainly not for an LTR.
Side note: I doubt that SSRI-taking girls are particularly easy to game (not if the SSRI does what it is supposed to be doing, anyhow). If they take the SSRI because of self-esteem issus, then maybe but even so, I remain unconvinced (partially because of some of the SSRI side effects). And give me a girl on an SSRI any day over your average (i.e. crazy) one – at least the SSRI one noticed that something is wrong and tries to address it, the other is just plain delusional. (Disclaimer: I am on an SSRI myself and it most definitely beats my quality of life without it)
I think that you really misunderstand Game if you think that ‘it is equally valid to use game to find a relationship (thus LTR game).’ because all that Game does is to help a man be attractive to women so he can GET LAID at least sometimes.
You misunderstand the role of LTR game… It is keep an existing “relationship” going, no matter how it formed originally. The idea here is that women don’t do relationships, as men intend them, with men (except perhaps with gay friends), becuse they are sociopaths, and every day of a “relationship” with a woman is a GET LAID day, with her, and if you fail to attract her that day, Briffault’s Law applies and you are someone she used to know.
So Games is a “maintenance” activity for a chronic condition, not something that gets you a relationship. To have a relationship, as most men intend it, with a woman, one with ups and down, with give and take, is exceptionally difficult, as it requires not Game but finding a non-sociopathic woman, or at least one less sociopathic than you. Good luck.
This is probably the best description of LTR game as a way to postpone the application of Briffault’s Law:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/08/24/is-game-in-marriage-always-worth-it/#comment-38675
Not quite sure what you have been smoking but I don’t want to try it, for sure.
If you feel like her life coach, it’s more than overdue to pull the plug on the relationship. Then again it figures that spearhead would have bizarre ideas like that – I am about as unPC as people can reasonably be but THAT site is simply toxic. And it’s shit like what they routinely post there that ruins MRA’s reputation. I understand they got screwed by the system but then again, they were complicit in letting in happen. If you are dumb enough to get married (esp. without a prenup) and to have children on top of that, well, sucks to be you, but you asked to be screwed over.
As to ‘men are the gatekeepers to sex, and women are the gatekeepers to commitment’ try to look at another way, the way most women look at it: who is the gatekeeper is an issue of power, who has the ‘upper hand’, who decides.
In reproduction cuckolding is a big power that only women have and use very often (20-40% of children have a genetic father that is not the official one), and it is a woman’s unilateral decision. The ultimate example of this power is where a husband has been raising children all of which have someone else as genetic father and and wife had decided unilaterally to destroy his genetic line without telling him.
Also as to sex and getting the best sex or genetic father for her children the power is instead for attractive men. They can pick and choose among the several women who are competing for their attention. They are the gatekeepers to sex, because women don’t want sex or children with unattractive men.