Home › Forums › Philosophy › The best answer to NAWALT: WANALT?
This topic contains 32 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by Vlad 1 year, 10 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
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.
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
or simply “all women are c~~~s who will screw you over” (false).
http://www.leavemeansleave.eu
…
http://www.leavemeansleave.eu
…
http://www.leavemeansleave.eu
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.
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
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
Anonymous38Nah its about what THAT means in the context. Until THAT is defined the ALL part is senseless. Like WHAT?
Spell it out for me.
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
Anonymous38In 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.
Anonymous38But 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.
NAWALT in the context is a negative of AWALT: the relationship will be net positive.
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
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.
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
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678