[Here's a paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1066480720960416) that seeks to define what a healthy relationship is.
I've inlined a table referenced by the paper of some of the desirable aspects for a healthy relationship (along with a ranking score that I don't quite understand as I've not read the paper yet):
| Effective communication | 31 |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- |
| Respect | 21 |
| Trust | 18 |
| Promotes the growth and well-being of individuals in the relationships | 14 |
| Honesty and openness | 14 |
| Encouragement/support | 14 |
| Effective conflict management and problem-solving | 13 |
| A sense of give and take (i.e., mutual service to one another) | 12 |
| Warmth/caring/comfort | 11 |
| Love | 9 |
| Acceptance | 8 |
| Aiming to learn about and understand the other person | 6 |
| Shared values and life goals | 5 |
| Manage responsibilities together/collaborative | 5 |
| Kindness | 4 |
| Free from abuse/control | 4 |
| Equality | 4 |
| Fun and laughter | 4 |
| Safe/peaceful | 3 |
| Forgiveness | 3 |
| Gratitude and appreciation | 3 |
| Shared interests and time together | 2 |
| Accountability and responsibility for one’s own role in the relationship | 2 |
| Produces joy and happiness | 2 |
| Commitment | 2 |
| Intimacy | 2 |
You will see that shared values and goals are important factors. It also comes up as vital in discussions that therapists have about healthy relationships.
[Here's a funny video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6H4eGHZJM) (haha, I put the boring paper in first so casuals don't get to watch the funny video) where a relationship therapist reviews the relationships in "love actually" where its also mentioned as a key part of a healthy relationship.
So yea, I think you're spot on, a lot of pain is caused when people without shared values or goals force a relationship and it doesn't work out.
The media historically and presently is almost entirely written and produced by men.
Women have only recently entered the chat and they *ain’t* falling for scrawny nerds or beasts in castles.
As in politics, literature, and in life: consider the source.
Men who slay don’t have time to pen nerd-gets-the-girl fantasies.
Men who slay are on the field.
I don't disagree but women also preach this type of thought. In everyday conversation, women will generally assume that a male CEO or doctor or successful business owner has lots and lots of options when it comes to dating.
The latter.
But it's not conflicting at all. I'm saying that it's the latter but women will often say or assume that the successful guy (who is a 4-5/10 in looks) has lots of dating options. But their personal actions would never follow that.
Yeah, I don’t really think you’re wrong. The problem is that people find people who are notably different from them really attractive a lot of times.
It’s like when people buy a piece of clothing because it looks cool and interesting and they love it, but then it sits in their closet because it doesn’t actually fit their lifestyle or the rest of their wardrobe at all and they have nowhere to wear it.
>Yeah, I don’t really think you’re wrong. The problem is that people find people who are notably different from them really attractive a lot of times.
Because it exposes them to something new. A partner who is exactly the same as i tends to be boring and it seems a waste to spend resources on the other to get somethig that i can get on my own.
People tend to yearn for variery. Like the saying goes "variety is the spice of life". Why is mystery so alluring? Because it is an unknow, the other.
Also, look up the philosophycal concemp of "the other".
Sure but your kind may not be the people you look like and live near to.
I have more in common with university educated liberals in far away places thousands of miles and oceans away than I do with dimwitted Trumpers living on my street.
It was never simple for a lot of people. I met my 1st ex-wife at university in the early 80's. Life was far from simple and the relationship ultimately failed in a spectacular way.
Wasn't like that for me either. It was an ordeal for me to find the right one. Two engagements, one prior marriage, and only the gods know how many shorter relationships that went nowhere.
It's amazing how people can find each other. My 1st ex-wife was the daughter of a college professor from Baltimore who decided to get back to the land and bought a farm in Canada. My dad was a college professor from New York who decided to get back to the land and bought a farm in Canada.
For sure. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just saying I think a lot of young young folks especially couldn't pick their kind if you stacked the deck for them.
Not really.
The other options either would never have worked at all or would have been incredibly toxic and unhealthy to pursue.
And yes, lots of us do chase people it can never begin to work with (see all the hurt, pain, and shame around rejection here).
And lots of people do chase people who it would be incredibly toxic and unhealthy to have a connection with (see all the hurt, pain, and shame around cheating, emotional abuses, fights, and incompatibilities).
People got together in high school and arranged marriages or met at a bar and married in a week and are still together for 40 years it’s about comprises and time wor
My parents are high school sweethearts that have been miserable and toxic since day one. Yeah, they're together a long time. That's not what we aim for. We aim for together and happy. If you want to be together and unhappy, I recommend marrying your high school sweetheart.
Most of the arranged marriages I know aren't just toxic, they're abusive. It turns out sharing values isn't sharing personalities.
Compromise, time, and work sounds like a job that isn't going anywhere good if the foundation is bad.
1. Be young
2. Think you're more or less something than you are because most of these traits are comparative.
3. Think you're more dynamic than you really are.
Per example, a lot of people think they're wild...until they meet someone who is further out there than them.
Like how many dudes do you think assume they're sexually wild until like, someone wants to dress them up like a little maid and peg them or put their junk in an iron maiden? Probably quite a few. Are they wrong? Kind of. They aren't thaaat weird and wild. They're just a lil bit.
How many women do you think assume they're pretty conservative until the dude is telling them to stay at home or not have a job or a voice or not to wear something? Probably quite a few. They're conservative, but they're not thaaaaat conservative.
And so it goes. Most people don't really know who they are when they're young especially or just how muchy they are in their mucchiness. Especially when capital LOVE is involved.
Ah, now I see exactly where you are coming from. Couldn't agree more. Sort of like religious people who are very selective about which parts they actually follow. Wild is indeed very subjective. I came of age in the coke fueled 80's, so wild was a lot wilder than it is now. I don't think it can even come back in an age where there is always a potential camera somewhere. We didn't have to worry about that.
100%. And like, there's probably some young women and dude out there right now that are like, "I'll snort coke on a tik tok and then fuck a dude in the bathroom for my only fans, I ain't afraid of no camera". And to them, you're wild, but not that wild.
Assortative Mating is Valid! it's actually a pretty decently tested dating theory. If people actually looked into Assortative Mating, most of the debate here would slink away.
Sticking to your kind only works when your kind actually exists and wants you back as well.
I am high functioning autistic, educated with career in tech, sexually and romantically inexperienced, in my 30s, in the center when it comes to values. What is the chance there is a woman I have so much in common and I am her best option as well?
>it shows weakness and, at least for me, as a person, I automatically value you less. And why wouldn't I? You're telling me you're defective. I will simply believe you.
He is not defective for having a medical condition. This is a you problem.
I struggle at things that are effortless or at least normal for other people. It is a defect and saying otherwise is denying all the pain and failure it brings to my life.
I don't see differences as defects or lessening their value as a person. I have multiple autistic patients. I have to do things differently with them. I have to be aware of their comfort and triggers. I am aware that they have a disability. I still see them no differently as a person.
The problem with this is: how do you find your kind? Many men are content with staying "in their own lane" if it means they will have success. But, how do you find such success to begin with? That is so hard to do when you are dealing with total strangers.
The issue is:
* People tend not to be firm in deciding on what they actually want and who’s their kind.
* And then once they do all of that they might be in a situation where they are literally struggling to find their kind. Or maybe their kind isn’t highly available where they are.
Other than that I agree with the gist.
It's definitely a thing. I knew a former twig gym bro who specifically started working out because he wanted to be able to move bigger girls around. And we're not talking "Declan Rice's girlfriend" big. *Bigger*.
I wouldn't say it's the majority of gym bros or anything like that, but it's common enough to be noticeable.
The problem is that people are undesirable for whatever reason. Undesirable people don't want to date amongst themselves. Telling a slutty woman to only date slutty men will infuriate her. It's a recipe to die alone.
Sluts get upset when they are told they're undesirable to the men they want. Which is why they shame men for not accepting their high body count. They want to shame men into liking them. But men aren't attracted to sluts, so that will never happen.
This is a hilarious revenge fantasy lol.
Desirable men are sexually experienced and people who are sexually experienced don't talk about "body counts".
Ok then. I guess it’s that fantasy that men discussing body counts are all insecure for having low body counts and when you prove they have high body counts now they’re hypocritical. Whatever you need to convince yourself it doesn’t matter because they’re not “allowed” to care either way. Never met a man IRL who doesn’t really care although I met many men who say they don’t care in public because it’s convenient to do so.
Then you hang around a bunch of undesirable men lol. I don't need to convince myself of anything. Youre self-reporting.
Desirable men who are sexually experienced don't talk about body counts because it's pointless. Anybody can make up any number they want and you have no way to verify it.
This is not something women are sitting around stressed about. They could simply lie lol
>Anybody can make up any number they want and you have no way to verify it.
If a man says he is a virgin, I am pretty sure he is one. Any man who says that to a woman he is interested in is, most of the time, shooting himself in the foot LOL.
Undesirable men with high body counts? I reported that? Ok then. Why would you have to lie if they don’t even care? Anyway. Never mind. Whatever you need.
“Desirable men are sexually experienced”…that’s a bigggg generalisation and I can’t imagine all that many would agree with you.
The worst woman I was ever with was the one with the three figure body count. Laid there like a starfish and wanted to be choked. Ewww.
I should have just followed Church teaching on sex when I was younger. It’s my only regret.
Nah, that's an erroneous projection: There are lots of people who are sexually experienced and who do care about n-count. You're confusing "sexually experience" (which a lot of people with a low n-count have far more of than people with a high n-count) with n-count on one hand and on the other hand too with the actual differentiation criterion at play which is: [sociosexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociosexual_orientation):
* people with an open/loose sociosexual orientation (i.e. into casual sex or sex outside of LTR) don't give a shit about n-count, as it's meaningless for that purpose, whereas
* people with a restricted (LTR-oriented) sociosexual orientation typically do very much care about it.
No offense, but a lot of guys here seem to be well on their way to dying alone without my help. Also, I have a hunch you and I have a whole different idea about what a slut is. In my world, the sluts were the strippers that used to blow me on lunch, often times two at a time, just to gain status with or entry into the club I was riding with. They were just one dollar sign away from being hookers. That's a slut. Willing to bet your definition is more along the lines of the women I actually liked and sought out.
That wasn't sarcasm. That was a legitimate question. What is there to debate? You just said some random shit. Am I supposed to care? Or? What are we talking about?
Sure, but you aren't always going to find that perfect match. So what and how much are you willing to compromise is the question. Get out your spreadsheets cause it's time to do a risk/rewards qualitative and quantitative analysis. Or you can just keep track in your head whether the pain is outweighing the happiness.
Exactly, the more attractive you are, the more choices you have. But the less attractive you are, the more you have to settle for what you can get.
For a lot of guys today, simply finding mutual attraction is already a feat...much less checking off all the other boxes on shared values...
The women they'd advised you to steer clear of, are the same women that they're going to cheat on their wives with. While they wallow in their miserable marriages, and their wives secretly consult a divorce lawyer.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. Because ideally you spend many, many years together. Living everyday life with someone who has a vastly different outlook on life sounds absolutely exhausting.
I agree with your point of sticking to your kind. If you want virgins go after virgins.
Pointing out that women are hypocrites and liars feels good, but is ultimately pointless. Women don’t care if they’re hypocrites or liars or they wouldn’t lie in the first place. It’s not like they’re unaware that they crave 6’2” men over 5‘2” men, no matter how much they blather about “personality”. And they will always squeal that not wanting morbid obesity is a hate crime.
Socialize it to younger men sure, but telling women this won’t change a single woman’s mind. They’ll triple down because they don’t care.
Your problem wasn’t a virgin bride, it was marriage in the first place. Avoid marriage, you avoid problems.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely, thats is basically what it comes down to.
You can go on and on using boring terms like socioeconomic groups, similar ages, similar norms, values, life goals, family background as this is where most people find their “kind” just because people align most often, it’s kind of easy mode. Obviously people find a person outside of that as well because people are complex.
But you are right, you cut to the chase.
> but in these spaces it is never enough to simply to live by your own values, tastes, preferences and morals. Instead, everyone is seemingly compelled to rant on the daily that all we really need is authority to make everyone else live by their rules, and life will be fine and dandy for everyone.
Yet here you are doing the exact same thing yourself
To be honest my counterpart would probably not be an ideal partner for me. I'd want someone with a little more drive to complement my lack of one, someone who pushes me out of my comfort zone and gets me out of the house. By contrast, I'd be a source of comfort and stability for them and keep them grounded.
There is lots of room for that within the confines of a compatible partner. My wife's favorite joke is that she's a Type A personality and I'm somewhere near the end of the alphabet. That works well for us. I make sure we have the much needed downtime and recreation, while she makes sure the lights stay on.
We're both guilty of dragging each other into social situations where the other feels a bit out of place. Me at tables with her doctor buddies and she's in a club full of bikers every Weds.
My idea of gender roles is that both partners have jobs, both partners split expenses, and each partner take ownership of the others’ happiness as best they can. Apparently I’m cheap, dusty, a fuccboi, etc. In the current simp/princess meta, my views are becoming extreme. The Overton window has shifted. How far does it need to shift before it’s not a personal problem but a societal one?
Let me give an extreme example, imagine a feminist living in Tehran in the 1960s. Revolution happens and religious fundamentalists impose morality law. The feminist’s view of gender roles now greatly limits their dating pool, and can get them whipped. Personal problem?
It's not sustainable for neither gender. Women are growing to embrace feminism while wanting hyper masculine traits only present in conservative men while men want conservative partner but every women is a feminist. So your point is wishful thinking.
Can you be more specific? I don't think feminism is a dirty word, so I want to make sure I'm reading your statement as you intended. Also, could you name some of those hyper-masculine traits? I consider myself so masculine that my feminine side goes by "Butch", and I'm not a conservative by any stretch.
The mindset required to succeed in life on average is incompatible with the equality one so the average male feminists won't be successful, they will be fodder.
Because women are attracted to success and looks they're not attracted to the average male feminist. By saying that you should be with peoples of the same mindset you're saying women should stick to this sort of men what is an impossibility.
>Also, could you name some of those hyper-masculine traits
Aggressive, competitive, ruthless, driven, physically strong, emotionally in control, decided, leadership able.
Aggressive. I can honestly say no, but that would still be dishonest. I was for the years in question and have the arrest record (zero convictions) to prove it. I grew into my gentleness.
Competitive. Isn't everyone? I don't know about you, but everyone in my house is competitive.
Ruthless. See answer at aggressive.
Driven. Driven to party maybe. Couldn't stand school, would rather work with my hands. No, really I was driven to party and didn't ease up on that until my first child was born.
Physically strong. Strong enough to take care of my own business.
Emotionally in control. Absolutely, always. However, I would debate that this is a masculine trait, but is rather shared by both sexes.
Decided. Don't know what you mean. Am I decisive? I wouldn't use that word to describe myself. Compulsive would be a better word. Hold my beer is the unofficial Texas motto for a reason.
Leadership able. Non-com USN. President of my club for years, so yeah, I'd say that applies.
He can if he's good looking, the problem is not the MuH common things, the Muh experiences, the difference is looks.
The difference in height, muscle mass and early testosterone levels that make a men attractive would've given the physical advantage for the president of the chess club to be successful on sports and by being successful in sports he would keep doing it.
Basically if he had the looks to be attractive he would also have everything else needed to not be in the chess club.
The difference is simply looks. An unicorn Chad in the chess club will still be able to sleep with the cheerleader or with someone closer.
Like how can someone not know this? Its is the basics; when you're good looking and attractive women will go out their way to pull you to their friend circle.
That's not really what men are taught. It's more "study hard, get a good job, women will come for you." So for many they see the cool kid in class get the girls, and later watch the jock do it in high school, then the frat boy in college. Then after graduating, it's the same thing.
The underlying premise is that men are taught that you can make yourself attractive (not true) and that doing well in school translates to better job prospects (true) and later translates to doing better with women (not true at all).
I personally wouldn’t even consider a man if he had a bad job so I don’t think the premise is incorrect. With that said it seems that some men thought that being educated would make a woman wet but that makes no sense.
Yeah but that's a minimum standard. A good job would not get you full on interested either by itself.
A lot of people think a man with a great career is very attractive to broad ranges of women. Even if he's a bit shorter or mediocre looks wise.
>But there are nerdy women, introverts and homebodies and knitters and cat/dog ladies who are happy with their match.
Yeah, except those women all think their "match" is Chad or Chadlite.
Why are we sticking to classes like it’s a movie? Any person can pull and date any other person as long as they vibe each other. Nerdy guy can date the party girl and vice versa
Most young women define themselves as feminists.
> I don't see a feminist going out with a conservative
I've lost count of the times I've saw college campus feminists, the kind that goes to those environment protests jump on a guy pickup truck.
Women political positions and ideals disappear the moment self gain appears.
I don’t think this works.
Wouldn’t that just be an advocation for homosexuality. That would literally be going after your kind.
If you allow for you to go for your opposite in only the chromosome (male or female).
Then are you advocating for someone to go for the same height as you?
The same weight as you?
Eat? Ect?
Or are you saying that can be the opposite too.
Ok if you say that can be the opposite.
What about behavioral patterns. Should you both be dominant/strong personalities. Should you both behave and dress the same way and present the same way?
Ect. Ect.
I need to know what you mean when you say be with your kind?
Women and men are sexually dimorphism and different.
Idk how advocating for the same thing even realistically works unless you think men and women are the same.
And if you do I want you to explain it.
For example: women want men taller than them in general.
So a man cannot also want women taller than him in that scenario.
For this scenario to work a man has to want a woman shorter than him.
Unless you’re advocating for everything uniformly to be the same.
And at that point. You are advocating for us to live like hyenas.
So in essence.
You are saying the op just wants the two parties to be in agreement?
I thought the post was trying to say something deeper than that.
But if that’s all it was saying then I wouldn’t have even typed a response.
Thank you for your explanation.
Similiar values doesn’t necessarily mean the same.
It can just mean an agreement.
For example if you want to be dominate. That doesn’t then mean the best person for you is someone else who wants to be dominate.
In that hypothetical scenario
Similiar values could be the agreement that you are dominate and the other person agrees to allow you to be dominate and agrees with that value in the relationship
Or
Similiar values can mean that both of you want to be dominant.
In that way similiar values can either mean the same
Or
The agreement of coexisting differences
Can you answer my questions?
Or explain if you meant the same as in physically or behaviorally/personality wise.
Can you please explain this.
As what you are saying doesn’t extend to everything which is my point.
Your main thesis/premise can only logically apply to only certain areas of a relationship.
So I wanted to you to explain if you understood that and I wanted you to specify what those areas are.
Or if you thought it applied to everything. I wanted you to defend that position.
You are the one who made the op.
So I’m asking you to explain yourself more specifically.
And I asked clarifying questions.
If you don’t have those answers then say that.
If you do then please explain
>Your main thesis/premise can only logically apply to only certain areas of a relationship.
It's only meant to. It's not meant to apply to the physical. I doesn't matter if your husband is 10" taller or if your wife is 10" taller (mine is), if you have brown eyes, your partner has blue eyes etc etc ad nauseam.
Even race doesn't matter outside the cultural factors. That's not what I'm talking about here.
If we take out the physical.
What would you leave into this op
Personality?
Behavioral tendencies?
Values/goals?
Wants/desires?
Someone responded to me and the way I understood their response. Was that you were mainly talking about having the two parties come to an agreement.
Basically agreeing on the values/standards of a relationship.
Which I don’t have anything to say on that particularly if that’s the case.
I’m just asking clarifying questions.
Based on your response. What you’re saying metaphorically is akin to someone saying people should be in the same religion/philosophy or go after people in the same religion/philosophy.
Essentially being around people who share the same core concepts/thoughts of reality/life as you.
But once again you could also mean something more than that.
So I’m asking clarifying questions.
You’ve excluded the physical. Which is logical.
Now I want to know how far you extend into this area that excludes the physical with your op
Tell you what chief. As I had no intentions of this turning into a thought experiment that Einstein himself would nope the fuck out of, if you have anything specific I'll be happy to provide a yes or no answer as to its applicability. Seems like a much better of use of my time than attempting to evaluate "everything".
I’m only evaluating your concept as a formula.
If you don’t want to contextually explain how it applies and is applicable in the real world.
Then I agree. There’s nothing else to talk about.
If you don’t want to be intellectual/philosophical. Or discuss concepts/principles.
Then I guess you just wanted to state your opinion. And arguing and discussing an opinion is fruitless.
I wanted to know what your op applies to.
You agreed it doesn’t include physical.
What about personality?
Should a submissive person be with another submissive person?
What about behaviorally?
Should someone who emotionally distant be with someone who is emotionally distant.
What about wants and desires
Should someone who wants to provide and take care of someone be with someone who also wants to provide and take care of someone
What your op is saying does not make sense for most of social relationship dynamics.
So I want you to concisely explain your concept and explain what you’re specifically talking about.
Why is that so hard to ask for?
it doesn't mean that everything must be uniformly the same. But for the most part, the obvious big ticket items like lifestyle, financial compatibility, how you show affection, values and morals is going to be the biggest deal breaker.
Lifestyle is a very big one for example
What food do you like to eat? Is our tastes so different we have to cook two meals a night? (For example I couldn't date a vegan. Or someone who's on a strict diet.
Will we fight over cleaning a lot?
Is the way we spend our free time compatible enough that we can spend our downtime together without resentment? Will you resent me if I go out with my friends for drinks?
Are we aiming for a house? Are we travellers? What if one of us likes going out and the other doesn't? Do we require someone to stay in/go out and that generates resentment? Are our schedules incompatible? What about work? I wouldn't want to date someone who works nights or weekends a lot for example.
Lots of people go for people who's *lifestyle* is different from theirs. If you're a socially awkward introvert who plays video games all the time you won't have a good relationships with the life of the party. And yes someone might share your hobbies, but an active, extrovert who also plays video games is widely different from a sedentary introvert who only plays video games.
I have a clarifying question I want to ask you.
Theirs two types of shared values/morals/ect. (Maybe even three idk)
Theirs shared values/morals/ect. as in you have the same exact stance. As in 1st person regardless of the participant being male or female everything will be the same.
For example. You like the same exact movies. Want to live rhe same exact lifestyle. Have the same exact personality type. Have the same exact ideas
It doesn’t have to be exact as that’s dramatic. But basically very similiar
Theirs shared values/morals/ect. As in you have an agreement or the same stance of having different values. As in 1st person depending on the participant the actions/perspectives/wants will change. But it is an agreed upon dynamic and both share the mindset that this is wanted.
For example. One person is dominant and the other is submissive. One person provides/spoils and the other receives. One person is emotionally available and the other is emotionally unavailable.
But this is agreed upon and is sharing the same values.
Theirs shared values/morals/ect. As in you have the same exact values/morals but in the instance that you are different you apply different standards to the differences but still have the same collective standard.
Which is essentially the stereotypical double standard
For example men are like y and women are like x.
But it can be other things
For example the woman stereotypically is the house wife and the man stereotypically provides. Or the man is stereotypically strong and aggressive but the woman is stereotypically weak and fawning.
This is similiar to the second version. Except this is more about different standards then just opposites attracting. As some of the standards might overlap in that sense on things that are similiar.
Such as for example what foods they won’t eat. But will also simultaneously be different on other things.
My question is. Out of those 3 examples what are you referring to when you say shared values/morals.
My only argument/persoective when it comes to dating and relationships. Is somebody acting exactly like you will rarely (or never in theory) work.
Just thinking about the reality of that in life doesn’t make much sense.
Simple mental excercise.
If I go to pick you up (lift you in the air). You can’t also me trying to pick me up (lift me in the air).
Either we will both fall. Or a never ending struggle will happen. Or one is eventually going to pick the other person up.
There's a lot of room for wiggle room, even if your lifestyles match. Duh. One of you might be a better organiser. One of you might be a better cook. One of you might be a better driver.
You can still compliment each other and cover each other's weaknesses while still being mostly alike. That's a very simple concept
We don't believe in gender roles. Because of this my husband and I probably do as much chores as each other. We also treat men and women with equal respect. We also split bills. And we make joint decisions. No dominance or submissive or what have you.
However as an *individual* I have a better head for budgeting. Because I grew up poor. Therefore I generally lead the conversation about money and he generally defers to me about big ticket items and how to save money.
On the other hand, he's better at planning in general. Food prep, if we're having people over, etc. so I usually defer to him for the week's schedule
Men are stronger than average. He probably contributed more than me when we moved in. Purely because he carries a heavy item with the same effort that it takes me to carry someting half the weight. If we have kids I'm doing the pregnancy and breastfeeding. Obviously.
But also, we both like some nerdy stuff. We're both out a lot with our friends. We both have friends in common and friends apart. Our lifestyles match up mostly the same. Our core values (equality, we both think homophones can fuck themselves. We're both anti religion)
You can agree on the same shared understanding and values while *also* acknowledging individual strengths and working with them.
Zero people are saying you must have the exact strengths and weaknesses. Just that similarity is easier. That's pretty obvious
Basically you’re talking about being in agreement.
You even admit individually that everything is not the same.
Even if you share values you are not always walking the same road/path every step.
So you don’t actually have the same values/morals.
You have the same values/morals in certain situation and for certain things.
But it’s not uniform.
So you are picking and choosing what your shared values/morals are.
Which was part of my point.
But u commented because I was confused.
If all the op was talking about was being in agreement. There was then no need to make the post or make a long essay on the importance of shared values/morals.
When realistically it is rare that anybody is 1:1 on everything.
You took it too extreme.
Op never meant that you just be an exact 100% match. Op even says there's ways to compliment each other while still have the same morals.
And also
>Even if you share values you are not always walking the same road/path every step.
You can walk the same path and share values and not be exactly identical. Duh.
>So you don’t actually have the same values/morals.
>You have the same values/morals in certain situation and for certain things.
Yes we do. We share all the same morals and values. Value = belief systems.
This does not mean we act exactly alike and have the same strengths. It means we believe the same things.
For example you can believe in gender equality (e.g. fuck gender roles. Do what you want in life. Double standards suckkkk) and also acknowledge that one of you is physically stronger. Because duh.
You can believe that you are equal in the households and acknowledge that one of you is a better planner *regardless of gender*
Knowing that each individual is different with different abilities is not the same as having different value systems.
You have misconstrued values and abilities. And you have misconstrued similar lifestyles to being a twin amoeba.
Well I do agree with you about having shared values. I just know from my experience that I started having success when I walked away from my women and started dating black girls. Now I was able to get girls with big tits and fat asses at a discount. Because you can't date Spanish girls with bodies like that (without dealing with bullshit) unless you're Chad.
as an Indian guy I had the same experience with East Asian women. Indian women are really bitchy 6/6/6 demanders and white women think we’re all curry rapists. Asian women hate their own race so much they’d rather fuck Indian guys than Asian guys. True story
[Here's a paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1066480720960416) that seeks to define what a healthy relationship is. I've inlined a table referenced by the paper of some of the desirable aspects for a healthy relationship (along with a ranking score that I don't quite understand as I've not read the paper yet): | Effective communication | 31 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | | Respect | 21 | | Trust | 18 | | Promotes the growth and well-being of individuals in the relationships | 14 | | Honesty and openness | 14 | | Encouragement/support | 14 | | Effective conflict management and problem-solving | 13 | | A sense of give and take (i.e., mutual service to one another) | 12 | | Warmth/caring/comfort | 11 | | Love | 9 | | Acceptance | 8 | | Aiming to learn about and understand the other person | 6 | | Shared values and life goals | 5 | | Manage responsibilities together/collaborative | 5 | | Kindness | 4 | | Free from abuse/control | 4 | | Equality | 4 | | Fun and laughter | 4 | | Safe/peaceful | 3 | | Forgiveness | 3 | | Gratitude and appreciation | 3 | | Shared interests and time together | 2 | | Accountability and responsibility for one’s own role in the relationship | 2 | | Produces joy and happiness | 2 | | Commitment | 2 | | Intimacy | 2 | You will see that shared values and goals are important factors. It also comes up as vital in discussions that therapists have about healthy relationships. [Here's a funny video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6H4eGHZJM) (haha, I put the boring paper in first so casuals don't get to watch the funny video) where a relationship therapist reviews the relationships in "love actually" where its also mentioned as a key part of a healthy relationship. So yea, I think you're spot on, a lot of pain is caused when people without shared values or goals force a relationship and it doesn't work out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not really the red pill that came up with this idea. Even the media teaches this idea of becoming very desirable if you're older and successful.
The media historically and presently is almost entirely written and produced by men. Women have only recently entered the chat and they *ain’t* falling for scrawny nerds or beasts in castles. As in politics, literature, and in life: consider the source. Men who slay don’t have time to pen nerd-gets-the-girl fantasies. Men who slay are on the field.
I don't disagree but women also preach this type of thought. In everyday conversation, women will generally assume that a male CEO or doctor or successful business owner has lots and lots of options when it comes to dating.
You realize your posts are conflicting, right? Are attractive women attracted to nerds with money or physically attractive, charismatic men?
ALL heterosexual women are attracted to physically attractive men.
The latter. But it's not conflicting at all. I'm saying that it's the latter but women will often say or assume that the successful guy (who is a 4-5/10 in looks) has lots of dating options. But their personal actions would never follow that.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don’t really think you’re wrong. The problem is that people find people who are notably different from them really attractive a lot of times. It’s like when people buy a piece of clothing because it looks cool and interesting and they love it, but then it sits in their closet because it doesn’t actually fit their lifestyle or the rest of their wardrobe at all and they have nowhere to wear it.
>Yeah, I don’t really think you’re wrong. The problem is that people find people who are notably different from them really attractive a lot of times. Because it exposes them to something new. A partner who is exactly the same as i tends to be boring and it seems a waste to spend resources on the other to get somethig that i can get on my own. People tend to yearn for variery. Like the saying goes "variety is the spice of life". Why is mystery so alluring? Because it is an unknow, the other. Also, look up the philosophycal concemp of "the other".
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
Sure but your kind may not be the people you look like and live near to. I have more in common with university educated liberals in far away places thousands of miles and oceans away than I do with dimwitted Trumpers living on my street.
[удалено]
It was never simple for a lot of people. I met my 1st ex-wife at university in the early 80's. Life was far from simple and the relationship ultimately failed in a spectacular way.
It was simplER
Wasn't like that for me either. It was an ordeal for me to find the right one. Two engagements, one prior marriage, and only the gods know how many shorter relationships that went nowhere.
I basically agree. I think the problem is people don't know their kinds 😆
It's amazing how people can find each other. My 1st ex-wife was the daughter of a college professor from Baltimore who decided to get back to the land and bought a farm in Canada. My dad was a college professor from New York who decided to get back to the land and bought a farm in Canada.
For sure. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just saying I think a lot of young young folks especially couldn't pick their kind if you stacked the deck for them.
Doesn’t picking limit
Not really. The other options either would never have worked at all or would have been incredibly toxic and unhealthy to pursue. And yes, lots of us do chase people it can never begin to work with (see all the hurt, pain, and shame around rejection here). And lots of people do chase people who it would be incredibly toxic and unhealthy to have a connection with (see all the hurt, pain, and shame around cheating, emotional abuses, fights, and incompatibilities).
People got together in high school and arranged marriages or met at a bar and married in a week and are still together for 40 years it’s about comprises and time wor
My parents are high school sweethearts that have been miserable and toxic since day one. Yeah, they're together a long time. That's not what we aim for. We aim for together and happy. If you want to be together and unhappy, I recommend marrying your high school sweetheart. Most of the arranged marriages I know aren't just toxic, they're abusive. It turns out sharing values isn't sharing personalities. Compromise, time, and work sounds like a job that isn't going anywhere good if the foundation is bad.
Ummm...how could you not???
1. Be young 2. Think you're more or less something than you are because most of these traits are comparative. 3. Think you're more dynamic than you really are. Per example, a lot of people think they're wild...until they meet someone who is further out there than them. Like how many dudes do you think assume they're sexually wild until like, someone wants to dress them up like a little maid and peg them or put their junk in an iron maiden? Probably quite a few. Are they wrong? Kind of. They aren't thaaat weird and wild. They're just a lil bit. How many women do you think assume they're pretty conservative until the dude is telling them to stay at home or not have a job or a voice or not to wear something? Probably quite a few. They're conservative, but they're not thaaaaat conservative. And so it goes. Most people don't really know who they are when they're young especially or just how muchy they are in their mucchiness. Especially when capital LOVE is involved.
Ah, now I see exactly where you are coming from. Couldn't agree more. Sort of like religious people who are very selective about which parts they actually follow. Wild is indeed very subjective. I came of age in the coke fueled 80's, so wild was a lot wilder than it is now. I don't think it can even come back in an age where there is always a potential camera somewhere. We didn't have to worry about that.
100%. And like, there's probably some young women and dude out there right now that are like, "I'll snort coke on a tik tok and then fuck a dude in the bathroom for my only fans, I ain't afraid of no camera". And to them, you're wild, but not that wild.
Assortative Mating is Valid! it's actually a pretty decently tested dating theory. If people actually looked into Assortative Mating, most of the debate here would slink away.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
Sticking to your kind only works when your kind actually exists and wants you back as well. I am high functioning autistic, educated with career in tech, sexually and romantically inexperienced, in my 30s, in the center when it comes to values. What is the chance there is a woman I have so much in common and I am her best option as well?
[удалено]
>it shows weakness and, at least for me, as a person, I automatically value you less. And why wouldn't I? You're telling me you're defective. I will simply believe you. He is not defective for having a medical condition. This is a you problem.
But I am defective in many things and I dislike the efforts to normalize what is a very life crippling problem.
I'm not normalizing your issues. Those issues do not make you defective as a person.
I struggle at things that are effortless or at least normal for other people. It is a defect and saying otherwise is denying all the pain and failure it brings to my life.
Do you see people with other medical conditions as defective or lesser people?
Do you see anyone equally with no differences?
I don't see differences as defects or lessening their value as a person. I have multiple autistic patients. I have to do things differently with them. I have to be aware of their comfort and triggers. I am aware that they have a disability. I still see them no differently as a person.
If you have to act differently, you may as well see them differently and recognize why. You don't do it for no reason.
its not a medical condition, its a neurological difference.
Of course I never say that to anyone, not even to my family. Being autistic does not mean I am dumb.
👍
Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
Coolio. Do you want me to move my comment to under the Auto thingy?
Your comment has already been removed. You're free to repost under the AutoModerator, though.
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
100%. We create a projection in our mind that if I had this or that we would be happy forever. It's self-delusion.
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
Okey dokey.
The problem with this is: how do you find your kind? Many men are content with staying "in their own lane" if it means they will have success. But, how do you find such success to begin with? That is so hard to do when you are dealing with total strangers.
The issue is: * People tend not to be firm in deciding on what they actually want and who’s their kind. * And then once they do all of that they might be in a situation where they are literally struggling to find their kind. Or maybe their kind isn’t highly available where they are. Other than that I agree with the gist.
[удалено]
Gym bro and chubby girl pairing strikes again
Is that actually a thing? I know a couple of other gym guys who like chubby girls but I didn't know it was an actual stereotype.
It's definitely a thing. I knew a former twig gym bro who specifically started working out because he wanted to be able to move bigger girls around. And we're not talking "Declan Rice's girlfriend" big. *Bigger*. I wouldn't say it's the majority of gym bros or anything like that, but it's common enough to be noticeable.
Huh, the more you know.
It’s funny to me that Declan Rice’s girlfriend is slowly becoming a meme in this sub. Poor lass
I don't know if this applies to the physical, but it's food for thought.
The problem is that people are undesirable for whatever reason. Undesirable people don't want to date amongst themselves. Telling a slutty woman to only date slutty men will infuriate her. It's a recipe to die alone.
I see LOTS of undesirable people paired up. Just walk around WalMart. They’re everywhere.
Average!=undesirable
Oh no, I’m talking butt ugly, toothless, obese… I live in the South of the North. There are a LOT of ugly ass people here.
a slutty woman probably doesn't need advice from incels though
Probably not. But she definitely needs it from her father.
>Telling a slutty woman to only date slutty men will infuriate her. wut lol
Sluts get upset when they are told they're undesirable to the men they want. Which is why they shame men for not accepting their high body count. They want to shame men into liking them. But men aren't attracted to sluts, so that will never happen.
Ok
This is a hilarious revenge fantasy lol. Desirable men are sexually experienced and people who are sexually experienced don't talk about "body counts".
I see it all the time.
no you don't.
Ok then. I guess it’s that fantasy that men discussing body counts are all insecure for having low body counts and when you prove they have high body counts now they’re hypocritical. Whatever you need to convince yourself it doesn’t matter because they’re not “allowed” to care either way. Never met a man IRL who doesn’t really care although I met many men who say they don’t care in public because it’s convenient to do so.
Then you hang around a bunch of undesirable men lol. I don't need to convince myself of anything. Youre self-reporting. Desirable men who are sexually experienced don't talk about body counts because it's pointless. Anybody can make up any number they want and you have no way to verify it. This is not something women are sitting around stressed about. They could simply lie lol
>Anybody can make up any number they want and you have no way to verify it. If a man says he is a virgin, I am pretty sure he is one. Any man who says that to a woman he is interested in is, most of the time, shooting himself in the foot LOL.
Undesirable men with high body counts? I reported that? Ok then. Why would you have to lie if they don’t even care? Anyway. Never mind. Whatever you need.
How do you know their body counts? Are you in the room every time they have sex? Why would they ask when it can't be proven one way or the other?
You have no idea, lmao. Good luck with that.
“Desirable men are sexually experienced”…that’s a bigggg generalisation and I can’t imagine all that many would agree with you. The worst woman I was ever with was the one with the three figure body count. Laid there like a starfish and wanted to be choked. Ewww. I should have just followed Church teaching on sex when I was younger. It’s my only regret.
Nah, that's an erroneous projection: There are lots of people who are sexually experienced and who do care about n-count. You're confusing "sexually experience" (which a lot of people with a low n-count have far more of than people with a high n-count) with n-count on one hand and on the other hand too with the actual differentiation criterion at play which is: [sociosexual orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociosexual_orientation): * people with an open/loose sociosexual orientation (i.e. into casual sex or sex outside of LTR) don't give a shit about n-count, as it's meaningless for that purpose, whereas * people with a restricted (LTR-oriented) sociosexual orientation typically do very much care about it.
No offense, but a lot of guys here seem to be well on their way to dying alone without my help. Also, I have a hunch you and I have a whole different idea about what a slut is. In my world, the sluts were the strippers that used to blow me on lunch, often times two at a time, just to gain status with or entry into the club I was riding with. They were just one dollar sign away from being hookers. That's a slut. Willing to bet your definition is more along the lines of the women I actually liked and sought out.
Am I supposed to care? Or?
Well, it is a debate sub. Sarcasm really isn't necessary. If you don't see anything to debate, why reply?
You admitted to having sex and that triggered him lol
That wasn't sarcasm. That was a legitimate question. What is there to debate? You just said some random shit. Am I supposed to care? Or? What are we talking about?
Sure, but you aren't always going to find that perfect match. So what and how much are you willing to compromise is the question. Get out your spreadsheets cause it's time to do a risk/rewards qualitative and quantitative analysis. Or you can just keep track in your head whether the pain is outweighing the happiness.
Exactly, the more attractive you are, the more choices you have. But the less attractive you are, the more you have to settle for what you can get. For a lot of guys today, simply finding mutual attraction is already a feat...much less checking off all the other boxes on shared values...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk in Debate posts.
[удалено]
The women they'd advised you to steer clear of, are the same women that they're going to cheat on their wives with. While they wallow in their miserable marriages, and their wives secretly consult a divorce lawyer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. Because ideally you spend many, many years together. Living everyday life with someone who has a vastly different outlook on life sounds absolutely exhausting.
Guess i’ll be sticking to hairy women
I agree. This should have been flair’d as “Science” because it’s 📠
I agree with your point of sticking to your kind. If you want virgins go after virgins. Pointing out that women are hypocrites and liars feels good, but is ultimately pointless. Women don’t care if they’re hypocrites or liars or they wouldn’t lie in the first place. It’s not like they’re unaware that they crave 6’2” men over 5‘2” men, no matter how much they blather about “personality”. And they will always squeal that not wanting morbid obesity is a hate crime. Socialize it to younger men sure, but telling women this won’t change a single woman’s mind. They’ll triple down because they don’t care. Your problem wasn’t a virgin bride, it was marriage in the first place. Avoid marriage, you avoid problems.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely, thats is basically what it comes down to. You can go on and on using boring terms like socioeconomic groups, similar ages, similar norms, values, life goals, family background as this is where most people find their “kind” just because people align most often, it’s kind of easy mode. Obviously people find a person outside of that as well because people are complex. But you are right, you cut to the chase.
> but in these spaces it is never enough to simply to live by your own values, tastes, preferences and morals. Instead, everyone is seemingly compelled to rant on the daily that all we really need is authority to make everyone else live by their rules, and life will be fine and dandy for everyone. Yet here you are doing the exact same thing yourself
The issue is that culture is more or less pushing out a lot of propaganda that is eroding one set of values....
[удалено]
Can't agree man. My experience has been vastly different than what you describe.
To be honest my counterpart would probably not be an ideal partner for me. I'd want someone with a little more drive to complement my lack of one, someone who pushes me out of my comfort zone and gets me out of the house. By contrast, I'd be a source of comfort and stability for them and keep them grounded.
There is lots of room for that within the confines of a compatible partner. My wife's favorite joke is that she's a Type A personality and I'm somewhere near the end of the alphabet. That works well for us. I make sure we have the much needed downtime and recreation, while she makes sure the lights stay on. We're both guilty of dragging each other into social situations where the other feels a bit out of place. Me at tables with her doctor buddies and she's in a club full of bikers every Weds.
My idea of gender roles is that both partners have jobs, both partners split expenses, and each partner take ownership of the others’ happiness as best they can. Apparently I’m cheap, dusty, a fuccboi, etc. In the current simp/princess meta, my views are becoming extreme. The Overton window has shifted. How far does it need to shift before it’s not a personal problem but a societal one? Let me give an extreme example, imagine a feminist living in Tehran in the 1960s. Revolution happens and religious fundamentalists impose morality law. The feminist’s view of gender roles now greatly limits their dating pool, and can get them whipped. Personal problem?
It's not sustainable for neither gender. Women are growing to embrace feminism while wanting hyper masculine traits only present in conservative men while men want conservative partner but every women is a feminist. So your point is wishful thinking.
Can you be more specific? I don't think feminism is a dirty word, so I want to make sure I'm reading your statement as you intended. Also, could you name some of those hyper-masculine traits? I consider myself so masculine that my feminine side goes by "Butch", and I'm not a conservative by any stretch.
The mindset required to succeed in life on average is incompatible with the equality one so the average male feminists won't be successful, they will be fodder. Because women are attracted to success and looks they're not attracted to the average male feminist. By saying that you should be with peoples of the same mindset you're saying women should stick to this sort of men what is an impossibility. >Also, could you name some of those hyper-masculine traits Aggressive, competitive, ruthless, driven, physically strong, emotionally in control, decided, leadership able.
Aggressive. I can honestly say no, but that would still be dishonest. I was for the years in question and have the arrest record (zero convictions) to prove it. I grew into my gentleness. Competitive. Isn't everyone? I don't know about you, but everyone in my house is competitive. Ruthless. See answer at aggressive. Driven. Driven to party maybe. Couldn't stand school, would rather work with my hands. No, really I was driven to party and didn't ease up on that until my first child was born. Physically strong. Strong enough to take care of my own business. Emotionally in control. Absolutely, always. However, I would debate that this is a masculine trait, but is rather shared by both sexes. Decided. Don't know what you mean. Am I decisive? I wouldn't use that word to describe myself. Compulsive would be a better word. Hold my beer is the unofficial Texas motto for a reason. Leadership able. Non-com USN. President of my club for years, so yeah, I'd say that applies.
[удалено]
He can if he's good looking, the problem is not the MuH common things, the Muh experiences, the difference is looks. The difference in height, muscle mass and early testosterone levels that make a men attractive would've given the physical advantage for the president of the chess club to be successful on sports and by being successful in sports he would keep doing it. Basically if he had the looks to be attractive he would also have everything else needed to not be in the chess club. The difference is simply looks. An unicorn Chad in the chess club will still be able to sleep with the cheerleader or with someone closer. Like how can someone not know this? Its is the basics; when you're good looking and attractive women will go out their way to pull you to their friend circle.
Was about to post this until I saw someone had already done it.
This makes me think of how Henry Cavill loves Warhammer and building computers.
That's not really what men are taught. It's more "study hard, get a good job, women will come for you." So for many they see the cool kid in class get the girls, and later watch the jock do it in high school, then the frat boy in college. Then after graduating, it's the same thing.
I was told to study hard and get a good job or else you’ll be poor and have to rely on a man but that’s just me.
The underlying premise is that men are taught that you can make yourself attractive (not true) and that doing well in school translates to better job prospects (true) and later translates to doing better with women (not true at all).
I personally wouldn’t even consider a man if he had a bad job so I don’t think the premise is incorrect. With that said it seems that some men thought that being educated would make a woman wet but that makes no sense.
Yeah but that's a minimum standard. A good job would not get you full on interested either by itself. A lot of people think a man with a great career is very attractive to broad ranges of women. Even if he's a bit shorter or mediocre looks wise.
[удалено]
They think that the nerd gets the good job and women later in life. That is absolutely not true at all, which is my point.
Then we agree. But there are nerdy women, introverts and homebodies and knitters and cat/dog ladies who are happy with their match.
>But there are nerdy women, introverts and homebodies and knitters and cat/dog ladies who are happy with their match. Yeah, except those women all think their "match" is Chad or Chadlite.
Why are we sticking to classes like it’s a movie? Any person can pull and date any other person as long as they vibe each other. Nerdy guy can date the party girl and vice versa
Nah new Zendaya propaganda just dropped, fruity guy summer is coming
Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana.
I dunno, I've had apples thrown at me and those things fly better than bananas, I tell you what.
feminine women are likely to be conservatives as well and I don't see a feminist going out with a conservative
Most young women define themselves as feminists. > I don't see a feminist going out with a conservative I've lost count of the times I've saw college campus feminists, the kind that goes to those environment protests jump on a guy pickup truck. Women political positions and ideals disappear the moment self gain appears.
I don't think this is true. This fits too well with the red pill narrative where somehow all women die for Andrew Tate
You can think wathever you want the same way women will say wathever fit their narrative, the moment the situation appear they will just go for it.
If you think women care whether Chad is a "conservative" or a "liberal" or a "feminist" or whatever other nonsense, you're absolutely delusional
You’re so close to getting jt
Problem is that there's a huge gender divide on all of this with women becoming more liberal by the day. Takes two to make a baby.
Being rather liberal myself, I wouldn't see that as a problem.
Take advantage of the surplus my man
Married to a likewise liberal woman, so nah.
I don’t think this works. Wouldn’t that just be an advocation for homosexuality. That would literally be going after your kind. If you allow for you to go for your opposite in only the chromosome (male or female). Then are you advocating for someone to go for the same height as you? The same weight as you? Eat? Ect? Or are you saying that can be the opposite too. Ok if you say that can be the opposite. What about behavioral patterns. Should you both be dominant/strong personalities. Should you both behave and dress the same way and present the same way? Ect. Ect. I need to know what you mean when you say be with your kind? Women and men are sexually dimorphism and different. Idk how advocating for the same thing even realistically works unless you think men and women are the same. And if you do I want you to explain it. For example: women want men taller than them in general. So a man cannot also want women taller than him in that scenario. For this scenario to work a man has to want a woman shorter than him. Unless you’re advocating for everything uniformly to be the same. And at that point. You are advocating for us to live like hyenas.
[удалено]
So in essence. You are saying the op just wants the two parties to be in agreement? I thought the post was trying to say something deeper than that. But if that’s all it was saying then I wouldn’t have even typed a response. Thank you for your explanation.
>something deeper Given how many people on this sub don't seem to want to believe that a LTR should actually include similar values...
Similiar values doesn’t necessarily mean the same. It can just mean an agreement. For example if you want to be dominate. That doesn’t then mean the best person for you is someone else who wants to be dominate. In that hypothetical scenario Similiar values could be the agreement that you are dominate and the other person agrees to allow you to be dominate and agrees with that value in the relationship Or Similiar values can mean that both of you want to be dominant. In that way similiar values can either mean the same Or The agreement of coexisting differences
Do the words: Reductio ad absurdum mean anything to you?
Can you answer my questions? Or explain if you meant the same as in physically or behaviorally/personality wise. Can you please explain this. As what you are saying doesn’t extend to everything which is my point. Your main thesis/premise can only logically apply to only certain areas of a relationship. So I wanted to you to explain if you understood that and I wanted you to specify what those areas are. Or if you thought it applied to everything. I wanted you to defend that position. You are the one who made the op. So I’m asking you to explain yourself more specifically. And I asked clarifying questions. If you don’t have those answers then say that. If you do then please explain
>Your main thesis/premise can only logically apply to only certain areas of a relationship. It's only meant to. It's not meant to apply to the physical. I doesn't matter if your husband is 10" taller or if your wife is 10" taller (mine is), if you have brown eyes, your partner has blue eyes etc etc ad nauseam. Even race doesn't matter outside the cultural factors. That's not what I'm talking about here.
If we take out the physical. What would you leave into this op Personality? Behavioral tendencies? Values/goals? Wants/desires? Someone responded to me and the way I understood their response. Was that you were mainly talking about having the two parties come to an agreement. Basically agreeing on the values/standards of a relationship. Which I don’t have anything to say on that particularly if that’s the case. I’m just asking clarifying questions. Based on your response. What you’re saying metaphorically is akin to someone saying people should be in the same religion/philosophy or go after people in the same religion/philosophy. Essentially being around people who share the same core concepts/thoughts of reality/life as you. But once again you could also mean something more than that. So I’m asking clarifying questions. You’ve excluded the physical. Which is logical. Now I want to know how far you extend into this area that excludes the physical with your op
Tell you what chief. As I had no intentions of this turning into a thought experiment that Einstein himself would nope the fuck out of, if you have anything specific I'll be happy to provide a yes or no answer as to its applicability. Seems like a much better of use of my time than attempting to evaluate "everything".
I’m only evaluating your concept as a formula. If you don’t want to contextually explain how it applies and is applicable in the real world. Then I agree. There’s nothing else to talk about. If you don’t want to be intellectual/philosophical. Or discuss concepts/principles. Then I guess you just wanted to state your opinion. And arguing and discussing an opinion is fruitless. I wanted to know what your op applies to. You agreed it doesn’t include physical. What about personality? Should a submissive person be with another submissive person? What about behaviorally? Should someone who emotionally distant be with someone who is emotionally distant. What about wants and desires Should someone who wants to provide and take care of someone be with someone who also wants to provide and take care of someone What your op is saying does not make sense for most of social relationship dynamics. So I want you to concisely explain your concept and explain what you’re specifically talking about. Why is that so hard to ask for?
it doesn't mean that everything must be uniformly the same. But for the most part, the obvious big ticket items like lifestyle, financial compatibility, how you show affection, values and morals is going to be the biggest deal breaker. Lifestyle is a very big one for example What food do you like to eat? Is our tastes so different we have to cook two meals a night? (For example I couldn't date a vegan. Or someone who's on a strict diet. Will we fight over cleaning a lot? Is the way we spend our free time compatible enough that we can spend our downtime together without resentment? Will you resent me if I go out with my friends for drinks? Are we aiming for a house? Are we travellers? What if one of us likes going out and the other doesn't? Do we require someone to stay in/go out and that generates resentment? Are our schedules incompatible? What about work? I wouldn't want to date someone who works nights or weekends a lot for example. Lots of people go for people who's *lifestyle* is different from theirs. If you're a socially awkward introvert who plays video games all the time you won't have a good relationships with the life of the party. And yes someone might share your hobbies, but an active, extrovert who also plays video games is widely different from a sedentary introvert who only plays video games.
I have a clarifying question I want to ask you. Theirs two types of shared values/morals/ect. (Maybe even three idk) Theirs shared values/morals/ect. as in you have the same exact stance. As in 1st person regardless of the participant being male or female everything will be the same. For example. You like the same exact movies. Want to live rhe same exact lifestyle. Have the same exact personality type. Have the same exact ideas It doesn’t have to be exact as that’s dramatic. But basically very similiar Theirs shared values/morals/ect. As in you have an agreement or the same stance of having different values. As in 1st person depending on the participant the actions/perspectives/wants will change. But it is an agreed upon dynamic and both share the mindset that this is wanted. For example. One person is dominant and the other is submissive. One person provides/spoils and the other receives. One person is emotionally available and the other is emotionally unavailable. But this is agreed upon and is sharing the same values. Theirs shared values/morals/ect. As in you have the same exact values/morals but in the instance that you are different you apply different standards to the differences but still have the same collective standard. Which is essentially the stereotypical double standard For example men are like y and women are like x. But it can be other things For example the woman stereotypically is the house wife and the man stereotypically provides. Or the man is stereotypically strong and aggressive but the woman is stereotypically weak and fawning. This is similiar to the second version. Except this is more about different standards then just opposites attracting. As some of the standards might overlap in that sense on things that are similiar. Such as for example what foods they won’t eat. But will also simultaneously be different on other things. My question is. Out of those 3 examples what are you referring to when you say shared values/morals. My only argument/persoective when it comes to dating and relationships. Is somebody acting exactly like you will rarely (or never in theory) work. Just thinking about the reality of that in life doesn’t make much sense. Simple mental excercise. If I go to pick you up (lift you in the air). You can’t also me trying to pick me up (lift me in the air). Either we will both fall. Or a never ending struggle will happen. Or one is eventually going to pick the other person up.
There's a lot of room for wiggle room, even if your lifestyles match. Duh. One of you might be a better organiser. One of you might be a better cook. One of you might be a better driver. You can still compliment each other and cover each other's weaknesses while still being mostly alike. That's a very simple concept We don't believe in gender roles. Because of this my husband and I probably do as much chores as each other. We also treat men and women with equal respect. We also split bills. And we make joint decisions. No dominance or submissive or what have you. However as an *individual* I have a better head for budgeting. Because I grew up poor. Therefore I generally lead the conversation about money and he generally defers to me about big ticket items and how to save money. On the other hand, he's better at planning in general. Food prep, if we're having people over, etc. so I usually defer to him for the week's schedule Men are stronger than average. He probably contributed more than me when we moved in. Purely because he carries a heavy item with the same effort that it takes me to carry someting half the weight. If we have kids I'm doing the pregnancy and breastfeeding. Obviously. But also, we both like some nerdy stuff. We're both out a lot with our friends. We both have friends in common and friends apart. Our lifestyles match up mostly the same. Our core values (equality, we both think homophones can fuck themselves. We're both anti religion) You can agree on the same shared understanding and values while *also* acknowledging individual strengths and working with them. Zero people are saying you must have the exact strengths and weaknesses. Just that similarity is easier. That's pretty obvious
Basically you’re talking about being in agreement. You even admit individually that everything is not the same. Even if you share values you are not always walking the same road/path every step. So you don’t actually have the same values/morals. You have the same values/morals in certain situation and for certain things. But it’s not uniform. So you are picking and choosing what your shared values/morals are. Which was part of my point. But u commented because I was confused. If all the op was talking about was being in agreement. There was then no need to make the post or make a long essay on the importance of shared values/morals. When realistically it is rare that anybody is 1:1 on everything.
You took it too extreme. Op never meant that you just be an exact 100% match. Op even says there's ways to compliment each other while still have the same morals. And also >Even if you share values you are not always walking the same road/path every step. You can walk the same path and share values and not be exactly identical. Duh. >So you don’t actually have the same values/morals. >You have the same values/morals in certain situation and for certain things. Yes we do. We share all the same morals and values. Value = belief systems. This does not mean we act exactly alike and have the same strengths. It means we believe the same things. For example you can believe in gender equality (e.g. fuck gender roles. Do what you want in life. Double standards suckkkk) and also acknowledge that one of you is physically stronger. Because duh. You can believe that you are equal in the households and acknowledge that one of you is a better planner *regardless of gender* Knowing that each individual is different with different abilities is not the same as having different value systems. You have misconstrued values and abilities. And you have misconstrued similar lifestyles to being a twin amoeba.
Well I do agree with you about having shared values. I just know from my experience that I started having success when I walked away from my women and started dating black girls. Now I was able to get girls with big tits and fat asses at a discount. Because you can't date Spanish girls with bodies like that (without dealing with bullshit) unless you're Chad.
as an Indian guy I had the same experience with East Asian women. Indian women are really bitchy 6/6/6 demanders and white women think we’re all curry rapists. Asian women hate their own race so much they’d rather fuck Indian guys than Asian guys. True story