Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "Women are a roll of the dice: the fundamental rule of gambling" video.

@jonm57 Can't vet that, sir. With the huge pressure to be married, women hide that stuff like professionals because they have no other choice. If you want a woman to see her husband as No 1, she must be allowed to wait for her THE ONE or divorce for him. If she is not in love with the husband, or especially if she never was (which most wive were not), don't expect her to treat him as if she is. It isn't realistic.
2
@airthrowDBT Not a "men's space" (check with Taraban) and no a whataboutism. Just pure realism. The extremely low value behavior is expecting an echo chamber where one does not exist. Make your point if you have one, alternatively - ignore posts you don't like.
2
Men disproportionately initiate the reasons for divorce.
2
@KnightyKnight A child, yes - but the pain of losing the love of your life is unparalleled.
2
@lamario And this is why men condemn themselves to empty, psychologically traumatizing lives despite being human and needing love just as much as women do. Duty is not love. Without the latter, it's just an empty shell that masquerades as "life." Keep up the "good work."
2
@peterellicott58 Not true. Women love the man they actually love. Sometimes that’s the their husband if they married one they were in love with. And many times, he’s not.
2
No sh*t Sherlock. What do you think happens when people are conditioned to live for the Hive and advance its goals instead of what suits them as individuals? Pressure to marry asap to settle down, reproduce (read create the future labor force etc), fit in etc, just like everyone else! Eventually the truth surfaces - that the two were never a long-haul match to begin with and you discover you're way down in the affection line. This is the default, not the exception which is why divorce should be an entirely legitimate and honorable option, without this meaning that families should be abandoned.
1
@airthrowDBT Just like men.
1
@airthrowDBT Not an exclusively "men's space" until otherwise specified (check with Taraban) and not an whataboutism. Just pure realism. Expecting your "feel-good YT ego chamber" to remain 100% friendly to your fee-fees is the actual low value behavior. Whining about "men's spaces" where there isn't one doesn't score you any points in the manhood department. Make your point if you have one and respect other people's freedom to make theirs as they see fit. Alternatively, ignore the posts you don't like. When Taraban will want an exclusively male audience, he will take measures towards that end. As of now, there is zero indication this is what he wants.
1
All marital selection is a roll of dice. Relationships with men are a form of gambling too. They advertise quite a bit of "relational" stuff before marriage, only to offer minimal actual content post-wedding. When material security, reproduction, social standing and other carrots like this quit being ultimate goals of marriage, people will be free to focus on entering into a relationship for actual love: that person himself/herself, not proxies. Until then, love is NOT what most will get. Proxies of love are all sorts of pragmatic advantages except love itself. So get your goals straight. If you want love, replace the institution of Marriage with the Institution of Love and proceed in consequence. Why would anyone expect love from the Institution of Marriage - an inherently creepy notion based on a "contract?" Never seen one of those, btw. I saw a license but not "a contract" for what one is owed in exchange of what they provide and give up. It's a darn business arrangement prone to manipulation, transactionalism, materialism, maximum control, and basal self-interest (not even the lofty kind), like any other business deal. Know what you are getting into and make it clear to the next generations too. We should quit this BS about mixing marriage and love. Two completely different things which only overlap for the lucky ones. (No, love is not "a choice." Let's get rid of this nonsense too while we're at it). In fact, even a relationship that starts out with love is likely to turn toxic once governed by the marital control and manipulation. If a spouse's needs change or evolve as a result of personal growth, coupled with failure to grow on the part of the other spouse, and when they end up feeling lonelier than with a scorpion, perhaps they shouldn't be shocked. Older generations should quit being such disingenuous, hypocritical B-s who hide this reality from the unassuming young. Make it clear and let the young decide if they want to keep doing the "Institution of Marriage." It really is a farce (which doesn't mean pair-bonding is). At least they will do so at their own informed peril, since humans will always secretly yearn for love, not just the facade to put up in the eyes of the Hive or strictly material advantages. Teach people that ending a bad marriage, even a mediocre one, for actual love that does not need an official prison is, in fact, the right thing to do. Children or not. No one said "break family." Only crappy, mediocre, unfulfilling marriages need to go. To promote these is to lack reverence for life. There's no better, healthier lesson for the next generation than "don't waste your life in an unfulfilling marriage". Society has institutionalized marriage idolatry and marital masochism as a "virtue" to be passed down to the next generation ("staying together for the children"). Pure sickness.
1
@emausderratsuchende5447 Thank you. Now let's convince the rest of society. The Marriage Dogma is one of the most potent drugs society has ever invented. Probably THE most potent.
1
Thank you. Same for women when they bet on men. You don't know something or someone until you do.
1
What were the rewards before? That you married a hole & incubator which society guaranteed you cannot lose?
1
Excellent point.
1
What's a vow? Idiotic symbolism that traps people in relationships that can turn out entirely irrational at some point, thereby destroying lives. Symbolic living is mental illness. When something clearly doesn't work anymore, doubling down on it ad infinitum due to a "vow" (read symbol) is absolute mental illness.
1
Yes, 100% yes. Red flags do no matter because they are canceled out by the yellow flags of society which pressure people into rationalizing the relationship so they can align with what everyone else does: settle down, reproduce/create labor force, parent, put up the facade of social integration and "normal" life. Minding red flags means waiting for the one that makes both your mind and your heart sing and that takes times for most, and a lot more for some than others. The Hive doesn't like the "mind the rd flags" approach since it needs everyone to get with the program asap. The young are too fresh and innocent to understand what is being done to them.
1
Change your mindset. Start a family without marriage. If you love each other you'll stay together anyway. If not, you will keep the family, not also the relationship. The two are 100% distinct concepts. Future generations would benefit enormously from understanding that distinction. What kind of adult is fine knowing they were the reasons for their parents' continued misery? Only a psychopath, which is exactly what we are passing down from one generation to the next when we lock people in "vowed" marriages.
1
So what should they see instead? Closed-in, poor communicator, un-inspirational men who neglect their needs in a relationship?
1
@lamario There's no "in between" when it comes to love. If you just want a practical arrangement, sure, but that has noting to do with love.
1
@tizodd6 Yep.
1
@rickyc46 You'd think it would be so obvious!...
1
Nope. Born. Always born.
1
It goes both ways.
1
@peterellicott58 People get caught up in the good/bad dichotomy but this is ridiculous bc with the exception of seriously deranged people, most people are a mixture of good and bad so that’s irrelevant. In relationships the most important aspect is compatibility: how “well-matched” the couple is. A poor match can easily make both believe that other is “the bad guy,” read “inadequate” in some way. Compatibility in relationships is a severely under-estimated concept. When things go south it is almost always because the two can’t meet each other’s natural needs.
1
Nothing wrong with wanting to feel whole or complete. That comes from being in the company of an actually compatible person as opposed to all sorts of half as**ed relationships (default for most marriages) where people try to "make it work" and compromise their internal integrity.
1
@prashanthb6521 Not true. If it's actual love, it doesn't have ebbs and flows. Moods and other momentary states do, not love.
1
Some partners resist or do not have the capacity to "grow together" so that relation is toast by default. This is why divorce must always be an option.
1
Same for men. They feign interest in having an actual relationships in the courtship process and post wedding they make it clear they "want to be alone, just not by themselves." (also said by Orion).
1
The abstract is real even if not "concrete." Best things are abstract.
1