“Don’t care if he’s guilty; don’t care if he’s not…”

↓

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the most important topics that frequently gets mentioned in our corner of the web is, oddly enough, rarely actually discussed in any meaningful way:

 

The “rationalization hamster”.

 

 

 

This fascinating creature is either passingly mentioned as a nuisance to be acknowledged.

 

Or, more often, defamed as a monster to be slain.

 

Neither of which is satisfactory to your humble author here.

 

 

 

See, it should be treated as what it is:

 

A boon (if somewhat difficult) companion.

 

While I certainly have no expectation to change the parlance of the ‘sphere, a more accurate representation (to me) would be the “rationalization steed”.

 

Something to be tamed and made to work for the betterment of both parties.

 

 

 

PUAs may recognize the existence of such a thing but they do not spend enough time with it to see its uses.

 

Let’s recall a few lessons I’ve imparted over the years:

 

1} Women are the ultimate pragmatists. 

 

2} A woman argues to convince herself of things more than she does to change anyone else’s mind.

 

3} Women are inveterate gamblers.

 

4} To women, a problem is never a problem; only the feelings a situation generates are problematic.

 

5} As a group, women are never as present emotionally in relationships as they are physically (geographically, not necessarily sexually).

 

 

 

Now, with all of the above firmly in mind, realize that the rationalization steed will buck and kick constantly.

 

It knows only purposeless freedom. 

 

It cannot (rather than “will not”) see that there are long term benefits to a symbiotic relationship involving consistent submission on its part.

 

Its knowledge encompasses the “now”, with only impressions from the impact of past experiences and close to zero concerns for the future.

 

Such is the fate of beasts.

 

Thus, it must be demonstrated to it that in loss there is victory.

 

 

 

As gamblers, women are thrilled by the loss and want to see if they can win again (or, preferably, not).

 

As pragmatists, the more a woman invests (emotionally) the far less likely she will be to divest.

 

[Recall, men and governments are all too free with their resources, so that’s not often a consideration in the weighing.]

 

As inherent self-doubters, women constantly need to reaffirm their choices.

 

Thus, should a man make serious demands (somewhat frequently) yet give generously (on less frequent occasions), she’ll constantly be justifying her decisions to stay with him.

 

 

 

Break the steed and it will be eager to prove its worth.

 

Leave it to its own devices and it will run until someone else is able to do so.

 

Regardless of the fact that its life will be shorter and more arduous. 

 

 

 

Although it’s easier said than done, the secret is this:

 

Give the steed a burden light enough to permit it movement and a healthy gait.

 

Yet heavy enough to convince it to carry it happily to show its value.

 

 

 

 

 

Ω