Lessons learned from past relationships

lunchmoney

Woodpecker
Over the weekend, I broke things off with a girl I was dating (see my thread on the foodie girl if you like), and reflecting this week I learned a few things about myself. First, I absolutely ignored a few red flags that were present as early as 2-3 weeks after meeting her. Second, I did not vet her social circle/family close enough. As time wore on, I realized the people she was closest too did not have the same values/belief system I did.

What was the lesson(s) you learned from your last relationship?
 
Some things I learned from my last relationship:
- If a girl won't come to church with you when you just start dating, she probably never will.
- "I do whatever my parents tell me to" is just as much of a red flag in an adult woman as "I have no relationship with my parents."
- Be wary of dating outside your social class.
 
-Never pedestalize the woman you are seeing. When you are constantly doing favors, buying gifts/meals she will grow to believe that she is truly above you. This killed attraction from a woman I once dated.

-Don't lose sight of your own goals/aspirations. It is easy to fall into infatuation for some guys.....so much so that you lose track of the other important aspects of your life (health, family, job, etc)

-Always be qualifying. The longer you are with someone the more they reveal their true self to you. If you keep that rational mind turned on it is easy to spot red flags and possibly save you years of heartache or marriage to the wrong person....both of which can have lasting negative consequences.

On a side note....don't enter a relationship with women on dating apps like tinder or bumble. I truly believe this is a disqualifier and that these apps attracts a certain type of woman (not the kind to be in a relationship with).

Good luck guys
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Don't do anything sexual unless you're married and trying to get your wife pregnant (i.e. follow Biblical sexual morality).

That is not something I learned from a specific relationship, but rather from life in general.

And yes, it is way easier said than done.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Are you a bible person, or are you just being sarcastic?
I believe in Christ (if that's what you mean by "Bible person").

Of course I'm not being sarcastic about something as serious as sexual morality and God.

Why would you assume it might be sarcasm? Does the idea of a strict sexual morality seem ridiculous to your modern eyes?

Maybe there are some questions you should be asking yourself about the modern world and its beliefs about morality and sexuality.

I'm not saying this because I think I'm better than anyone. My life was ruined because of my modernist "just-do-what-feels-good" attitude (as I've discussed on the forum) and I am only recently beginning to get my life back thanks to Christ.
 
Last edited:
I believe in Christ (if that's what you mean by "Bible person").

Of course I'm not being sarcastic about something as serious as sexual morality and God.

Why would you assume it might be sarcasm? Does the idea of a strict sexual morality seem ridiculous to your modern eyes?

Maybe there are some questions you should be asking yourself about the modern world and its beliefs about morality and sexuality.

I'm not saying this because I think I'm better than anyone. My life was ruined because of my modernist "just-do-what-feels-good" attitude (as I've discussed on the forum) and I am only recently beginning to get my life back thanks to Christ.
I'm not sure what mortality has to do with sexuality.

In any case, if I were female I might take a similar attitude to what you say as regards sex. But as a male I get a sense of achievement out of seducing a girl. There's also a huge amount to be learned about women from seducing them. It really makes you open your eyes the whole way - and I'm not saying that in a cynical way.

But for some reason it seems you put sex in the same bracket as other things people do just to "feel good". To me that seems like going to the opposite extreme. Are you saying you'll remain sexless for the rest of your life if you don't meet "the one"? (assuming you're not already married that is). And is that realistic for a man? while also staying away from porn?
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I'm not sure what mortality has to do with sexuality.
That's like saying "I'm not sure what food has to do with nourishment."

If it isn't obvious to you, then I don't know what to say.

In any case, if I were female I might take a similar attitude to what you say as regards sex. But as a male I get a sense of achievement out of seducing a girl. There's also a huge amount to be learned about women from seducing them. It really makes you open your eyes the whole way - and I'm not saying that in a cynical way.
Well, that was definitely the prevailing view on the old Roosh V. Forum.

But for some reason it seems you put sex in the same bracket as other things people do just to "feel good". To me that seems like going to the opposite extreme. Are you saying you'll remain sexless for the rest of your life if you don't meet "the one"? (assuming you're not already married that is). And is that realistic for a man? while also staying away from porn?
I've talked about my personal situation on other threads, but the short answer is yes. Men should remain sexless until married (including no porn or masturbation) and then not use contraception methods when they have sex with their wife.
 
That's like saying "I'm not sure what food has to do with nourishment."

If it isn't obvious to you, then I don't know what to say.
Whoops. I miss-read morality as mortality!
I've talked about my personal situation on other threads
Well it's a lot easier for you to tell someone younger than you that they shouldn't have sex, when you yourself have already had sex (albeit during a period when your life was being ruined).

Men should remain sexless until married (including no porn or masturbation) and then not use contraception methods when they have sex with their wife.
That can only mean one thing. That you have more wet dreams than me!
 
Some things I learned from my last relationship:
- If a girl won't come to church with you when you just start dating, she probably never will.
- "I do whatever my parents tell me to" is just as much of a red flag in an adult woman as "I have no relationship with my parents."
- Be wary of dating outside your social class.

I find this mainly to be the case when dating down class. Many women will use their looks to get out of poverty. While wealthier women offer their own set of, let's say "unique" issues, impoverished women are trained to use beauty to quench their greed.
 

Max Roscoe

Kingfisher
One of the contradictions I struggle with concerning relationships is that while I generally believe that dating doesn't work, I also learn a lot from each failed relationship and feel I am better equipped for the next relationship.

I suppose the answer is that you lean on your family, her family, and your church for support as a young couple.

The most recent thing I learned from my last relationship was to look closely at a girl's social circle. Their ambitions, hobbies, behavior, tell you what your girl values. And of course while I'm much better at noting red flags, there is a tendency to dismiss them, particularly in the early stages when you are enamored with the girl, so trusting your own observations is very important.
 
One of the contradictions I struggle with concerning relationships is that while I generally believe that dating doesn't work, I also learn a lot from each failed relationship and feel I am better equipped for the next relationship.

I suppose the answer is that you lean on your family, her family, and your church for support as a young couple.

The most recent thing I learned from my last relationship was to look closely at a girl's social circle. Their ambitions, hobbies, behavior, tell you what your girl values. And of course while I'm much better at noting red flags, there is a tendency to dismiss them, particularly in the early stages when you are enamored with the girl, so trusting your own observations is very important.

I had a debate on USENET some time ago as to what is broken with modern dating. Dating, or "courtship" is useful but the problem is that modern dating is more focused to PUA/"simping" than towards marriage.

For starters, the "traditional" dinner date of today was controversial a century ago. In the book "Gone with the Wind", Rhett Butler set off a scandal by being out unescorted with a woman and not marrying her. Note: NOTHING happened. But to take a woman out, give her something of value, was to imply a quid-pro-quo expectation of sex. Much like the modern notion of Valentine's day and Halloween, this spread from the USA to the rest of the western world.

Watch Godfather and Michael Correleon's courtship with Appollonia: He visited the house and spent time with the family and her. In normal circumstances, this would take months, even years. The suitor brings a small gift for the ladies of the house (bread/cake for the mother, perhaps a small token for the girl) but otherwise, the family fed him. Heck, there's even tales in Greek mythology of suiters exploiting this custom to mooch off of Odysseus' wife for months.

With no quid-pro-quo arrangement in place, the PUA had no "leverage" to hit on the woman for casual sex. He'd be subjected to the scrutiny of the entire family for months. It's like a long-term lie detector test.

Also in the states, there's this sh*t test of some fathers physically threatening the young suiters in lieu of traditional hospitality. They'd let the young man take the girl out and would even presume she might sleep with him, but they'd threaten him if he went through with it. Doesn't it make sense to just keep them at the home in the first place? (Ironically, this sh*t test only made the "bad boys" that much more exciting for the rebellious young women.)

With traditional courtship being less transactional in nature, there was also less commodification. Alpha male studs could certainly court many women at once, just as attractive women also had many suiters, but the clock was ticking for both. They'd have to weigh all the factors in what mattered in a marriage: The man's looks/money and for the women, their looks, personality, and what else they had to offer.

And note: women were expected to offer something. Sometimes a dowry (if the daughter wasn't that good looking, and they wanted a handsome man to take interest, well..) and sometimes pretty women only went to handsome and/or wealthy men. Just like in real dating. But at least these attractive women didn't get a dozen chads to run a chain on her before settling down. Also, they went into marriage with the expectation that her relatives and family observed that a good looking guy could be a jerk, so they wouldn't "white knight" feel pity for her if she made a shallow choice. And vice versa.

Traditional courtship did NOT eliminate materialistic and consumerist demands in relationships. Heck, they helped make them worse. But looks and flash mattered less than long term stability.

But trying to restore this custom is sort of like trying in the midwest to restore trains without right-of-ways, train tracks, or a passenger base.

One other thing (edit): Women in particular, but many men as well (including myself), put too much emphasis on early red flags. That's because emotions run high where red flags can either be ignored or just as bad, exaggerated. My wife was a mess when I dated her the first few times (nerves). After all, the point of PUA game is precisely to portray a "cool/interesting" person seemingly without flaws. But in traditional courtship, allowing people to let their hair down allowed for a more fair judgement taking place over time (since BOTH men and women were expected and encouraged to court multiple suiters at once.)
 
I find this mainly to be the case when dating down class. Many women will use their looks to get out of poverty. While wealthier women offer their own set of, let's say "unique" issues, impoverished women are trained to use beauty to quench their greed.

What I found amusing about American women in particular was how amazingly poorly trained most of them are.

The book, The Rules, or basically Game for women, describes a set of negging protocols that are de-facto American culture:

1) Women shouldn't approach men, be "too" available, friendly or sincere. Dating apps are wildly popular with men and less popular with American women for that reason. They don't like losing the edge of being seen as "not too available."

2) She shows up for the date and that's it. The man's job is to entertain her.

3) She SHOULD dress attractively to land a top grade man but this is 1920's to 1990's feminine Game. It's not uncommon to see tatted up, face pierced women from lower class families.

4) The women's covent kicks in with shaming ploys for women who are too open to men they desire, don't demand enough "put out too easily, even if it's not sex but rather emotional connection), or dress too attractively making other women look ugly by comparison.

Consequently, ironically, middle class women who dress well and take basic care of their appearance generally find it easier to marry men in their class (or higher) than lower class women whose "negging" offers little of value to men to bother marrying down to her.

One very interesting exception to that rule:

e-thots/OnlyFans.

At least with these women, they "get" they need to engage in actual marketing rather than waiting for the perfect fish to jump into their bucket. They dress attractively, generate interesting content, and at least put on a show of emotional empathy for the men they're shaking down.

Note that the covent feminist/paradigm of modern American matriarchy relies upon making men simps and women getting men to collectively transfer wealth to them (an ever shrinking pie at that since men were happy to do this anyway with just a little respect). On average, many women wind up either alone (40 something, no kids hitting the wall) similar to oil companies burning off excess oil rather than letting sales of it drop down the price.
 

R.G.Camara

Kingfisher
I learned that I kicked away a very marriageable, very beautiful girl very early on. Because I wanted to sow my wild oats.

And now,older and jaded, all that are left are sluts, nags, and shrews. And the fatty tatties.

I deeply regret what I did. And I take responsibility for what I did. But I was heavily influenced by porn and pop culture, both of which told me to bang as many women as possible and have wild, uninhibited lust run amock. And those things also told me that having a family and children early was a LIFE RUINER OMG NOOOO!

I have quit porn (Thank the Lord), but I am still slowly feeling my brain rewire from it (25 years of 5-hour porn days, every day, warps your brain a lot). I still have a lot of trouble kicking masturbation to the curb, and that, too, inhibits me from truly going after marriage and children and happiness. And I avoid pop culture as much as possible; being older, its not targeted to me as much as when I was 15-25. And I stay away from one-night stands and casual sex.

I thank God for helping me get this far. But He has also shown me what I lost: a chance at early blissful married happiness, had I only shut the world out and took God and family in.

I pray I get another chance.
 

R.G.Camara

Kingfisher
What I found amusing about American women in particular was how amazingly poorly trained most of them are.

The book, The Rules, or basically Game for women, describes a set of negging protocols that are de-facto American culture:

1) Women shouldn't approach men, be "too" available, friendly or sincere. Dating apps are wildly popular with men and less popular with American women for that reason. They don't like losing the edge of being seen as "not too available."

2) She shows up for the date and that's it. The man's job is to entertain her.

3) She SHOULD dress attractively to land a top grade man but this is 1920's to 1990's feminine Game. It's not uncommon to see tatted up, face pierced women from lower class families.

4) The women's covent kicks in with shaming ploys for women who are too open to men they desire, don't demand enough "put out too easily, even if it's not sex but rather emotional connection), or dress too attractively making other women look ugly by comparison.

Consequently, ironically, middle class women who dress well and take basic care of their appearance generally find it easier to marry men in their class (or higher) than lower class women whose "negging" offers little of value to men to bother marrying down to her.

One very interesting exception to that rule:

e-thots/OnlyFans.

At least with these women, they "get" they need to engage in actual marketing rather than waiting for the perfect fish to jump into their bucket. They dress attractively, generate interesting content, and at least put on a show of emotional empathy for the men they're shaking down.

Note that the covent feminist/paradigm of modern American matriarchy relies upon making men simps and women getting men to collectively transfer wealth to them (an ever shrinking pie at that since men were happy to do this anyway with just a little respect). On average, many women wind up either alone (40 something, no kids hitting the wall) similar to oil companies burning off excess oil rather than letting sales of it drop down the price.

Western women these days take PRIDE in not being able to cook, being sluts, getting drunk, not having children, murdering their children, and manipulating men while denigrating them in front of others.

Let me repeat that: they are PROUD of being so disgusting, anti-social, and unfeminine.

A woman of the 1950s (outside of those in brothels) would be ashamed and horrified of their sex's behavior if you put one in a time machine and zoomed them here. The 1950s women would be embarrassed for their gender's poor behavior today, and try to apologize for it.

That's pretty much the only thing you need to say about the worth of women today versus the 1950s.

It's easy to see why the monk/anchorite/recluse life became so attractive to many men during the heyday of the Roman orgy.
 
Top