Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "The TRAP of the HIGH-VALUE woman: every restaurant serves water" video.

This sh!t is hilarious. When it comes to dating, women HATE it when they have to consider anyone other than themselves.
831
@michelstronguin6974 Yeah I understand all that perfectly. It's essentially just the: instant gratification vs deferred gratification lesson repackaged. Nothing new under the sun.
39
To be fair-although the theory expounded in the video is completely sound-the practical reality is women know they can offer zero value and men will still wife it up. Including high value men. You see it constantly. They know they can get a lot for not very much. No incentive to change.
36
9:30 You're fundamentally mistaken in this. It's actually one of the hardest things they can do because they aren't programmed to care about a mans wants or needs. They believe he should exhibit zero wants and needs and attend to hers instead. Abundantly. This whole thing flounders once again on the men="human doing" principle. They don't see men as human beings, they have a perspective of entitlement to mens labour, sacrifice etc. You see it as "easy" because you're self-extrapolating and seeing it through the male lens of service. So you see it's actually enormously difficult for them. Otherwise they'd do it. Obviously. That's the cold, unpleasant and insoluble reality. Plus, the practical reality is women know they can offer zero value and men will still wife it up. Including high value men. You see it constantly. They know they can get a lot for not very much. Back to square one with this one I'm afraid.
28
@tomyoung8563 Potatos/tomatos. 😉
7
@okaySam I think it's probably more accurate to say that, historically, all people did what they had to do to survive. It was more necessary to their survival in the past. It isn't now. People tend to do what's easiest for them rather than what's 'best' for them. Particularly if what's 'best' for them is more difficult. The level of ability remains unchanged. It's the incentives (environmental factors) that have altered.
6
@houndmother2398 Exactly. And yet women ignore the man and think only of themselves.
2
@okaySam It's not "easy". That's the material point. Exactly how difficult it is is a speculative exercise. My sense is the Dr thinks it's easy because-from a male point of view-it is. And thats the mistake. I didn't gender the historical point btw. I said everyone did what they had to survive. I think that's broadly true.
1
@okaySam It's "easier" for men in the sense it's more natural. They're more hard wired to be of service to women. And the childlessness stat is a bit of a manosphere red herring. A significant female demographic has kids increasingly later-but they virtually all still have them. Not that it's optimal for the kids being born to older mothers, but that's a different story altogether.
1
@okaySam If I shift the measure of childlessness to be defined as "childless by age 30" the rate may indeed increase. A lot are indeed leaving it later. Doesn't mean they're not mothers by 31, 32, 33, 40 etc though. There will be some additional childlessness but I think it's fairly negligible. Certainly we're not experiencing it yet and the internet/social media/female careers have been around for a LONG time now. Re: your other point, I don't know I'd say it's easier for women to be of service to children than it is men (if by that you mean having a natural disposition). I think it is fair to say it's natural for them to be DIRECTLY more of service. I'd contend that men are equally disposed to be of service but they express it indirectly. However I don't really see how that has a bearing on the original point in any event.
1
@SherryONeill The adjective is redundant in that sentence.
1
@healthymindhappierlife5089 Yup.
1