The best answer to NAWALT: WANALT?

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

If you find a female that is temporarily NAWALT, that seems a cut above the rest, and you are not a monk, then by all means CAUTIOUSLY date her, but DO NOT MARRY or COHABITATE or IMPREGNATE.

But NEVER suffer from the illusion she will necessarily *STAY* NAWALT.

NEVER be in a position (MARRIED, COHABITATING or IMPREGNATING) that she can take advantage of when she flips away from seeming like a NAWALT.

Furthermore, consider that PUTTING YOURSELF in that position (MARRIED, COHABITATING or IMPREGNATING) may actually DECREASE the time it takes her to cease being the NAWALT unicorn that you perceive her to be.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Well it’s an act Ranger to draw in their victim then when they feel the time is right where they can extract the most and or cause the most damage they show their true colours.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

or simply “all women are c~~~s who will screw you over” (false).

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

…

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

…

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Men shout “AWALT! AWALT!” as a justification of their life choice or inability to get a woman (TFL). Going monk as a choice is fine, commendable even, but if you think it’s cos “all women are bad” you’re (nearly) as bad as a feminist.

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve no doubt that people who cannot see the nuance in what I’m saying will align my post with a typical trad con view, someone who “believes in unicorns”. Well, I’m not gonna waste my time trying to make inferior minds understand my point.

Just ignore the AWALT NAWALT debate, it’s bulls~~~. F~~~ all that, just go your own way.

We understand what you are saying entirely, a lot of us just don’t agree with you.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[VladParticipant 210]

I see here arguing about semantics of what “all” means…

Allow me to establish some frame of reference.

Absolute certainty of anything observable in experiment is impossible, proven by K. Popper.

You cannot say it “not exists” in experiment.
You can say the “probability of existence is less than X”, “amount of this is less than we can reliably determine, which is Y”.
How precisely should we determine that?

And we return here to the purpose of research in general. We do it so we can acquire data and plan our actions based on that.

So we need it precisely enough to make a decision.

And if variations of data within error margin lead to the same decision, the margin error is sufficiently narrow and precision achieved is enough to make the decision.

If we consider decision to never marry, as I have demonstrated, it doesn’t matter if some NAWALT exist, it doesn’t change anything in today’s reality from “absolute” AWALT and ultimately leads to the same decision.

So, for purpose of making decision to never marry AWALT statement is precise enough.

Or, in more PC way “While planning long term relationship with woman use AWALT as a rule of thumb”.

For investigating other aspects of communications with women it may be not so simple.

Marriage is the tomb of love (c)Giacomo Casanova

[Anonymous 38]

Nah its about what THAT means in the context. Until THAT is defined the ALL part is senseless. Like WHAT?

Spell it out for me.

[VladParticipant 210]

In the context of this topic, I believe THAT means “relationship of the woman with man will not be net positive”.

As net positive personally I define as: have a kid from her, which he can mentor, and not just seeing 1 a week, and not be stripped from more than half he has, including lost profit and costs for resulting neurological and psychological disorder treatment. Rather modest by middle of last century standards, but pretty darn hard to achieve nowadays.
If without a kid, I cannot imagine any net positive personal relationship with woman nowadays.

Is that precise enough?

Marriage is the tomb of love (c)Giacomo Casanova

[Anonymous 38]

Vlad wrote:

In the context of this topic, I believe THAT means “relationship of the woman with man will not be net positive”.

As net positive personally I define as: have a kid from her, which he can mentor, and not just seeing 1 a week, and not be stripped from more than half he has, including lost profit and costs for resulting neurological and psychological disorder treatment. Rather modest by middle of last century standards, but pretty darn hard to achieve nowadays.
If without a kid, I cannot imagine any net positive personal relationship with woman nowadays.

Is that precise enough?

Thanks. In that case that is ostensibly false, because there are relationships which last and where both parties get their needs met. Rare, granted, but it’s completely dishonest to claim it never happens.

So then NAWALT by your standard.

[Anonymous 38]

But actually you are talking more about the odds of a relationship lasting than what a woman is actually like.

I think all women are like that – that being hypergamous. if you’re red pilled enough you can mitigate the risks however.

[VladParticipant 210]

NAWALT in the context is a negative of AWALT: the relationship will be net positive.

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. In that case that is ostensibly false, because there are relationships which last and where both parties get their needs met. Rare, granted, but it’s completely dishonest to claim it never happens.

Well, ofc NAWALTs by my definition do exist, which I’ve mentioned in the opening post. And certainly some of them manage to remain NAWALT to the point of menopause where their hypergamy mostly ends.
What I point out is their amount is significantly small to not make result of marriage risk-benefit assessment different from those where we believe ALL women are that.

Marriage is the tomb of love (c)Giacomo Casanova

[VladParticipant 210]

Anonymous wrote:

But actually you are talking more about the odds of a relationship lasting than what a woman is actually like.

Because it can be analyzed statistically. What woman “is actually like” is more of personal preference, which every1 should establish for himself individually.

Anonymous wrote:

I think all women are like that – that being hypergamous. if you’re red pilled enough you can mitigate the risks however.

You can ofc. I have a living example from friend of mine. She tried to rip him off, and she regretted that badly. He never was one living in illusions…

Marriage is the tomb of love (c)Giacomo Casanova

[Author]

Posts