The posts that got me a 1 week ban from RooshVForum
Posted by xsplat on August 1, 2013
The manosphere is abuzz with the Mark Minter Marriage Scandal. Mark enjoyed posting long, thoughtful anti-marriage rants, and had gathered enough of a following to be considered somewhat of an anti-marriage cult leader. Now he is engaged to be married. Some were pissed off at this, and found his hypocritical action to be akin to a betrayal, not only of his own principles, but of his very essence of manhood, and the entirety of the male tribe.
I always spoke out against his rants, from day one, as coming from the viewpoint of a guy who had never known what it feels like to run successful LTR game on a woman devoted and hooked. His ideas were partially true, but one sided and extreme. He denied to all and to himself that pump and dump was not enough; secretly, he wanted intimacy. Like nearly all male humans do.
Here are my comments from an RVF thread about it. My comments got me a 7 day ban there, but more surprisingly got Pitt a 1 day ban. The thread was also locked right after the bans came down. I can only assume Pitts ban was for disagreeing with the moderators viewpoint. You can read the whole thread if you want to read them in context.
RE: Mark Minter is getting married?
So according to his ex he’s broke, and there is speculation that there is money in Kates family. So divorce rape may not be an issue for him.
When his fan club was huge I spoke out against his extremist anti-intimacy views, until I got bored of stating the obvious. Now, as others have noted, his extremism was a sign of instability. It was not a sign of a mature deep knowledge of the way things work in the world. I never saw him as wise that way, although others took him as a leader with wisdom, I spoke out as best I could to point out that he was precisely not that. He was just a guy who wasn’t great at relationships and maybe not even cut out for them, who insisted that his problems were the fault of the system and of women.
It was on him. Regardless of women or the system, it was still on him. And worse people than him have gotten over worse divorces and went on to healthy relationships. His attitude was that it was foolish to even think of trying.
I like his writing ability, and would be happy to have him in my circle of friends, but his ideas were immature. An old guy with relationship immaturity.
And honestlly, ya, it bothered me to see so many guys give the guy Mentor-Dad status. Having things not work out for you doesn’t give you knowledge of the way the world works.
I would have thought that people would want mentors who had success that they wanted to emulate. Instead the pity party is winning in politics, as if an internet support group is what people need in their lives.
You cannot separate a moral teaching from the person who makes the teaching, because the person is the only standard by which we can judge a teaching by.
I like your argument, and have used something similar with regards to feminists debating whether dominance/submissive sex is acceptable to a real feminist.
Whoever has the best sex gets to comment on sex. It is about how you are actually living your life that matters – what holds the most truth and AT THE SAME TIME the most pleasure and life satisfaction that wins the argument.
It’s not enough to be satisfied and happy with delusions.
It’s not enough to be miserable with truth.
Follow mentors who are happy with truth. Whoever is having the best sex wins. What good is adhering to feminist principles and morals if it means your sex life suffers? What good is being an upright moral man if it makes you and those around you miserable? If your morals make you and those around you less happy, change your morals. There are two bottom lines; 1) life satisfaction and 2) truth. Two wings of a bird.
Also, you don’t learn how the world works by failure alone. Would you study with street bums to learn how to be an entrepeneur? Really, take a close look. People value commiseration for it’s own sake, and thrive on a group pity party, and then call that wisdom.
Wisdom is SUCCEEDING.
NOT pointing out what fails.
Re-evaluate your mentors, and even your companions. Do you want to BE like them? Are they examples of life satisfaction and truth?
I guess for guys who believed in Marks extremist rantings as Truth, his hypocrisy is a weakness and he is betraying core good principles.
But his rantings were never truth. He is now, as before, trying to maximize his happiness. Only he’s taking a different strategy.
Sounds to me like it might be a fine strategy. Kate might actually improve his financial situation. He’ll get laid. There will be ups and downs, but chances are for a few years at least he’ll be better off, and it doesn’t seem possible he can be financially harmed.
So it’s actually probably a good choice for him.
The only guys dissapointed in his choices will be those who bought into his bullshit extremist immature one sided failure based views.
You really think he’ll do better on the dating market? And for how long? I mean will HE do better. Not some mythological man. Him. Mark Minter. Mark Minter is probably getting about as good as HE can get.
At least he’s finally owning that part of himself that seeks intimacy. He came across as a zealot at odds with his own hidden desires in his anti-intimacy fuck-women rants. Of COURSE he was lonely. Duh!
Honestly, I still have a hard time understanding this anti-intimacy cult that has gripped huge swaths of the manosphere. It’s like guys are saying that you can learn to be higher value than the woman you date, can learn to push her buttons, can even learn to be great in bed and great with women, but you can never learn how to have successful fulfilling relationships with them. Pump and dump the bitches! Especially Western Lizards!
No confidence in the ability to train your pimp hand to train up a woman to be useful in the long term.
It’s a one sided attitude that denies huge parts of your humanity. As Mark has proven, you can’t do that for long. Something will have to give.
From a ReturnOfKings coment by Supramax:
Supramax: Roosh, and the rest of ya, c’mon, Really. This is like a friend of yours who got married, got bitterly divorced, had some views and expressed those views to ‘never get married again’ (etc. etc.) and then found happiness witha woman and changed his tune. Love conquers all man. Smile and wish him the best. A man can change his mind and he’s happy. So what if he ‘went against’ his previous writings on the institution of marriage?’ SO WHAT ? Oh, and she’s a single mom ? Well maybe it will not only be good for the kid but for him as well – does that not strike you all as another possibly beautiful new relationship ? What if you were that young boy with a single Mom and she married a good man that you liked and liked you and could bring a lot to your life ? What about that kid ? What if Mark Minter benefits a lot from that boy-stepfather relationship too ? Is that in violation of some other ‘manosphere rules ‘ ? A lot of y’all are becoming Taliban like anti-marriage extremists. No no, you’ll say, “he wrote his views and went against them !!” so fu%&ing what ! He fell in love. Lighten up, really – you’re waaaaaay to invested in this.
“Manosphere Taliban” is what I hereby dub y’all Smile
I agree and just don’t understand those who are put off by the guy not sticking to his principles. What the fuck good are principles if they get in the way of improving your happiness and station in life and the happiness of those around you?
And those who feel betrayed, as if he was on your team and now joined the other side. What’s up with that? Is it the men versus the women? Is that what’s going on?
Seriously, there is some fucked up sense of allegiences and principles gripping the manosphere. It is NOT men versus women. It’s each man for himself. And principles be damned.
Just be happy, the best you can.
That’s all we are doing here.
He probably made a good move. Good on him. He didn’t betray you, and his principles were not worth holding on to.
worldwidetraveler Wrote: Principles isn’t something you toss away at any inconvenience. They are what hold you true to yourself. You only know what type of man you are when things get tough but you stick to your principles. When you easily discard them for “happiness”, you are not a man in my eyes.
Didn’t Gandhi get away with saying something that could be paraphrased as “principles are for those who can’t re-organize their views?”
Principles. What are principles? Unchanging beliefs. What good are unchanging beliefs? Well, they make you feel like you live in a safe, secure world, where you have some bedrock of SOMETHING to hold on to.
That’s not a useful feeling.
It’s better to be flexible and adaptable.
The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.
If not marrying is a principle that diminishes happiness then it is a principle that is in need of updating for a fresh principle.
Views change, and if not, the man is too stiff and trying to solidify Truth and then rest satisfied with that solidification forever. Even Newton couldn’t solidify Truth, and he was a big wig. What makes you think any one else should try to solidify Truth? It’s a fools errand. We must adapt and change our views and principles, as new information and even as new opportunities arise.
Wanting to have a bedrock of solid beliefs is for the religiously inclined, not for seekers of truth and happiness.
Quote:Looking back at his previous writing and you think jumping from one extreme to another is “personal growth”?
I’m not saying if he’s taken a step towards personal growth or not, but at least he’s owning that part of himself that wants to bond with a woman and have steady female companionship. That, at least, is a step in a good direction. Whether his tactic to achieve that aim is the best strategy or not, I won’t comment. At least he now admits to some needs that he previously denied. At least he’s accepting his humanity now. He’s not the autonomous robot that he wished he were.
worldwidetraveler Wrote: Xsplat, would you trust a business partner with flexible principles?
Depends what the principle is. If it’s not stealing from me, then of course that would not be in my best interest. If he waffles on marriage or not, that would not influence my trust of his dealings with me.
Roosh Wrote: It’s pretty clear to me that many guys are siding not with what Minter did, but who he is. The older guys who are married (or want to get married), want to give him a beta pass, because they see a part of themselves in him. That’s too bad, because I think a man’s word is the most important thing he has.
Umm, did I miss something? Did he make a promise to you that he broke? Did the two of you make some sort of contractual arrangement that would benefit the both of you, that he went back on?
No, no, he didn’t.
Roosh Wrote: A man who places no stock in another man’s word has no word himself, which is why he sees no value in it.
Oh, come on with your absolutism. You don’t even believe it yourself.
WHICH word? Any word? A man is not a man if he changes his opinion?
You don’t even believe what you are saying.
The words that are important and the contracts we make with each other.
Break those and you lose trust for further contracts.
Changing your mind about your personal values or personal strategies has nothing to do with going against your so called word.
But you know that.
Worldwidetraveller: If your partner was anti stealing doesn’t mean he would continue to think that way if we keep in mind the flexibility component…
Your trying to make a meta principle that does not apply. It breaks down when applied in the broad fashion that you are attempting to use it.
People change their minds. I would never hire an employee who was incapable of changing his perspective.
Your meta principle can not be applied so broadly. You have to look at things LESS broadly.
I don’t want people stealing from me. That is a less broad statement than saying that I don’t want people to ever change their mind about ANYTHING.
worldwidetraveller: Just like happiness. There are many ways to being happy without having to change your principles in the process.
It tells a lot of people who think Mark is simply changing his view of life.
Principles shminciples. A principle is nothing but a world view and strategy and a tactic. It is not some corenerstone of your very being. All world views and strategies and tactics are and SHOULD be subject to change, as circumstances and opportunities and information changes.
Oh, wait a minute. Do you believe in the Bible or something?
worldwidetraveler Wrote: Next you will say families don’t play an important role in our society.
You make no distinction between Mark breaking a contract with you personally, and him changing his mind about his own fucking business. Not your business, his own fucking business.
He didn’t break any contract with YOU.
He didn’t break his word to YOU.
He didn’t break a contract with ANYONE.
He took a different tactic.
Your business how?
You dissaprove, and therefore in your mind he is WRONG, and not just wrong, but morally wrong.
Who voted you as worldwide-moral-arbiter?
It’s probably pointless to try to get you visualize this, but what the hell. It’s only an investment in a few typed words.
Why are “principles” so sacrosanct to you? Why can’t they change? What makes a “principle” any different than a viewpoint or strategy?
And why does Marks previous insistence on never marrying count as a “principle”?
If Manboobs suddenly reversed his “principles” you’d be applauding him for seeing the light.
This idea of “principles” is just a red herring. He changed is mind and you disagree with his new viewpoint.
Anybody here arguing in favor of principles is holding a mental map that is logically inconsistent. You applaud when people change their principles to those that you believe in, and vilify them when they change their principles to be against what you believe in.
It has nothing to do with constancy of principle and everything to do with agreeing with you or not.
LeCorbusier Wrote: In particular the example I gave about the soldier, why should soldiers not abandon their oaths when they are captured?
A soldier has made a contract with someone or some group.
In the example of Mark and his so called principles, he made a contract with no one.
You are trying to think meta when it is not appropriate. Meta principles do not always apply so broadly.
Samseau Wrote: Who the hell would trust a man who goes back on his own word?
If a man can’t keep a promise to himself, why would I trust him to keep a promise to me?
Minter’s defenders have about as much sense as any other defender of a hypocrite.
His own word to himself? Obviously you are dead serious, and not kidding. It would not take much effort to point out the logical inconsistency in this to you. As you are a human you’ve changed your mind about many things that you once believed. We all do.
And I don’t remember Mark ever framing his don’t-get-married rants as “I promise to myself I will never get married”.
And even if he did – listen to me here, if you can – even if he did – how is that any different than a manboob promising to himself to never learn game, and then later seeing the light and being converted to a better way to live?
If the latter happened you would NEVER use that against him, or try to question his trustworthyness based on his NEW perspective on things. You would applaud him for not being a big calcified bone brain, and for embracing difficult changes.
Change is difficult.
Change is embraced by the manosphere.
Unless its a disapproved of change. Then all of sudden the VERY IDEA of CHANGE itself is WRONG! It’s a breach of honor! It’s the same as tearing down family values! It’s the same as a soldier switching sides! Oh noos! Oh my God!
LeCorbusier Wrote: If I understand xsplat correctly then if Mark had entered an agreement with the forum to never marry xsplat would agree with us. The issue for him is the lack of a formal declaration of agreement. An interesting distinction to say the least.
That would be a very odd contract to have, and I’d think it a silly contract, but at least then I’d agree that you’d feel entitled to seeing him as breaching a contract.
As it is some are seeing him as breaching a non-existent contract.
A War You Cannot Win Wrote: Admittedly, I don’t have many morals. And of the morals I do have you can argue they’re not particularly virtuous to begin with. I believe there’s a firm dichotomy between reorganization your beliefs and hypocrisy. This smells more like hypocrisy to me.
Sure it’s hypocricy. I agree.
Maybe he’ll be better off for it.
There are worse things in life than being a hypocrite. Being a lonely broke ass old guy living your sisters spare room is one.
LeCorbusier Wrote: I guess if I go on TV and rant against pedophilia and then it’s revealed that I fuck 12 year old boys on the weekend, then I’ve just “changed”.
He he. So far Marks hypocrisy has been likened to switching sides in a war, being against family values, and pedophilia.
You guys sure are serious about never ever ever marrying, aren’t you? It’s as serious as pedophilia?
LeCorbusier Wrote: I am just applying your principle of “people change” to more and more cases to see if it holds. It appears that it doesn’t judging by your reaction. I am not saying the man is the same as a pedophile or a war traitor, I just want to show you that the idea of hypocrisy and your word means something. And you have admitted that he is a hypocrite so it seems we agree on the fundamental principle.
You are jumping back and forth between meta and specific, and not understanding when one approach holds or not.
I keep saying again and again, you can’t apply the meta principle of never changing your principles so broadly. It does not work and will only lead to inconsistencies in your world view.
The very idea of immutable principles can NOT be applied so broadly.
The specific principle of not fucking young boys and sticking to that principle can not be used in a different context for a different idea. It would not make sense to therefore conclude that a person should never go from being a manboob to a PUA, for instance.
Celtic Wrote: It’s likely his life may end up proving the points he posted about.
I think he attracted her because he was high status in the manosphere. Now, he is an outcast whos earned the scorn of the manosphere. Woman don’t tend to like low status outcasts- so how long is this marriage going to last?
I suspect if his relationship fails it will be because of his undeveloped LTR game. I would not underestimate Marks ability to be alpha in other contexts. He’s a gifted writer, and very smart. I wouldn’t give the manosphere total credit for his shining above others.
Samseau Wrote: It totally depends on the conversion. If it was filled with heartfelt apologies perhaps I would consider by otherwise I’d pay him no respects.
If I were a recently converted manboob, I doubt I’d come crawling to you in apology. I doubt I’d give a fuck what your opinion of my change in strategy was.
The idea of immutable principles is not what I am discussing. I am just saying that anyone who makes bold declarations about something repeatedly and then renegs on those declarations should be considered a hypocrite. That is all I am saying. I am not discussing the overall principle of never changing your views. Indeed, views do change. For better or worse. I am arguing that regardless of the direction of that change, an individual is a hypocrite. It may indeed be as you mentioned, that it is better overall for that person to be a hypocrite and have changed their beliefs than not. But they are still a hypocrite.
I’m fine with calling him a hypocrite.
I don’t see why guys take it so personally though. So he espoused one thing and did another?
What, like he BETRAYED you or something?
No, he did not betray you.
He did not betray himself.
He did not betray anyone.
He didn’t steal from you. He didn’t didle any young boys. He didn’t spit on the flag.
He was just a hypocrite.
Being a hypocrite is not a crime that has automatic equivalences to all other bad crimes. He was hypocritical ABOUT a SPECIFIC thing. Not about some OTHER thing. About a SPECIFIC thing.
Look, what he espoused to begin with was fucked up. So he betrayed fucked up principles.
His fucked up principles were not getting him what he wanted.
His whole schtick was fucked up, and guys want him to remain constant to his original fucked up ness.
Wow. What great friends you were to him.
What a great loss it is to him to lose your respect.
LeCorbusier Wrote: I’m glad you wrote this. “He was just a hypocrite.” To me hypocritical behavior is abhorrent. Even in a single instance like this, I feel it indicates something about the man in general. I could never trust a man like this or someone who thinks it is a small deal to be hypocritical. But I appreciate your view. A discussion like this is what I hoped for when I joined the forum- I haven’t been let down.
It does say a lot about Mark that he was hypocritical. But he had to be, though, didn’t he? He never owned his own emotional need for intimacy. He split that off from himself, and imputed it onto OTHER, weaker, less knowledgable men.
That was a huge mistake in self understanding.
What’s more, rather than just split off his own longings onto weaker men, he saw others doing the same thing, and used that as a means to gain an audience. He used that audience for attention for his creative urges. He used the needs of others for a community of like-minded-victims-of-fail as a claim to fame and status, to a claim to a readership.
Of course his stance was untenable. He was lonely. He could not keep up such a stance unless no one offered intimacy to him.
But given the choices of being discovered as lacking in self knowledge and therefore switching strategies by being a hypocrite to a previous stated stance that would never feed your repressed desires for intimacy, and sticking to your guns and avoiding intimacy and being lonely and broke with little hope of ever meeting as good an offer ever again, which would you choose?
No one wants to be hypocritical. And no one wants to be wrong, either. Mark was wrong about not wanting intimacy, therefore he had no choice but to eventually become a hypocrite.
Celtic Wrote: Only someone with no confidence at all would say such a thing. And someone with such little confidence has no hope of maintaining an LTR.
I feel this all proves the points he originally made about marriage. Clearly, his divorce broke him down so much and turned him into what he is.
Ya, that was really bad game, on his part. I agree with you that his LTR game will need a LOT of improvement.
master_thespian Wrote: I went back and read some of his longer comments and am baffled that anyone respected his opinions in the first place. He was definitely angry, and kept saying ‘don’t make the mistakes I made’.
While I understand that many men can relate to being in that position, that doesn’t make anything he said very helpful to anyone.
Yes, I think it is incontestable that Mark had desires that he hid from himself and the public. He stridently claimed to neither want nor need intimacy.
Therefore the life strategy that he admonished others to take had this gaping huge hole in it. Intimacy.
Therefore the life strategy he admonished others to take was FUCKED UP and useless.
Now, he may or may not be making the best possible strategic choice right now, but at least he can’t hide from his own desire for intimacy anymore. No matter what he does, from now on he’ll have to include that desire into his life plans.
I find it funny that you were complaining about your friend screwing you over and expect some sort of moral compass from them but have no problem being flexible when it comes to your own happiness.
You really don’t understand how to use analogies. You make associations and think that the associations are logical, but you don’t really understand how logic works.
Again, and again, and again, and again. You are trying to apply a meta principle onto specific situations where they do not hold.
People change their minds about things. All things. Even so called “principles”. And not all things that people change their mind about are equivalent or related. It’s not the SAME thing to change your mind about pedophilia as it is to change your mind about getting married as it is to change your mind about your religious beliefs. There is no principle of changing your mind about principles. That type of meta idea does not work. You are thinking by association and analogy and your very thinking process itself is flawed.
You are unable to see the utitility of a meta principle, and use it properly. You apply these meta-rules incorrectly. There is no principle about never changing principles. That idea will only lead to internal inconsistencies in your world view and/or calcified bone headed beliefs that will eventually go against your own and others interest.
In each instance of each belief, truth and utility must be weighed up individually. Not based on if changing your mind about pedophilia is wrong or not. Not by analogy or association. On it’s own merits, in light of all information, including new information.
LeCorbusier Wrote: Xsplat maybe you can expand on this instead of just restating it. Why is it not the same to change your mind about marriage (an issue concerning women) and pedophelia (an issue concerning children)?
You can answer the question yourself. Come up with 20 random things that a person might change their mind about. Then ask yourself how it being improper to change your mind about one of them affects it being improper to change your mind about another.
Each thing is weighed on it’s own merits.
How you feel about changing your mind about eating sugar is unrelated to how you feel about changing your mind about pedophilia. Changing a principle of being against inter-racial dating is unrelated to changing a principle of being against murder. Changing a principle of being against polygamy is unrelated to changing a principle of being against torture.
There is no overarching principle about never changing your mind about principles.
Each idea is weighed on it’s own merits.
We all actually live that way.
It’s just a failure of the thinking process that makes people think otherwise. If you notice your own life you’ll see for yourself this to be true.
No, I disagree with you here. If you change your mind about something, it doesn’t matter if you are public about it or not, and has nothing to do with trust.
And your analogy of pedophilia is not at all apt.
I would not trust a guy who was into pedophilia, full stop. Regardless of whether he was against it previously or not.
If some guy made a big deal about being anti-sugar, but later decided some sugar was actually fine, I would not therefore not trust him. He was public with his opinion, and publicly changed his mind. So what?
Thinking by analogy does not always work.
Remember, whoever brings Hitler into the argument loses.
From now on the same goes for pedophilia.
Are you suggesting that Mark secretly knew that he wanted intimacy? Could be, I don’t know.
I’ve already agreed with you that his actions were hypocritical.
Where we disagree seems to be whether knowledge that future actions would be out of line with ones previously stated views should alter a mans future actions. I see that all beliefs are subject to change, even publicly stated beliefs and even so called “principles”, whatever those are.
I personally don’t care if he was hypocritical. He lacked self knowledge, is my guess. I doubt he deliberately misled anyone.
I agree that his lack of self knowledge says something about the man. I disagree that this should be any impediment to him changing his mind.
I’d wager he still lacks self knowledge, and doesn’t even realize that his previous stance was anti-intimacy, and that his new action is based on wanting intimacy. He probably frames it to himself as some sort of mating strategy. Such out of focus views on his own inner workings suggests he’ll have a tough time with LTR game. He doesn’t even know how HE works, let alone how women work.
I may as well take the opportunity for a mild dig at some fellow forum members. Some guys truly believe that there is no possibility of engendering meaningful love and devotion out of a woman. The same guys seem unaware of any need inside of themselves for any real intimacy with women. Coincidence?
It’s interesting how instead of just arguing about if Marks actions are in his best interest or not, people want to talk about if him changing his tactic is itself somehow wrong.
I’ve mentioned that this trying to find fault in the meta-picture using analogies is an error in thinking, but I also think that it’s a form of dissimulation.
The issue is nothing other than if Mark is acting in his best interest or not. It’s a diversionary tactic to try to say that changing his mind is in itself somehow wrong, or a betrayal.
I think that some people “think” using emotions and associations and analogies, and they really don’t much care for how logically consistent their views are. They don’t care if changing your mind about one type of principle is a good thing, and changing your mind about another type of principle is a bad thing. If it’s a bad thing, then all of a sudden its about steadfastness of holding to the PRINCIPLE that is important. Not whether or not the original principle was stupid.
Marks original principles were stupid.
THAT is the issue.
No more dissimulation.
His ideas were FUCKED UP. Because they did not take into account his very real desire for intimacy.
And here is a little free armchair psychological counseling. I think there are people who get really antsy about Mark wanting intimacy, and feel betrayed because they want another True Believer in the Cause of Denying Intimacy as a Human Need.
True believers are angry at him for denouncing God.
He must be excommunicated! He blasphemed.
There is no God.
His ideas of avoiding intimacy were FUCKED UP.
He changed his principles because his principles were wrong.
Focus. Focus people. It’s not the issue that he changed his attitude.
The issue is that his stance was not giving him what he needed in his life. It was not giving him intimacy. Or even enough regular sex. Not to mention getting him out of his sisters house and into the house of a woman with a job.
His best interest is what matters. Not whether or not his viewpoint satisfies your personal desire to pretend that it’s noble and wise to avoid intimacy along with the other guys in your he-man-woman-haters-club-of-relationship-fail.
Now I’m not saying that getting married is the best option to get intimacy. But I consider reality to be the best option, and let’s be realistic. He’s a 58 year old broke ass dude living in his sisters house. Commitment is about the best thing he has to trade for sex right now.
Me, I’m going for huge wealth in my old age. I won’t have to get married – I’ll have better options.
But for him? Do you honestly begrudge the man for not living up to YOUR ideals, and taking an option that he considers in HIS best interest?
Principles my dissimulating ass.
People just don’t want to face their own fears of being a lonely old man, and so wish that he’d keep vociferously pretending that loneliness wasn’t a real problem, so that they don’t have to face their own nightmares. He shouldn’t have compromised his PRINCIPLES! He should have just sucked it up and been lonely and not gotten any pussy, save for the occasional 50 year old fat bitty! He should have stuck it out and day gamed!
He should have he should have he should have.
He should have acted in his best interest, that’s what he should have. And it looks very much like that’s exactly what he did.
The principle is his best interest. The principle is his happiness, and a mental map that holds as many facts as possible into a coherent world view. Happiness and truth. Those are the principles.
Not adhering to some facade of a persona you’d wish he’d keep up, to sustain YOUR best interest of living in delusion that intimacy doesn’t really matter.
Let’s see what happens to those guys here who eventually turn 58 and wind up in debt with no place of their own to stay, and how dear they then hold onto their principles of never offering commitment in return for sex and companionship. We’ll see how dear those principles are to you then. If your principles don’t serve you, or the ones you love, or anyone that matters to you at all, you’ll simply stop having them, that’s what.
Mark didn’t owe anyone here anything. I’d like to think he was honestly trying to help others, and thought that he was for the most part honestly self reporting his experience. His fault was not one of intention, it was one of introspection. He underestimated how much he valued and craved intimacy.
That’s a big error. And that’s his big fault. Leading other men on in the same delusion.
Now that his delusion has crashed, people who want to remain in their own delusions are angry at him.
Where is my false idol of self-sufficiency! You smashed my false idol!