Been thinking about this and wanted some input from guys with more experience.

On one hand, I get that being grounded, emotionally controlled, and not getting pulled into arguments is the ideal. No unnecessary drama, no reacting, just staying solid.

But I’ve noticed something that seems contradictory.

A lot of girls seem to remember their more “toxic” exes way more vividly, the guys where there was tension, arguments, emotional spikes, etc. (They got alpha widowed)

Meanwhile, the stable, calm relationships where the guy was always composed don’t seem to leave the same imprint.

Is it actually better (from an attraction standpoint) to have occasional conflicts / tension with a woman, as long as you’re still in control?

Or is that just misinterpreting things, and the real answer is still to avoid fights completely and maintain frame at all times?

Sounds like a mismatch. Honestly I can't see why a man would date a stripper, let alone impregnate one (unless by accident casually)? This looks like trouble.

Its almost a non interest story from a red pill point of view -couple disagree over spending but this time its the man who sounds less reasonable. However, then you get down to the "abuse" section in the advice where the writer says its a "dangerous dynamic" and suggests escape plans and gives a link to the domestic abuse hotline. This assumption is frankly verging on the criminal and its a huge problem in today's society.

"Man wants partner to go halves on things she is not that keen on" is not abuse, its a mismatch. Either it needs re-negotiation or splitting but to assume potential abuse creates a very risky dynamic for the relationship itself.

These days the moment a woman hints possible abuse the only thing a man can do for his own protection is bug the hell out of that relationship. Now sometimes its a good idea but other times they really just needed a grown up chat about what they think the priorities are and about boundaries. So you can make an unborn chid fatherless and make the mother very unlikely to ever put the kid in contact because of the imaginary "abuse" (that every man she gets with does) or you can have a grown up chat about it being her (very easily made) money. Its not equal work but it is her money, so its not his business. Default liberal answer -do the damage to the kid. Protect women from their own inability to have adult conversations.

I have never had a relationship with a woman in which she has not just about monthly wanted me to buy outright something for the house that I did not want to personally buy. Its not usually that much but its just normal that people have different ideas and women certainly naturally think that what is yours is hers. What is needed is people not to be butt hurt about boundary assertions. Ironically, I have always been wary about always refusing to spend on everything women want. According to the Duluth model of abuse (which the courts have adopted) if you do not have access to the other's money in a a relationship it is abuse! so she would be abusing hm! I have seen lawyers adverts on this "Housewives, if you don't have access to cash on demand in a relationship, it may be abuse. Hire us to take your husband to court"

As an aside, I would never recommend dating any woman who makes money easily. She does not value real work, she does not know the value of money. Women are bad enough with shared money when they work hard.

You have something here but I am not sure it is only what the title suggests.

Having to work for it invests people more in attraction (this is scientific fact) and in that respect some fights in the early stages (while the desire is still fierce) may imprint a man harder on a woman but it has to be while the desire is fresh and the desire must be strong enough to overcome the negativity..

Women do tend to remember all the negatives strongly and when the heated rush is over, these memories will still be on the hard drive, so I would still advise that it is ideal if she has to work for it in non confrontational ways -like availability, like keeping you interested, trying to lock you down and so on.

It is also true that women will try harder for a guy they really want, who will know his value is above them and may be harder to get. An ordinary guy acting like this will just piss her off. Its important to see it from the right end of the telescope. Its not necessarily because its a great strategy for him, its because she can't let him go.

Because Chad can, doesn't mean you should (or Chad should either necessarily if he actually wants her as a mother to his children). I think this is something a lot of red pill men see form the wrong side. Can get away with and should ideally do are not the same thing.

But yeah, I still think there is something there with those caveats.