RendHeaven

Obviously. But notice that men are able to increase their "batting average" with women by working on themselves as men. For a woman to increase their "batting average" with men, they have to either apply makeup, or get surgery. Maybe even both. Isn't that a stunning difference?

@Karmadhi No, you still don't understand. You keep saying "if she finds you a 2/10" That's NOT something women do, dude. Ranking looks is overwhelmingly a guy-thing. You know, that's the whole point of me opening this thread. A girl will rank the totality of your sexual worth by incorporating your charisma/confidence/humor/personality/comfort elements. All of it. If a woman finds you to be a 2/10, it's because you suck as a man, not because of your face. If you think that you are a 2/10 in looks, and you get rejected by a woman, you will tell yourself: "see! it's because I'm a 2/10 in looks!" Wrong. It's because you act like a fucking loser who believes himself to be a 2/10. I know ugly mfs that act like they own the world and they get far more hot girls than everyone on this forum combined.

It's absolutely not the same. If you've got game, she's very likely to spread her legs for you. As @aurum said, women are a lot more willing to look past physicality. Leo and most PUAs approach a million girls a night because their game sucks at first. They have to warm up to get their confidence + authenticity rolling. It has nothing to do with looks LMAO.

10000% agree. I don't see myself or others "transcending" this anytime soon. Even Leo who has gone beyond physical death and back has firm preferences in regards to female looks. Nonetheless, there is a value in just basking in the baffling way our biases work...

I agree (somewhat). Although, as subjective as the details of beauty are, there are cross-cultural standards (such as facial proportionality) that people overwhelmingly prefer. Given the free choice between droopy uneven eyes and symmetrical well-shaped eyes, I can't think of anybody who would eagerly prefer the former (in themselves or their partners). No, you guys don't get it. She wanted ME. Straight up. She had romantic and sexual feelings for me, and she had no chance. Am I the only one who sees how fucked up that is? Obviously someone will like her eventually. But that doesn't change the disadvantage she has in the "sexual marketplace" when SHE actually has a desired outcome.

Not quite.

I mainly get my protein from pea protein plant milk, peanut butter, and tofu. Other micronutrients from fruits and veggies

lol yikes dude

thank heavens for that

This reminds me of the very ending of Thoreau's Walden: "We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander. We are cheered when we observe the vulture feeding on the carrion which disgusts and disheartens us and deriving health and strength from the repast. There was a dead horse in the hollow by the path to my house, which compelled me sometimes to go out of my way, especially in the night when the air was heavy, but the assurance it gave me of the strong appetite and inviolable health of Nature was my compensation for this. I love to see that Nature is so rife with life that myriads can be afforded to be sacrificed and suffered to prey on one another; that tender organizations can be so serenely squashed out of existence like pulp, - tadpoles which herons gobble up, and tortoises and toads run over in the road; and that sometimes it has rained flesh and blood! With liability to accident, we must see how little account is to be made of it. The impression made on a wise man is that of universal innocence. Poison is not poisonous after all, nor are any wounds fatal. Compassion is a very untenable ground. It must be expeditious. Its pleadings will not bear to be stereotyped." What a perfect account of the necessity & wholistic beauty of survival's brutality! The little bit at the end about compassion always stumped me a little. I think he is speaking of compassion with a little "c." Your "compassion" for any finite form (say, an animal or a human) is necessarily temporary and eventually overwhelmed by life going through its motions. Your insistence on one thing surviving at the cost of the whole system's fluidity is a myopic request. In demanding that this or that animal/human ought not to die, you are requesting that reality make itself less beautiful to suit your personal preferences. Somehow, I think this very realization IS the foundation of capital-C Compassion. Keep in mind though, this is a very advanced insight. It's oh-so-easy to usurp this insight to justify personal selfishness and such. I wouldn't recommend transcending lowercase-c compassion until you first have a healthy egoic respect for "other beings."

This reminds me of the very ending of Thoreau's Walden: "We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander. We are cheered when we observe the vulture feeding on the carrion which disgusts and disheartens us and deriving health and strength from the repast. There was a dead horse in the hollow by the path to my house, which compelled me sometimes to go out of my way, especially in the night when the air was heavy, but the assurance it gave me of the strong appetite and inviolable health of Nature was my compensation for this. I love to see that Nature is so rife with life that myriads can be afforded to be sacrificed and suffered to prey on one another; that tender organizations can be so serenely squashed out of existence like pulp, - tadpoles which herons gobble up, and tortoises and toads run over in the road; and that sometimes it has rained flesh and blood! With liability to accident, we must see how little account is to be made of it. The impression made on a wise man is that of universal innocence. Poison is not poisonous after all, nor are any wounds fatal. Compassion is a very untenable ground. It must be expeditious. Its pleadings will not bear to be stereotyped." What a perfect account of the necessity & wholistic beauty of survival's brutality! The little bit at the end about compassion always stumped me a little. I think he is speaking of compassion with a little "c." Your "compassion" for one form or another (say, an animal or a human) is necessarily temporary and eventually overwhelmed by life going through its motions. Your insistence on one thing surviving at the cost of the whole system's fluidity is an impossible request. Somehow, I think this very realization IS the foundation of capital-C Compassion.

Valuable share thx!

Just don't be surprised when nobody likes you. Yes, ego is indeed tricky. When confronted with a perfectly valid alternate perspective, it will dismiss and distract by saying, "technically, it isn't my problem. It's on them."

Wow, yeah, I take that totally for granted. Are you willing to list a few concrete examples of being "fluent in male perspective to get by?" (you know, because as a male I need a list of concrete examples to grock a lesson )

@Emerald Do you honestly believe that your preferences are NOT survival? You have to appreciate that Leo has seen the dark, twisted, backsides of survival that most humans deny. That which is not-survival certainly exists, but it's in our nature to pretend we've transcended survival when really that claim itself is naught but another layer of survival. From LEO's POV, all of us, you and I included, are vastly underestimating survival. Hence that's all he talks about. From our POV though, it's in our best survival interest to not understand him, and to dismiss him as "falsely framing everything as survival, because we see past survival unlike him"

You'll get to yellow one day, I know it

I'm personally conflicted by the paradox between conditional love (i.e. attraction) and unconditional love (i.e. ???) Can we unconditionally love someone that we have attraction towards? I don't think so. Our attraction corrupts our agenda. Can we unconditionally love someone, then, that we DON'T have attraction towards? I don't think so. Our lack of attraction means we will reserve certain aspects of ourselves from that person (i.e. no sex). And yet, unconditional love exists.

This doesn't seem realistic or authentic. Would you yourself actually do this? Spread your legs for a guy that you have zero sexual attraction towards? Easier said than done, I'd imagine. I admire your vision but it just sounds like buddy-buddy platonic friendship with a little bit of sex forced on top just to justify the "intimacy." The reason I smelled survival on your proposition at all, actually, is by the very fact that you said: By explicitly rejecting raw physical attraction, you have an agenda. Are Game B and Game A mutually exclusive? Or are they 2 parts of the same whole? Ah... So attraction does matter.

Ok so basically, "let's ignore the man's survival and talk about the woman's survival." I guess that's only fair after all the man-bias in the past few days/weeks/months/years lol

Guess I suck ass then, lol. I mean you've said it yourself countless times, neediness is to her as a dick in the mouth is to us. For a lot of us men, the focus on attraction goes hand in hand with getting rid of neediness. You know I've never had to think of this as I'm in my early 20s. I wonder if "older" women actually see their "reproductive value dropping every year" or if that's only visible to men your age

This rings so fundamentally true. I think there is a general misunderstanding that long term relationships = genuine happiness while short flings = hollow pleasure. Hence, people take the female survival agenda of "long fulfilling relationship" to be more spiritually pure than the male survival agenda of "raw attraction" (conflating the focus on attraction with short flings and hollow pleasures). In my experience though, the male survival problem of attraction is perpetually omnipresent. Even when I find myself in a long term relationship. She WILL leave if I lose my masculine sexual core. I must remain attractive if I desire to keep her. No negotiation. Women don't really face this problem. It's not their responsibility in a relationship to "remain attractive." In fact, it's hard for them to become unattractive unless a decade goes by without them exercising lol, but such an extreme is still categorically different from the energetic attractiveness of a man which can devolve in a matter of days if he allows himself to be complacent. That's just my biased male perspective.

@Emerald It's a stunning paradox indeed, that to truly help these men (or any struggling person) you have to slap them across the face and put them in their place; but also, to truly help them, you have to be 110% accepting of them with no will to change them. The best teachers, I believe, will manage to honor both sides of this coin fully. I understand. My heart goes out to you and all women here, truly. Sometimes I'm moved to tears thinking about how I could've/would've/should've listened to women more. And then I resolve to be better next time, and yet I still manage to not hear you guys with a totally open heart. And I'm well aware that my resolve is rare among men. If even I sometimes stick my head in the sand, then men as a whole are buried miles underneath land wedged somewhere within a continental crust

@Gesundheit She has a point. Your tone is highly aggressive and condescending. Why should anyone take you seriously when it seems like all you do is lash out in response? (not saying that that's actually what you're doing; key word = seems)

I agree. I know that it's not chastising. That's why I specifically said it APPEARS to be as such. Emerald is doing her job splendidly. My only point is that she is still deaf nonetheless.

@Gesundheit Someone's antsy