This post began as a reply to Nash’s comment, but it got so long that I decided to turn it into a post. It’s not about actionable game tips, so you might not find it very useful.
“But it was in that context that I heard myself say, ‘women don’t make emotional “contracts.”‘ I like that line. I think it’s true.”
It’s absolutely true that women don’t make emotional contracts. If they will enter such a contract, but they won’t keep it, and apart from the withdrawal of attention there is no downside to her. The non-monogamy community, online and off, is endlessly discussing how so-and-so broke their rules. It’s exhausting and pointless. Humans in general and especially women also tend to emotionally bond to people they’re fucking. That’s just how the system works. It can’t be logicked away. The downside of non-monogamy is that she might bond to another guy. Of course, at the same time other women might bond to me, and I think that is happening right now with someone I met at a party.
I’ve written about this before, but most women won’t stay in long-term, undefined relationships with guys. Pretty much all players know that women will initiate the “what are we?” talk three to eighteen months into an uncommitted relationship. It’s possible to keep her on the line for much longer, but most normal women want a family eventually. They have a biological schedule and think they want to lockdown a guy to have kids with (many are also conflicted, as evolutionary biology teaches us). They also think they want commitment, and they do until they get bored and suffocated by seeing the same guy every day for years on end.
Non-monogamy can help keep the woman on the line while simultaneously allowing a guy to continue in the game. And if she sees the guy drawing in women who are more attractive than she is, she will get competitive and the sex will stay pretty hot. No one will get complacent because no one can.
In reality, of course, in modern marriages a guy shouldn’t get complacent because she may leave him at any time and take half his assets, child support, and the kids, and the entire state will step on his neck if he objects. Why guys agree to this kind of arrangement, I have no idea. Social pressure and expectation, I guess. I barely dodged it myself.
It appears that I’ve set off on a ramble, so let me say that I’m thinking about things more from a longer-term perspective for guys who already have okay game and who are age 30+, and guys who are younger can ignore this. Before age 30 it’s mostly about getting laid. After, a guy should be thinking, at least a little bit, about the long term. The current Western model and marriage contract do not work. They generate hate, misery, envy, and contempt. They’re so broken that the Red Pill has emerged from them.
But! A big but: most people and most guys still want something “more” than tons of random hookups. Most people will eventually want to have kids, too. I think most people age 50+ don’t get as much satisfaction from sex and get more of their satisfaction from family and community. But if you devote your entire life to chasing sex, you likely won’t build the things that matter in the second half of your life.
(Guys in their 20s can mostly ignore the above paragraph and focus on building their game, their knowledge, and their business lives. A guy without game and options basically cannot build an effective longer-term relationship today, so he has to have that first. Entering a long-term relationship without total confidence that the guy can easily find another woman is tantamount to death.)
For guys, over the long term, I think the future regarding kids is closer to something like co-parenting. Lots of guys read this and think it’s just more feminist bullshit. It can be used that way, especially in states with awful “child” support laws that are really woman-support laws. But co-parenting resolves a lot of the conflicts I’ve enumerated. The state isn’t involved through parent contracts. The two adults can maintain separate domiciles as necessary. Both should still contribute to the child. DNA testing is mandatory instead of optional. If and when sexual desire wanes, one doesn’t have to lie and look at the same person every morning for the rest of one’s life. Yet both parents have to commit to some of the crappy and boring parts of raising kids.
Instead of two people promising to erotically love each other forever, then coming to hate each other and getting into vicious, expensive legal battles, two people agree to do what’s right for the kid and agree to make sure the kid has both masculine and feminine influences in their life.
I don’t think co-parenting is perfect either, and I have basically evolved into co-parenting. My situation is far better than the situations of the many guys I know who married, let themselves go, and then divorced.
“If a man should assume there is NO SUCH THING as an emotional contract with a women… why would you strap yourself down to a financial one?? I know why men do it (bluepill thinking… but mostly… lack of options).”
Rollo is right about this: women want it all: complete, total access to a man’s finances and the complete to have sex with whoever she wants to, whenever she wants to. More guys are learning to say no to this raw deal, I hope. I have another post about the book Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy, because it is also about what a society that is really committed to female monogamy and reducing hypergamy looks like.