"swallowing" ​b​lackpill, overcoming it; moving forward; pseudoscience and woo-woo stuff

[7Wannabe5]

Gotcha. One perspective you might take on female "shit-testing" behavior is that in the modern world females have to play both the role of "charming ingenue" and "Daddy with a shotgun" when they are meeting potential suitors. Most men have had the experience of what they perceive as being "grilled" or "interrogated" when dating, and pretty much all of them don't like it. One of my partners told me that one thing he immediately like about me was that I "was looking for something to say "Yes" to, rather than something to say "No" to." This is in part due to my conscious practice of "relaxing in my feminine energy" in dating situation, but it is also in part due to the fact that I am rarely shopping for a long-term, committed, serious relationship. So, I have tried to convince men who don't like being "interrogated" or "shit-tested" that they might view it as a positive sign of the female being more seriously interested in relationship, if not necessarily relationship with him, but I have not yet been successful in my promotion of this perspective.

Anyways, bottom line would be that you have nothing to lose long run by being very forth-right in such a situation.

[daylen]

I am probably not the best person to ask for dating advice. I am borderline asexual. I did briefly experiment for a year in HS but that was a while ago.

[Egg]

Possibly worth noting that "negging" is old-style game along with a few other ideas (such as "peacocking"). 7W5 is probably right about why negging might have some desired effect, although the usual stated logic is to "bring down the woman a peg" so she doesn't perceive herself as of higher social value than you. I don't think it takes a genius to see why deliberately trying to amplify and play on peoples' insecurities is pretty toxic...

Anyway, a bit of theory is great if you have aspergers - as above, I recommend it - but you can't learn all that much by theory alone. If you want to get better, only way is just get out there and try things out. Let us know how you get on!

[7Wannabe5]

@Egg:

Yes, and if it works because you are interacting with somebody who although attractive has core low self-esteem, then "ick." I'm actually not sure if anybody has ever tried to "neg" me, because in my mind it is kind of mixed up with "pulling on your pony-tail" moves which I just view as youthful, and/or my dealings with grouchy forthright old men who will inform you that your new red dress looks like crap on you. Generally, it seems like it would be much more profitable/functional to simply learn how to exhibit behavior that signals "rising dominance" yourself rather than trying to knock female down a peg. For simple instance, placing strong guiding hand to waist or small of back or biting a woman on the shoulder.

[jacob]

Anyway, a bit of theory is great if you have aspergers - as above, I recommend it - but you can't learn all that much by theory alone. If you want to get better, only way is just get out there and try things out. Let us know how you get on!

If one is significantly and materially different from the population at large, a LOT of theory can be very helpful to assist navigating the world. Aspergers and extreme INTJs share some diagnostic overlap on the social scene. These might not come from the same place but the end-result is the same: A difficulty in connecting socially with "normal people" (the average person) due to an almost total lack of small talk skill (Ni has zero interest in this other than as a means to and end) and considering various social cues and communication (facial expressions, body language, ..) to be irrelevant (Se is inferior) compared to what is being explicitly communicated (Te is auxiliary).

Figuring out how socializing works by trial and error requires a really really patient environment with an undivided attention. Some ways to get undivided attention would be small groups (1-2 other people max) [e.g. a job with one partner], shared interests, or close family members. However, it's a brutal uphill climb to learn these things the hard way.

Having previously failed on the trial and error + generic theories like "how to win friends and influence people", discovering MBTI was a quantum leap for me. Initially (when I was 20ish and had just discovered it), I would ask people to take an online test "just for fun" and then read up on the results. Having some idea (map) of the territory was useful to prevent me from projecting my own (rather unusual theory of mind) unto others. For example, I was rather astounded to learn how many are guided by feeling rather than thinking. I was THAT oblivious. I did not even imagine that a control system based on feelings could be a thing.

With more experience (25 years later), much of this has been internalized. I can often type people correctly based on observation and being somewhat familiar with many types, I can sometimes understand people better than they understand themselves (e.g. I know why someone with a dominant Si will not be paying very much attention to novel/unexpected issues) and it's also possible to see where the communications dynamics screws up, e.g. why I have an easy time talking to ENFPs and an often a terrible time with ESTPs.

Anyhoo, my suggestion to Stahlmann would be to forget the dating guides which are all written for "*typicals" (under the assumption that the theory of mind maps 1 to 1) and get a hold of the Keirsey books or read through some of the websites which are getting better and better. Figure out what makes other people tick before trying to date/romance them.

At least that'd be my advice to young INTJs ... it might not apply to Aspies.

[nomadscientist]

Stahlmann, this article does a good job at explaining most of what is true from the "manosphere" without the negativity usually associated:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200425125 ... manceless/

[The author seems to have deleted it sometime after the recent riots, which is intriguing, and perhaps a little concerning.]

[ertyu]

Why not search specifically for another Aspie to date? Seems like it would be much easier to share similarities you intuitively understand about each other than to have to play constant "normal people theater."

Or just be done with it already and hire a sex worker. Structured environment, clearly defined rules, etc.

@nomadicscientist's link: the analogy the author draws between being a hard worker and deserving social success and being "better than henry" and deserving reproductive success is false.

In the realm of hard work, success is *supposed* to be a meritocracy. An impartial, impersonal system is supposed to reward your effort and qualities; your "hard work" that money should theoretically be a reward for. Dating is different. It is not a meritocracy. For the sake of this exercise, imagine someone kind of ok that you think is an alright human but that you're not really attracted to and you feel no particular connection with. We are surrounded by such people every day, regardless of what our age, gender, and preferences are. Now further assume that this person works very very hard to try to date you. Would you suddenly become attracted to them and feel a connection? Likely not, because compatibility and taste are not a matter of hard work. Example: let's say I think a particular woman is hot. I decide I would like to pursue her. If she is not feeling it, no hard work will make her feel it. In fact, any "hard work" after, "thanks, dude, flattered, but not feeling it" is likely to get me closer and closer to a restraining order than to mating.

I can also imagine this example the other way around: someone I am not into and not interested in trying to apply "hard work" to get me to date them. It would come across as, they're interested in getting what they want regardless of my preferences. [A common trap here would be to sleep with them hoping they'd get it out of their systems--kind of like, ok, a girls is interested, might as well. Do not fall into this trap. This would only strengthen their feelings and make them pursue you harder].

tl;dr: the analogy the author draws is false, and pursuing it results only in frustration. You're frustrated about not getting something that you think you've worked hard enough to deserve when "deserving" has nothing to do with hard work in the first place.

[horsewoman]

Why not search specifically for another Aspie to date? Seems like it would be much easier to share similarities you intuitively understand about each other than to have to play constant "normal people theater."

... Or someone with ADD/ADHD! Great combination - the Aspie lives mostly in his head but is pulled out to deal with the madcap stuff the ADHD does all the time, and the ADHD is exposed to and profits from some bad ass locigcal thinking. At least that is my marriage summed up :)
Dating neurotypical people is way too exhausting. Downside is, if there are children they will pretty sure end up with some of your issues as well, which is both good (because you understand one another) and heartbreaking (because you know what struggles are ahead for them).

[7Wannabe5]

@nomadscientist:

Interesting article. From my perspective of being post being a post-feminist who believes in gender dichotomy, one note I might make is that some of the feminists quoted are attempting to provide true and relevant information, although likely in a manner not likely to be readily understood/heard/accepted.

Let me explain a core dilemma in female sexuality. Wanting to be f*cked (as opposed to wanting to fuck or make love or have sex etc.) is like wanting to engage in a contest with the goal of losing. So, if you as a woman attempt to face this desire with straight on rationality, it’s like trying to read “Goedel, Escher, Bach.” So, all you got is the gut feeling to work with. Some subconscious function painting a red arrow from your deep belly downward attached to strong simple label that reads, no scratch that, the message is definitely pre-literate, pre-verbal; more like it is humming “This one seems like he can fuck.”

So, it is kind of a waste of time to do anything, including complaining, but focus on how to either signal that and/or find women who are otherwise sexually wired. It’s very much analogous to complaining about how even nerdy men
go for ditzy girls with cute figures rather than chubby kind girls with high IQs. IOW, “strong dominant signaling” = “.7 waist to hip ratio”, and it doesn’t make the sensitive,self-aware female terribly proud to admit this, any more than it makes the sensitive, self-aware male feel proud to admit his predilections. But it’s useless, counter-productive and cruel to fault humans of either gender for the pre-wired or early programmed aspects of their sexuality. A much better approach, in my experience, is to communicate full acceptance of what you may be lacking in pure erotic appeal and thereby grant your partner relaxed freedom to make use of her/his potential for imaginative flexibility.

[ertyu]

the message is definitely pre-literate, pre-verbal; more like it is humming “This one seems like he can fuck.”

i mean, isn't this everyone of any gender. in the sense that, the message is pre-literate and pre-verbal and they "do it for you" and are attractive, or they do not. Regardless of gender, people who are mainstream attractive will have more people feeling this way about them. But there are people who are into obese people (of either gender), people who are into amputees, people who are into big tiddy goth girls who look scary and like they can spank you and tie you up, and so on, and so forth. "Hard work" is all fine and well but you can't make someone's id intersect with yours by hard work, nor can you work hard enough to get a girl to get off on, say, diapers (to pull out a strange example).

Applying meritocracy to dating is an attempt to try to control a situation in which no control exists. "Surely if I did ABC I would deserve that s/he..." NOPE. You can bend your ass backwards and be the most understanding kind and evolved soul, and if you're into someone putting you in diapers but she's into having a big burly dom put on a doctor coat and stick needles into her, it won't work. If she's into women, no amount of hard work will turn her sexual orientation. If she's into arabs and you're a tall white viking god, it's not going to work. Literally the only sane strategy is, "i'm disappointed, but thanks for being honest with me. hope you find what you're looking for." I mean, it's certainly how I wish someone I am not interested in would react when I turn them down, so I really don't see why it won't also be true for women. The only thing the meritocracy/hard work/deserving analogy does is set everyone up for bitterness and frustration.

[nomadscientist]

Let me explain a core dilemma in female sexuality. Wanting to be f*cked (as opposed to wanting to fuck or make love or have sex etc.) is like wanting to engage in a contest with the goal of losing.

I agree with almost everything you have written. My view:

Women really do not like domestic abusers, but they have a deep seated psychological need for someone who will perform the male role in the mating dance - taking the lead - in similar way that men have a deep seated psychological need for the physical sensations of sex. A domestic abuser is willing to take the lead. In all other respects, the domestic abuse is a negative. Women aren't crazy. But for several women accepting the domestic abuse is better than accepting their alternatives of men who do not lead, a state which for women must feel similar to sexlessness for men.

A much better approach, in my experience, is to communicate full acceptance of what you may be lacking in pure erotic appeal and thereby grant your partner relaxed freedom to make use of her/his potential for imaginative flexibility.

I do not fully agree with this. It's better than spiraling into a lonely depression. But men can also train themselves to be sexier, just as women can diet, exercise, and dress better.

Problem: society basically gives them wrong signals. Feminism is a good in that it discourages domestic abuse, but a bad in that it discourages men from filling the male relationship leadership role at all. Burying yourself entirely in feminism is likely to leave you much worse off with women than acting on instinct, just as Barry in Alexander's article seems to have zero sex or love life, while Henry is at least having a string of chaotic failed relationships.

Women do not want Alexanders (meek nerd doctors) or Henrys (violent gangsters); they want successful doctors who can take the lead smoothly, as a captain commands a well-run ship, rather than by knocking their teeth out. As you say, women in relationships have "the goal of losing", and the role of a man is to be

1. good enough that it's dignified to lose to him

2. capable and willing to gracefully engineer and accept the woman's defeat

Who is telling boys this in the schools today? What I learned from school is that if I am worth dating I will be asked out by the woman ~50% of the time, since men and women are the same. I did not get a lot of sex when I believed that, and the women I wasn't having sex with were probably having sex with Henry.

[7Wannabe5]

@ertyu:

I agree that you can’t logic, bully, manipulate, bribe or coerce desire. I don’t agree that you can’t empathically communicate desire. What I’ve learned to when a partner communicates a desire that is either distasteful, “huh?”, or seemingly unfulfillable by me is ask questions about the core sensations or particular triggers. Kind of like breaking up “I want potato chips” into desire for crispy, salty and easy to gobble, and then you can empathize along the lines of “Oh, it’s like how I like pork rinds!” (except more complex than this, because it might be more like you are the potato chip, etc.)

Also, although some predilections are pretty hard-wired and others are strong early adopted, sexuality does have some degree of flexibility and phases and can often alter unexpectedly. Like you discover sushi and want it all the time, but 5 years later not so much. No use trying to convince someone that sushi 5x week is a bit much, but if you hang around long enough you might catch them on burger night. Although, obviously, if you are shopping for committed long term a good deal of shared preferences or shared tendency towards ambient flexibility would be ideal.

@nomadscientist:

Right. In relationship “lead” would be the verb, whereas in strict sexual context “dominate” would be the verb. Obviously, barring erotic short stories with theme of “stranger in elevator”, both are relevant.

I would also add or edit your two points to include “exhibit respect for her realms of autonomy” and “consideration and honor for her preferences.” Or, in more general terms, be a good leader, not a micromanaging jerk.

I agree that generally working on your own attractiveness is easier or more economical than inquiring about flexibility from other, and learning about what is most likely to work is an important first step, but humans have their limitations in achieving perfection in all things. So, for instance, if/when a man says something like “Damn woman, I’d love to fuck you across the floor, but I’m just not that young anymore.” it still tends towards turning me on. And I have found that doing the same/opposite often works for me. The “I am delicious like a peach” internal mantra still works pretty good even when your flesh is devolving towards over-soft and your skin is wrinkling up a bit.

[shemp]

I notice PUA was mentioned, so let me clarify what PUA really is. Namely, an attempt to rationalize and systematize the process of sexual market exchange, from the heterosexual man's point of view.

1) GOALS. Other than special case of gigolos, man's goal is not money, so what is his goal? Answering this question is the critical first step of "inner game". If your goal is simply access to a woman's body to have sex with, as though she were a living sex doll, then prostitution is the easy answer. However, most young men don't just want sex.

Some young men merely want a real emotional relationship plus sex. In that case, I highly recommend much older women, like 40+ years older. Some women lose all libido at menopause, others experience skyrocketing libido as estrogen production drops but testosterone stays the same. These highly sexed older women will normally find almost all young men, no matter how ugly the face or socially awkward, to be physically attractive, same as most 70yo men with high libido find almost all 18yo girls attractive. Much older women will take the lead and overcome any social skills problem in the young man. All he has to do is make himself available and not be rude or otherwise drive the woman off.

If a young man just want to feel sexually attractive, and only cares about putting his penis is a human mouth of anus, then old homosexuals have an insatiable lust for young men with functioning penises, regardless of looks or social awkwardness.

Most young men are actually looking for validation that they are sexual winners, and neither prostitutes, nor old women nor old homosexuals can give that. To prove himself a sexual winner, the young man must get free sex from a similar aged woman who is considered to have high sexual market value in the eyes of other men in his peer group. If validation is your goal, then you need to admit it, otherwise you will never make progress. But it's a hard goal to achieve for young men who are not naturally high sexual market value themselves.

2) MARKET ANALYSIS. Now that you know what you want, meaning who your customer is, you need to know what your customer wants. We've already ruled out crude prostitution, so money is not her only goal. So what is her goal? Typically, female equivalent of yours: namely, validation that she is a sexual winner. And she obtains that by dating guys who are considered to be sexual winners in the eyes of other women.

3) PRODUCT DESIGN. How can you feasibly modify yourself into being the product your customer wants? That is, assuming your sexual market value (SMV) is currently too low to exchange for the type women you really want, how can you raise your SMV? SMV is not a one-dimensional linear scale in reality, though PUAs often talk as if it were to simplify things. Girls do have different ideas of what a high SMV guy is. For some, it's a male model or athlete (looks), for others a deejay or musician (fame), for others a rich older man who makes then feel financially secure (money), for others it's skill with words or charisma (game).

Experience has shown over and over that Game is the most powerful attribute of the four just listed, and also the easiest to obtain quickly if you don't already have it.

Looks is a close runner-up in power. Genetic looks cannot be changed other than with plastic surgery, but genetic looks is seldom the limiting factor. Assuming equal heights, lean muscular guy with good haircut, nice clothes, clean-smelling, etc but with ugly face will almost always win out over fat and flabby guy with unkempt hair, cheap-looking and badly-fitting clothes, foul-smelling, etc but with handsome face. Height can indeed be a deal-breaker, but usually it's only relative height that matters: man must be taller relative to woman, not tall in absolute terms. Unless the guy is truly a midget, there should be plenty of shorter women.

Fame appears dazzling in power, but its power is an illusion, because women attracted by fame alone are almost always crazy, and the man soon becomes disgusted by them. On the other hand, fame is an excellent addition to game or looks or preferably both.

Money, like fame, only works effectively in conjunction with either game or looks or preferably both. By itself, money cannot create true attraction. Using money alone to get the women you want is crude prostitution, which, as already noted, will not give the validation most young men crave.

4) PRODUCT MANUFACTURE. Now you have to do the hard work of changing yourself to be higher SMV. Looks is easy to explain: lose weight if applicable, workout, get some fashion and grooming advice. Don't forget voice training if you don't currently have a masculine sounding voice.

Money and Fame are difficult to obtain for most guys, but maybe you're an exception.

Game is frustrating: socially awkward people have a hard time becoming less socially awkward. Sclass gave some good advice about recording your interactions on audio/video. PUAs call these in-field reports, I think. Another idea is Toastmasters: public speaking practice. Salesmanship in the business world translates to salesmanship in the sexual market, so maybe get a weekend gig doing sales type work.

Needless to say, all PUAs advise learning to partner dance (this goes under heading of Game, because learned skill), the more styles the better. Dance game can be extremely powerful, though it's no panacea if all you have is dance skills. Partner dancing give instant hands-on access to lots of women, then you have to follow up with other forms of game: conversation, "kino" or touching with calibrated increments in intimacy, logistics (access to suitable bedroom if she is open to same night sex), etc.

You also need to know what to do after you make a sale, in order to retain your customer. That is, you have to know what to do in bed. This also comes mostly under the heading of Game: "dick game" or "bedroom game". (Penis size/functionality might be classified under genetic looks, though this is seldom truly a limiting factor. Even if a guy does lack a normal sized/functioning penis, he can probably still find some high SMV woman who is content with cunnilingus and fingering. He'll just have to search longer than other guys.)

5) SALES. You now have to get out there and sell the product you have created, meaning yourself, to potential customers, meaning women who will make you feel validated if they agree to have sex with you. Product manufacture step including learning HOW to sell. Current step is the hard work of actually DOING the selling: approaching prospects, introducing yourself, evaluating whether prospect is viable, overcoming "last minute resistance" and closing the deal. Yes, being able to overcome LMR is important, but make sure you do this the right way: lots of PUAs got rape charges thrown at them because they dealt with LMR the wrong way.

Cold approach means approaching women in public places, and usually has a very poor return on time and energy investment. Much better is warm approach: join social groups with lots of prospects, get to know them gradually, only start selling when the woman makes clear (with IOIs or Indications of Interest) that she is interested. Warm approach has the great advantage, for average men, that facial handsomeness no longer plays a dominant role. In particular, if you have an ugly face but better than average body, look for situations where body is partially exposed: sports activities especially.

Sales is a numbers game. The more viable prospects you approach, the more likely you'll make a sale.

---

So the above is what PUA is. It isn't a magic solution because Step 4, Product Manufacture, is not easy. In particular, developing social skills is very difficult if someone is currently socially awkward.

[nomadscientist]

@shemp

Interesting post, but maybe "find future mother of your children" should be one of those goals. While it shouldn't be the first goal for men today (you will sell yourself short), and may not ever be the goal for some men, it should eventually be the goal for most men. A lot of PUAs who actually want children seem to go crazy by locking themselves into a spiral of easy/enjoyable sex partners none of whom they actually want to spend much time with.

[shemp]

Yeah, I guess I overlooked that goal because I and most other guys interested in PUA back on the day only cared about sex, not marriage and children. Instead of seeking woman who will validate man, seek woman who will be suitable wife and mother. Presumably, women like that are seeking men who will be suitable husbands and fathers. Then some changes to product design and manufacture steps relative to making yourself a better husband/father candidate. Sales step remains the same, though what you are selling/buying is now slightly different.

[ertyu]

Hm crucial shortcoming here. In sales, don't assume you know what your customer wants. FIND OUT what your customer wants. The above post is a very good break-down, but it waves this critical phase of market research with, "oh, well, they must want what we do, to look good in the eyes of their mates amirite" and, idk, just looking at myself, being a "sexual winner" in the eyes of my mates isn't that high of a priority for me, to me psychological connection is because i believe if you have that you can iron out anything.(*) @nomadicscientists also pointed out goals oriented towards long-term relationships. So, if only here you found 2 guys who have different goals than "be a sexual winner and get that sweet sweet validation," why not find women whose goals are greater and more diverse than that.

Tbh if your goal is to cure a painful desire for validation and magic away feeling inferior and insecure (which is what being a "sexual winner" smells like to me), this is much better done through therapy not PUA.

(*) probably i should clarify that i am in my late 30s, this probably impacts my goals re women quite a lot

[reepicheep]

I don't give a shit what my female friends think about the people I date.

I was running potential partners through a bit of a social/kink gauntlet for awhile, to evaluate the following:

-comfort/familiarity with kink, approach to negotiations
-reputation in the scene (is this person safe, will they respect a safe word?)
- can this person maturely handle that I have other partners, how much jealousy am I going to need to deal with?

Other things I care about:

- communication skills
- how they handle anger, other strong negative emotions
- positive transitions from previous relationships, minimal drama
- good in bed
- not looking to control me outside of mutual agreement

[The_Bowme]

Stahlmann, this article does a good job at explaining most of what is true from the "manosphere" without the negativity usually associated:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200425125 ... manceless/

[The author seems to have deleted it sometime after the recent riots, which is intriguing, and perhaps a little concerning.]

Yeah, Scott Alexander took down the blog because he's worried he's getting doxxed by the New York Times, given his career as a psychiatrist and aversion to death threats. Quite a sad day for me as I absolutely loved his work. It's a scary sign of the times I think, where a writer showing empathy to problematic world views and then using reasonable arguments to get people to a rather pro-social, healthy world-view can't be left to do that in peace.

[shemp]

Some more points:

1) I stressed validation in the GOALS step because, realistically, that what most young men are looking for. If a WHITE guy in the USA just wants a normal monogamous relationship, it's not that difficult if he simply lowers standards. Fat women with plain faces are usually in surplus.. Short, dark-skinned Asians, especially Indians, is another story: nothing easy for them. African American men simply need a solid job to get AA women, and maybe not even a job if they'll accept fat AA women. All dark skinned men who want quality white women are facing an uphill battle. Even if odds are hopeless, best be honest about what you really want, since unclear goals guarantees you're flying blind and will surely fail.

Personally, I just wanted occasional sex with high quality women (white because that's my race) without commitment. I didn't actually have problems getting indications of interest from quality women, even in the notoriously difficult San Francisco area, but I have enough human decency not to do a pump-and-dump with girls who are looking for something long-term. I was a natural for prostitution (aka mongering) from the start and am currently a sugar daddy. But it took me a long time to accept this in myself. I suppose I wanted another form of validation, in the sense of approval of my natural desires by other guys. However, the PUA community, like all of USA society, frowns on explicit exchange of sex for money, so that approval by them was not forthcoming. I had to give it to myself, which took a while.

As ertyu suggested, desire for validation is approaching mental illness, and probably should be resisted to some extent. Lots of PUAs whose primary goal was validation did indeed end up having nervous breakdowns eventually. Fir example, Mystery and Style both cracked up and had to take time off for therapy. Notorious RooshV recently had a religious conversion. Of course, you could say all ambition is mental illness. But anyway, if validation is your real goal, and it often is, then best admit it.

GOALS step is most difficult for lots of guys.

2) PUA doesn't override basic arithmetic. If there are 10 men and 1 woman and everyone wants monogamy, 9 of the men are doomed to fail no matter how they improve themselves. As already noted, that often describes the situation with Asians, especially Indians, in the San Francisco area. Right solution for them is move to New York City, or maybe back to India now that India has developed its IT industry more. Though of course there's a massive girl shortage in India itself because of female infanticide.

3) Until you've experienced different dating environments, you understand very little. Guys who have trouble in the Anglo-Saxon world often have no trouble elsewhere, so the guy is clearly not the problem. I didn't have big problems in the USA myself, other than not understanding myself (that tricky GOALS step), but still I was blown away by how easy Ukraine would be for someone like me, assuming I wanted a long-term relationship with a woman no more than 20 years younger. It's also much easier than the USA for sugar daddying with top quality girls 30+ years younger. White guys with no success in the USA continue to turn into sex gods in the Philippines.

[reepicheep]

@shemp,

You probably don't care about validation from me, but I support and approve of your sugar daddy relationship.

You do you.