zazen

True, also with inflation and spending power going down. In the past one mans income could sustain a whole family (the american dream). Technology has gotten cheaper but the essentials such as housing, healthcare, education has increased while wages haven't accordingly. Women entering the labour force doubled labour (law of supply/demand) and decreased the average value of labour with it, meaning industry got to profit from it including the government which got more people to supply the tax base. With women getting more educated than men (60/40 split in colleges) and in future out earning men, they will not as easily be able to match men lower than them either due to them feeling the man is lower than them (in status, not all women but in general) or men themselves out of ego and not wanting to be with such women feeling inferior also, it goes both ways. Also this talk about high value and extreme examples like a guy with no good qualities at all not getting anything. Of course those guys will suffer but the average guy isn't void of any positive qualities at all, average can match with average also. Red pill focuses a lot on the 1-10% of the hierarchy. The problem comes when if women out earn women at the average level, can that affect the whole dynamic even amongst the average whether its due to women feeling like their settling if the man earns less or those men fearing inferiority to be with those women. For men not getting sex is quite a big deal, in the past in Islamic societies where harems existed the left over men were used and channeled there testosterone into caliphates/conquering/wars. Now, at least their is porn/video games/entertainment to pacify that aggression and need to 'win' or 'conquer' at least in cyber space but for a lot it will still be too frustrating leading to school shooters, toxic ideologies etc. Women not getting sex isn't as big of a deal for a few reasons, one being they can make themselves orgasm with the selection of tools they have now, not being sexual 24/7 the way men are, more easily turing to lesbianism, or if they do want sex with a man sharing a alpha playboy or jerk for sexual needs. But they lack the 10x testosterone that would lead men to other outlets, some fatal. Women are also getting their ego's inflated by these thirsty men on social media / only fans like you say, its like attraction inflation and promotes a narcism/entitlement which won't serve them well in their relationships, and just makes the average woman insecure in her looks when she looks at what seems to be caricatures of women. Men need to stop fanning those flames and not put up with bad behaviour also as you mention. You have interesting insights, seem well rounded, and write well man, welcome to the forum btw!

True, we can't repress our desires and the reason for the thirst is because that desire isn't being met for various reasons, on top of being overly exposed to it and sex being glorified so its a constant tease. We are over sexualised yet undersexed as a generation. This. A lot of men complain about women but also a lot of men are slacking now days too and getting into toxic mindsets/groups online to confirm how much women suck. Combination of screen time, poor diet/lifestyle, entertainment wasting our time etc, not being as social, social media is more like a social media as it separates us and echo chambers us away from reality.

If your high quality girl is the more reserved shy conservative type of girl, more intellectual bookish type then you could cater to that, still need to be attractive but maybe not in the playerish way or attractive x100 that would attract the typical high quality girl that is more sociable and has many options. For those girls with lots of options, if that is high quality for you, then you will have to stand out from the flood of guys throwing themselves at her.

Perfect timing

@Jacquelope As Leo mentioned to even get that relationship you need experience and to be confident enough which comes from abundance and experience, and be able to attract that 'one' girl. Also, having social proof and playerish in the beginning doesn't hurt. Now days because women don't need men for survival, they are looking for the sexy genes or alpha traits in men which would be more the playerish type of guy, hence coming across too boyfriendish at the start isn't a priorty for women now. It's just where most of the culture is now day in general, of course not every girl is like this although instinctually she would react to that type of a guy but her consciousness/cultural upbringing would blunt that response and she wouldn't act on it, not anymore. In the past more boyfriendish chivalrous nice guy traits were valued because people wouldn't care for sleeping around casually but for getting into stable relationships. The way people met was through courting each other (without sex) until they met someone they matched with, then get into a serious relationship in which sexually things happened or waited and usually lead to marriage. Now, people get to know each other whilst having sex which on a biological level bonds people and blinds them to each others compatibilities. People who shouldn't be together end up being together and it not working out down the line, or they know and do end things once they come to their senses and the honeymoon period fades but this causes a lot of heartbreak. In the past people would experience maybe 2-3 heartbreaks over a lifetime, not we experience this by our mid 20's or sooner which traumatises us, causes bitterness baggage and distrust between the genders. It's fucked up. If everyone was to follow the casual dating approach to find the perfect one and find what we like, doesn't that process ruin the very society of people you want to have that relationship in? Meaning, the collateral and emotional damage casual dating causes, ruins our ability to bond and be happy in future relationships due to baggage, becoming embittered of the opposite gender. Its a weird paradox I can't get my head around and don't know what the future looks like for modern relationships, but it just doesn't seem good.

Yeah for sure, men also bond with sex. Thats why leo said in a comment recently that for men the relationship doesn't begin until they get sexually involved. Sex love bombs us with chemicals that bond us, this could be seen as bad as it can cloud or judgement of the partner overlooking red flags or mis aligned values, traits etc. I think with guys its more easier because we'r designed to spread seed. So we can pair bond with a woman, but then go and just have sex and nothing more with some one else. We can be physically polygamous, and emotionally monogamous at the same time with more ease. With women because price / cost of sex is so high due to child birth, maybe evolution designed women to bond more with just one person, and then to not feel like having sex with more than that one person to ensure security, provision for the child. In general women need to feel emotional connection to have sex ( this is a protective mechanism from evolution ) and men have sex to feel emotional connection. It could be we are generally polyamorous with intervals of monogamy. In the past it was monogamy for life (as life span was short), now its monogamy one at a time as our life spans have tripled in the span of 100 years.

Thats how most women are, or so we are told, but is it psychological condition through culture or biological or both. We know your body releases bonding chemicals to bond to your partner, this was a evolved response so that in case you gave birth you would have a man around to take care of you and the child. I just wonder if in the modern world, the response is blunted to the point we can have more casual sex without it being such a big emotional deal. Another point is the fact maybe women instinctively know its wrong and so that's why most casual sex needs to be done under alcoholic influence to rationalise it as a excuse, or to lower their inhibitions to not feel socially bad having casual sex. Add to that the social stigma and psychological hang ups, that could be also affecting your biology and making women feel degraded after casual sex. It's the chicken or the egg debate, does our biology affect our psychology, vica versa or both. So interesting.

Yeah its very interesting. We are more socially monogamous by nurture but genetically polygamous by nature. Monogamy had a stabilising affect on society, and incentivised men to provide, provision for their kids and family which worked well for growing economy, civilisation etc up to this point, it was the engine for it. What we go to now will be very interesting. Sex comes with emotions. The only reason to engage in sex is because it provides good emotions, your body is flooded with oxytocin and bonding chemicals afterwards? I guess if people engage in sex with multiple partners that bonding chemical is diffused between multiple people so it's not like your relying on any one person to get those good feels from, in this case if one person leaves its not heart breaking. Another thing to look at is whether engaging in this numbs our neuro chemical response to the point its easier to engage in casual sex and it not be so bonding anymore, the same way we get desensitised to any thing providing us dopamine and all those other feel good chemicals. In the past people only went through 1-3 heart breaks in a life time, now with less stigma, longer life spans etc people experience 3 heart breaks probably by mid 20's and so it blunts us.

It's not true for every woman but what about most? We have to work with generalisations because if we take every nuance we won't be able to get a accurate grasp of reality. If a minority of men or women are able to handle something should that mean we tell the majority that its okay to their own detriment? I understand society trying to progress, but at the same time some wisdom from religion or tradition was there for a reason. Conservatives are the brakes on progress, liberalism is the accelerator. If we accelerate too fast it can cause issues without holding a brake on to certain limits our biology, psychology and emotions can have. I understand judgment is bad ie slut shaming etc but on the flip side not letting women or men know the consequences of actions is equally bad. Not as a moral judgment, just as a if you do A, you may experience B. The same way people have the choice to smoke or drink and no one judges it, yet the consequences are known, the same should be told for casual sex. I think the consequences of casual sex are starting to show up now in the stats and happiness levels for example.

Question for the ladies: If a guy develops himself into a great person with a good balance of bad boy / boyfriend caring traits etc and goes through the dating process ie sleeping with someone a few times to figure out if they like each other or share the same values etc over time only to get end it once he finds some red flags. Isn't that leaving a lot of collateral damage behind? Do women get hung up on the 'one' that got away causing baggage or them to not be happy in their future relationships or is this something guys shouldn't worry about too much? Empaths want to date but also don't want to hurt feelings going through a lot of dating to eventually find someone they connect with long term. @Random witch ''And yes defiantly I can sleep with a man without developing deep emotions and expecting from him to be my future husband for 30 years. And many times I think about doing sex for the sake of doing sex and I don't think or care about what's next.'' Wondering how true this is for majority of women.. Can people be compatible sexually only and not in other ways. Won't sex eventually lead to emotions and a bond where you want something more. Men are told the opposite of this and maybe its only a smaller percentage of women?

Attractiveness to women is essentially strength in its forms (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual). Strength on these levels translates to the traits : Appearance/Animality, Assured/Assertive, Attentive/Abundant, Aliveness. These 7 traits also are in line with the 7 chakras. These are traits that signal strength internal and external. Externally it can be social proof, status, wealth, power etc. These traits are who an attractive person is, not just what they have outside of themselves or what their attractiveness translates to / gets them externally, although the external achievements can re-inforce those traits. Superficially having value externally signals you must have certain internal value/traits to obtain that external value (people can cheat this obviously), or when someone doesn't see that external value in a superficial way and see's those traits in you as a person internally it sub communicates you either have that external value or can obtain that external value which helps them in their survival, and to thrive in life. Physical / Root/Sacral chakra: Appearance (looks/good genes,protective strength) and Animality (in touch with sexuality/primal) this is what causes you to flirt, lets her know this is a man speaking to a woman. Emotional / solar plexus/heart chakra: Assuredness (of your self worth, value, life and that of others giving rise to compassion, can be an emotional rock for the woman, your not emotionally weak or unavailable but emotionally resilient and hold space for her emotional storms) and Assertive (trust in your ability to act rather than be acted upon by life, you ACTtualise your vision, purpose, potential through ACTion). Mental / throat/third eye chakra: Attentive (towards her, social calibration, you have value but she has to have access to that value, if not caring of her needs with your attentiveness towards them theres no security for the woman) and Abundant (in your vision/view of life and what it has to offer). Rational (attentive) optimist (abundant). Attentive towards life and truth, yet optimistic / abundant for you see beauty inherit in life despite its suffering, and see life for what it could be. Rationality devoid human emotion/vision/spirit is nihilistic. Optimism devoid rationality is destructive. Spiritual / crown chakra: Aliveness (in touch with the spirit that animates life, become full of life/energy others want to bask in, playful, share loving energy, compassionate as you realise the essence in you is shared by the essence in others)

Disclaimer: We have both masculine and feminine and need a healthy mix of the two to self actualise. Men mostly masculine with some femininity to round them off, and women mostly feminine with some masculinity to round them off. Men devoid of any masculinity and only inhabiting toxic masculine traits is un healthy, women devoid any femininity and inhabiting toxic feminine / masculine traits is un healthy. Feminism was great for women's liberation and to bring civil humane equality, but the aspects/factions of it being supremacist is whats un healthy, to demonising any masculinity at all and the current environment to where there is confusion and animosity between the genders. Also, to equating equality with being biologically equality in that women can do what men can do and better (ie sleep around like men to their own detriment as men can have sex more easily without emotion). Men losing their healthy masculinity in todays environment of gaming, screen time, porn and junk food induced softness leaves women needing to fill the masculine role / traits to excess at the death of femininity. Both genders need to work together, men to become positively masculine and so to protect women's femininity and create an environment they can be feminine in. We also have a economic reality where women need excess masculine traits just in order to win for their economic survival needs, society needs to construct a healthier economic environment women can flourish in without needing to be masculinised against their nature. Maybe subconsciously the reason the societies of the world have always tried so hard to protect and provide for their women in a manner of care that is all but absent in nature to their respective men is due to something of a matter of instinct which seeks to preserve the spiritual femininity of women, with an inherent understanding that the failure to protect women from the world and its evil would lead to the masculinisation of their disposition and thus rather tragically, the irrevocable loss of their femininity, for not enough new girls can be born and protected sufficiently from their older counterparts to replace the entire female demographic with women of femininity. It would seem that societies on some fundamental level have realised, perhaps not always in a way that they are conscious and eloquent enough to articulate, that femininity in and of itself carries a certain intrinsic value that is necessary for the sustenance and self-preservation of a society, and it is this value that is to be protected and sustained. These societies realised that subjecting women to the same kind of pressures that men are subject to would cause them to lose their femininity along the way, and such women would better benefit society by retaining their femininity rather than sacrificing it out of necessity in the emulation of man. For if society should forfeit femininity, demanding women fend for and coarsen themselves with the ugliness of survival, the very society reliant upon those who would maintain it would feel the tremors of emancipation as the feminine spirit is forcefully eviscerated from the societal psyche, leaving nothing but a collection of beings who strive to be manlike in its wake. Main article from another source Hardened men make for attractive men, for toughness is a trait that men and women alike covet in men. Almost all respect a hardened man even when they dislike him. Hardened women on the other hand do not inspire desire nor respect, merely alienation. Hardening is conducive to the cultivation of masculinity, but to femininity it is toxic. To femininity it is harmful, deleterious. Women must seek wisdom and respite in the face of suffering, not masculination. For women to preserve their greatest asset: their femininity, they must avoid masculinisation at all costs. This is healthier and more conducive to a woman’s development than adopting masculine boisterousness. Women are taught to debauch their femininity in pursuit of power and social acceptance under the rule of extreme feminist dogma. They all too unwittingly realise not what they give up by capitulating to feminism. Much to woman’s detriment, adhering to the feminist roadmap results in a vitiation of her desirability to the kind of man she yearns for. Of specific note in regard to this is the contemporary culture. The current economic model and prevailing social-programming of the time push women towards masculinity by framing it as “liberation.” Feminism sells women the lie that to masculinise is to become free. It convinces the feminine to divorce herself from her nature and to aspire to be that which she isn’t. That her desire to nurture, support and mother is weak. She should become more manlike, fierce, assertive, a conqueror! Indeed what banal trite, there is no man of worth breathing that wants to commit to the fabled feminist “real woman.” As such, the typical woman aims to emulate the qualities of men rather than master the art of femininity. These women have been contorted in belief to reject traditional femininity as abhorrent, weak. They delusively idolise emulating the behaviour of man whilst ironically harbouring a hatred for man. They idolise such behaviour because they have been taught it is necessary to acquire success and respect. They could not be any more wrong. Nothing raises the ire and disdain of man more than a woman who attempts to make him obsolete by emulating him. Men desire not masculine women, neither do they wish to compete with them. Men desire feminine women, they want to take care of them. Men of substantial worth reject women devoid of femininity. Women have two distinct choices, the prior I believe leading to richer, longer-lasting happiness and the latter, not so. They may refine their femininity and cultivate that quality to captivate the love of a powerful man. Said man will provide the bulk of the income. Work will be relegated to the realm of hobby, coming not before family, keeping house and child-rearing. The latter is that of the career woman, of independence. This is the ethos that has led to the collective masculinisation, stress and misery of today’s women. They forgo the refinement of femininity to work in the world of business. To be competitive in such an environment they toughen up to survive, reducing their social appeal. Toughness (distinct from resilience) reduces a woman’s femininity, thus mitigating her desirability to men. A resilient woman can maintain her femininity and draw upon feminine strength without masculinising. Resilient women continue to build upon and maximise their femininity in spite of hardship. They do not give in to the corruptive allure of masculinisation and poison themselves with a lust for conquest. They expend their efforts on becoming personable, wise and altruistic. They look for shelter in friendship and compassion, rather than sacrifice their femininity on the altar of feminism. They enhance rather than contort themselves. They do not entertain bitterness and allow hatred to warp them into vaginal caricatures of masculinity. They embrace femininity for the value it holds to men and their own nature. They do not adopt the contemptuous inferiority complex symptomatic of feminism. They do not chain themselves to the views of “friends” who condemn them for aspiring to be feminine. Those who undergo pain often become tougher of heart as a coping mechanism. With toughness comes a certain masculine component. The more damaged and pain afflicted a person becomes, the more they harden and toughen. This hardening is a natural response to ineptitude, dysfunction and disappointment. Hardening is necessary for masculine self-improvement because men are charged with leadership. Men cannot be attractive and fulfilled in their relationship unless they lead, women can. Men can have it all, they can become harder and likewise more desirable in their masculinity. This could even go so far to explain why in the psychological sense women have a propensity to value the ruggedness that experience brings in men. While men on the other hand tend to prefer innocence and inexperience in women – defining this as not only as seductive but psychologically desirable. The why is simple: such a woman is free of the contamination of bitterness and cynicism that the failures of experience would wrought upon such a woman. These psychological aspects are the predominant culprits responsible for spoiling a woman’s femininity. There is little feminine that can remain feminine in the presence of distrustful cynicism and vitriolic bitterness. In essence the more worn and experienced a woman becomes, the less feminine she becomes. Whilst a more battle-scarred and experienced man becomes more masculine. This is symptomatic of toughness, for toughness is a masculinising procedure. It appears that men become more masculine with time and sufficient hardship. Antithetically, women, less feminine. Therefore it stands to reason that toughness is conducive to masculinity whilst detrimental to femininity. It is in my estimation that men not only prefer young women for their more nubile bodies, but additionally, for their more innocent – and so feminine – disposition. This perhaps goes some way in explaining the feminine obsession with maturity, for mature woman are (physically) oft perceived less desirable than the immature. Diametrically an immature man is of markedly lower desirability than a mature one. What’s good for one is not good for the other. It seems to be the nature of gender and biology itself to impose different measures of desirability upon men and women. Without these differences, there cannot be union. Yin-yang is necessary to maintain the balance needed for love to flourish. Women being yin, men being yang. When we try to reverse yin and yang so that women become masculine and men, feminine – monogamous love fails to flourish. Indeed it seems the position of yin and yang within the gender duality are static impositions. Without the counterbalance of gentle and demure femininity to complement the assertiveness of masculinity, any affected society would foster detached apathy through competition within its citizenry rather than inclusive empathy through community. Femininity is not just a gift to women, free of the shackles of responsibility that define manhood and the accompanying economic struggle that brings, but likewise a gift to men also, who would confide in and find emotional solace within the spirit of their lovers femininity, expressing momentary vulnerability to the softest of souls in a way that only a man in agape with a woman would dare. A woman who feels safe enough and looked after enough is feminine in the most natural and charming way, momentarily carefree as she “lets her guard down”, she is a happy woman, a sweet woman, a kind woman and perhaps most importantly to our humble species, an attractive woman. Rarely do women get to experience this type of innocence anymore as the forces of feminism masculinise them into perverse hybrids, women composed of the worst that femininity and all her flaws has to offer whilst likewise borrowing the very worst that masculinity has to offer, educated to never let their guard down “in the face of oppression”, be this evangel preached directly through activism or indirectly via the harshness of the workplace and the economic machine that it serves, today’s women face emancipation from femininity, like their fellow-men do from masculinity, sold a narrative that their inherent disposition is incompatible with the gender identity that the prevailing ideology would demand of and subscribe to them. Just how can the feminine continue to exist within the modern world when it is psychologically beaten out of women on a day-to-day basis? How can women be kind, caring and sensitive when they must work in the world of business, a masculinising albeit sociopathic world of margins, deadlines, quotas, targets, bottom lines and politics? You see the workplace itself undermines the cultivation of femininity, the hardened woman is but a feeble caricature of the ideal man, should she be stripped of her femininity via the hallways of heartbreak, the glass table of the boardroom or perhaps an amalgamation of both, such a woman is a walking emanation of all the ugliest that masculinity has to offer and with none of its perks, for she learns the ugliest of masculinity along a pilgrimage for personal conquest rather than learn it in whole in the way that only a boy who seeks to become a man can. She does not learn the nuances of masculinity, its duty, its honour, it’s burden or it’s inherently biological need to protect and provide and thus forth and so such a woman imposes herself ruthlessly and demandingly, without thought nor care for those she imprints her apathy on, belittling the men she hates along the way with vapid deep-seated hatred, corrupting fellow women in her wake, imploring that they too sacrifice their femininity under the guise of “motherly advice” in the promotion that her younger counterparts become like that which she has become, a caricature of a man, a woman who emulates the worst of masculinity without embodying any of its finer or more nobler traits. You see masculinisation affects women differently than it does men, within men it fosters growth and actualisation, within women it fosters contempt, dissonance and discontent, corrupting the very souls of who they are, stripping them of any desirability beyond the flesh, which too, will eventually fade with age. Is there anything less feminine in the world than a ball-busting cynical person devoid of the charms and femininity that men the world over have come to admire and cherish in women for eons and eons? No, no there is not, and it is the crucifixion of femininity being perpetuated as an affront to masculinity within modern ideology, feminism containing the largest amount of estrogenic blood on its hands, that is unilaterally killing feminine spirituality in favour that we sacrifice it on the altar of corporatism in an effort to “equalise” the feminine with the masculine. What this really means it to condemn the true and natural feminine spirit as weak, to redefine it with masculine ideals, reinforce those ideals and then imprint those ideals onto society’s men and women until they believe this perverse form of femininity is “true femininity”, calling for the worship of this one brand of ideologically sanctioned femininity which remains to be nothing more than a corrupt bastardisation of the femininity that comes naturally to women who are free of Anglo social engineering efforts. What feminism has failed to realise is that although it has benefited many women superficially, it has done so at the cost of that which makes them truly women, that which makes them valuable to men beyond their bodies, the overlooked spiritual sense, the beauty that can be derived from their natural femininity. You see feminism spoils femininity in the name of equality, then the imbeciles who cause the damage are so incredibly ignorant (or incredibly intelligent, I cannot but tell the difference) as they seem to be at such a loss to understand just why men and women, but markedly women, are unhappier than they’ve ever been before. You see unlike men who can become better, stronger and more attractive men by growing through their pain and thus amplifying their inherent masculine energy, women do not become better women with pain, they become more manlike, and thus they are stripped of that which makes them attractive to men to begin with. See what is good for man, at least in this instance, is not good for woman. When women become “hardened” it, rather poetically, and quite ironically in its majesty, strips them of the very thing that makes them attractive beyond the realm of the physical to men in the first place, it emancipates them from their femininity, and to ensure a man truly loves a woman, and simply doesn’t just view such a woman as disposable, she must capture his interest psychologically and emotionally, not just physically, because many women can capture the eye of a man, but only a woman of some real feminine energy and depth can capture the heart and thus devotion of a man. You see femininity, like masculinity, must be cultivated, although rather unlike masculinity it mustn’t be taught through pain, but through love. Puppy love is the exception: it is the one love that can be educational to men. Puppy love is the inevitable experience in which naivety prevails, boys become men, and they learn first-hand through the misery of heartbreak and the cacophonous confusion of the indecisive female mind that the unilateral worship and adoration of the feminine form, the willingness to be captivated in the beauty of the feminine form, be it from the sound of her voice, to the touch of the skin, or the smell of her sweat, is nothing but a futile and suicide-inducing endeavour. Men learn for themselves in their quest for masculinity that they must not worship women, but rather, that they must lead them. Women do not go on a quest for femininity; they are born with it, and oft sacrifice it short-sightedly for power within the depths of delusion that makes up modern groupthink, only to realise in old age once their beauty has faded that they traded in their greatest intangible asset long ago.

This was a article from elsewhere I'm sharing which I found interesting, not my words. I get where your coming from and agree its not completely feminism. There are shades of feminism just as their are shades to red pill, militant feminism can get the limelight a lot. The problem with the internet is the most viral of things gets shared and spread, the most negative aspects in general. So although feminism started just fine to give rights etc other aspects took over and the negative sub groups just like with black pill coming out of the red pill community focusing on the worst stories and ideas, the same happened to feminism which then alters peoples perception as those ideas are projected to society. Whats happened now is the pendulum swinging too far in reaction, to the point its hurting both genders and we have another reactionary group which is red pill propping up, there will probably be a reaction to this as well as it gets more main stream. Even without feminism, the fact of technological advancement, birth control, dating apps, people living in bigger cities, dating stigmas declining, that still would have had an effect on the dating landscape and those technologies and way of life (living in big urban cities where we have many dating options) aren't going anywhere unless people unplug and go back to living in small towns. This is regardless of feminism. The point of the article and like you've said yourself is that its hard to retain femininity when you have to fight to survive. It's hard to be a knight and a princess at the same time and I think a lot of men feel sympathy for what women also have to go through. Thats why the article is asking how can we protect women's femininity or create a society in which they can survive in a way that doesn't damage their feminine nature. Healthy feminism doesn't intend to destroy femininity, militant feminism which tells women we can do what men do and be better does. The consequences can however end up hurting femininity in the long run, even if not intended to in the first place. Most men don't feel superior to women or are cruel to women, in fact men are struggling with women today and feel inferior despite how we see men talk amongst themselves. They have a ego to project that they are good with women. A lot of women's sexual attention goes towards the top men of society who do feel superior or don't always treat women the best / have negative masculine traits. This experience of men gets projected out to majority of men who women are sexually blind to. The nice guys are the guys in most women's friend circles or the ones they rejected in the past who would treat them well but don't get them hot. Theres many reasons men are weaker today as society is softer, but one is also because of the feminisation of men in the education system and culture or from being raised in single mother households. Through feminism (and this is maybe where it got taken too far) the introduction of no fault divorce sky rocketed divorces, women mostly getting custody of the children. Without father figures in the household and most school teachers being women men didn't have role models to learn to be strong men from and now we have a society of weaker men as a consequence. Women being more emotional and able to rely on the state, themselves and a mans alimony payments ensures security to the point they can easily just leave a marriage on a emotional decision because they don't 'feel' it anymore. In some cases divorce is justified however. The message from society in most cases is you go girl, do whats right for you, where as men are told do just do whats right. Today's men saw what their dads went through and are opting now to put off marriage, further leaving women alone to survive on their own and the vicious cycle continues to where we are now. Again, men struggling and helping each other comes across toxic or as hatred. Of course there are examples of misogyny, but a lot of it is just direct communication. Men and women communicate differently and women are bound to get emotional reactions to the way men speak to each other, especially pertaining to women and sexual dynamics. Liberalism in the name of freedom is actually giving the top men exactly what they want, free sex whilst majority of men are left struggling. Women say men objectify women and use them as sex objects when women are objectifying themselves in the name of feminism and empowerment not realising that they are feeding into the hands of the very men that embittered them into wanting to be free in the first place ( the jerks / bad boys / mysogynists ) that aren't most men. Power comes with responsibility and has to be used rightly. Have women used their new found powers responsibly? In a lot of cases and spheres yes, being more educated for example and even outperforming men at college/university. But in the realm of love and relationship where emotions come in to play and where break ups can wreak havoc emotionally, and in the case of family havoc for the children I'm not sure. I understand in lot of abusive relationships break ups need to happen but now relationships are breaking apart just because the feelings aren't there anymore, at the cost of family, kids and society. It's a tough situation to figure a solution out to. In the past we had shorter life spans, now we live to 70/80 and can't expect people to be bonded to one person for life. Monogamy was for life where as now its one person at a time.

Leo has to speak in generalisations otherwise to talk about every nuance wouldn't get us anywhere. Of course there are exceptions. We need a certain model or framework to simplify and look at reality within. Hot women get by on their looks and treated like princesses surrounded by yes men that their personalities become entitled and unpleasant in general, then when their looks start to fade and they don't have anything more to offer (ie their femininity intelligence etc) and mens attention goes towards younger hotter women they have an identity crisis. Sex is easy for women to get, so when women see men struggling to get sex and logically studying it ie pick up, it doesn't automatically compute due to their projection and can automatically see you as a loser for not being able to get sex. Men and women are different (equal but different) so their mating strategy is different, in the end the men should focus on their agenda and women on theirs, and they come together to a middle ground and settle with each other in a healthy relationship. The compromise is the man stops pursuing unlimited sex, and the women puts other options off to be in the relationship with her best suitor. Men pursue, women subdue. Men take the initiative to go after the women, and women learn to use this initiate in a judo manner to their own end of being good enough to commit to beyond just sex. When the top shelf men go through sleeping with lots of women, these women get the sense that they are on that level as that guy not realising that these guys just wanted sex and not a relationship. Then these women perceive their value on that level and keep holding out for guys on that level to commit to them, putting off the guys on or near their own level who would love to commit to them. The average guy has no choice but to increase his value in todays dating environment, first to get sex but even more so to maintain a relationship. We can look at modern dating as a problem or puzzle to be solved, pick up and mens advice is attempting to solve the issue but a lot of the information isn't going to make sense to the opposite genders agenda and psychology.

When we put it down to purely biology terms its very cold and naturally we do feel shame/guilt for our animal nature, for something higher in us a humans says we are more than just animals. Men and women aren't good or bad but both good and bad. The potential for devilry or divinity is in both. *David Attenborough voice * The opposite case could be made for women who dress up and accentuate their beauty via make up, heels pushing their hips out, and bras their breasts up, seated at the bar as if a spider web waiting for a fly (guy) to get caught in her feminine charms and to give mind blowing sex to lock the man into a commitment. To meet her end goal of motherhood fulfilling her deepest maternal desire, and to subjugate the male into providing and provisioning to her and child for life, even when she can turn the tap of sex off with no repercussion or threat to her survival lol.

Thats true, women are more the feeler type and men the thinker type. It's why we often hear women say I feel and men I think in stating their points. Power (in men) devoid of any feeling would be destructive and so men should balance it by being more in touch with feelings, and women more with thinking as to not let emotions cloud thinking. The bias from this forum is that the people on it are a lot more intuitive and conscious so if we go by how the women or men are here we project most men and women are like that ie that women go for low conscious behaviour which Leo mentioned. Of course the women here (on a consciousness forum) will say no, but I think the advice is directed at men dealing with the average out there.

Men speak more directly, women indirectly. When men give advice to other men it can hurt women's sensibilities. It is how men communicate with each other, even to the point of insulting each other jokingly, for women looking from the outside in they would think men are stupid for this lol. Now men and women share the same space in discussion forums, gyms etc and men have to police their communication as to not offend (maybe a factor in modern cancel culture as we have become weaker/overly feminised as a society?) It is a testament to mens empathy and self -restraint that he doesn't speak as freely around women as women do around men. Men forego some of their natural way of being to make women comfortable. Evolutionarily women needed the approval of the social group to ensure their survival more so than men, they relied on social ties rather than their own muscular strength that men possessed to survive in the wild. For this reason they try not to offend as easily and are more socially savvy. For men to be strong enough to allow women to be their feminine selves, men need to communicate about truth objectively (even if it hurts feelings) and develop and push society in a better direction. Unfortunately discussion is being diluted and stalled under the banner of 'toxic' 'misogynistic' 'hateful' when its just how men communicate, also known as locker room talk. Women in their sensitivity appear to be more empathetic and they are, however mans relative insensitivity allows him to be more empathetic in the sense that when you're not easy to offend, you're better equipped to cater to others, when you're self consumed with emotion this is harder to do. Men and more so women trust their emotions and act mostly on emotion. For an emotional person if it feels right then it is right and although some things don't feel good to hear or believe they may in reality be sound and correct.

This! A lot of what made us naturally more sociable has gone from society. Tech, screen time, isolated living, weaker bodies (from modern lifestyle) and thus weaker psychology and mental health. A healthy person is a vibrant person, a vibrant person is a sociable person. I guess pick up is attempting to remedy the symptom as the root causes are too big to tackle. We aren't getting rid of the internet, big city living any time soon, now the meta verse in development only furthers us from reality. Essentially our biological evolution hasn't kept up with our technological/cultural evolution and its wreaking havoc on our biological instincts unless we'r very conscious of modern tools affects and live accordingly.

Women are more socially savy than men and thus even have the capability to be more manipulative by nature, that was their mode of survival and is evolved in their hardwiring. Their means of power/strength was covert (social) where as mans was overt (physical). In todays world we have moved from brawn to brain, and women are running circles around men in the social sphere. Men need way more socialisation time to keep up or even attract women. Beautiful women manipulate men all the time and get perks, power corrupts and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. Beauty is power to women. It isn't the tool (beauty, pick up skills, power) thats bad but the hand that wields it. Biology is hardware, and psychology is software. We are human animals by hardware, but human beings by software, it is layered with psychology. Our biologies draw us to be attracted to certain traits (base survival needs) but our psychology also plays into it. We may be aroused instinctively to certain people, our psychology is what can help us decide if we want to stay with a certain person based on mutual interests values etc. Our biology and emotions are very strong and can over ride our psychology, you could be attracted and aroused by a guy who may not be good for you and you logically acknowledge this, maybe after the fact, but in the moment if he does the right things and your emotions are high people find it hard not to act on them especially paired. Men have generally gotten softer, and the few strong men around are strong in the negative (jerks/bad boys). Still, women will say they aren't attracted to them (its politically correct and in the moment their being logical) but in the presence of such men and flooded with emotions its another story. Other guys see this and wish to emulate these guys. The nuance is that men need to learn to be strong in the positive and make women feel emotions as the jerks would, but still be respectful. A lot of guys are now growing up fatherless, and the school system is predominantly female so they don't get to see how men should behave and pick this up by osmosis. Hollywood and media is a poor substitute for this.

Many guys are willing to give women real affection, but those guys are invisible or looked at as creeps as they lack strength. For women to experience affection and enjoy it, it has to come from a place of strength and respect. Lust is the foundation from which romantic love grows, that lust is predicated on strength and power in its many forms (physical, social, status, financial, emotional etc). Conscious survival means be conscious to the fact women are over looking you and go learn and do something about it, but to also be respectful and not abusive with the new knowledge you may gain. Love and consciousness is for everyone, but in the domain of romantic love animal biology has its own laws we must learn to live by. We aren't just spirits interacting with each other but spirits incarnate into biological forms with their own biases interacting with each other. When we speak to someone, we speak to their spirit, their biology, their past experiences/upbringing dictating their current psychological biases and ours to theirs. Spiritual people create an ego on the other side of the coin to act like their above fundamental human needs, a holier than thou attitude of anti pleasure, anti life, asceticism. As long as we are bound by flesh we must live by flesh, but consciously.

If pick up just changed its name to socialising a lot of bad connotations would go away from it. A sub section of the pick up industry was toxic and that got the limelight unfortunately. A thread was just created on how its very hard to transcend sexual desire, even Ram Dass didn't manage, even Leo is still pursuing relationships, so what makes us think the average guy can. The path to relationship has changed in todays day. Workplace romance is off due to me too (don't dip your pen in company ink), social circles aren't as prevalent due to the rat race of big cities, people tucked away at home behind screens etc and picking up in your social circle risks destroying the little community bond you have as people don't live in big familial communities anymore also. So people resort to pick up. Spiral dynamics integrates the lower, sexuality is the stepping stone and lowest rung of the ladder to higher things. Without it how does one climb to higher levels. As Osho even said, spirituality is a rich mans game, the hungry will only care for satiating their hunger, people likewise must satiate their sexuality and intimacy needs. Once sexuality's grips via testosterone declines in middle age this need goes away, but people still have the need for companionship. Intimacy is a survival need, mostly psychological survival to be healthy mentally but this also extends to impacting your physical health as has been studied extensively.

Great video. Think of hypergamy/biology as hardware, and psychology as software. Hypergamy is hardwired biologically, but it is layered with psychology. Although women's biology drives them to get the best they can get, their psychology and self esteem over lays this. Women are more emotional but they aren't devoid rationality completely either, they know they can't just leave a guy as they are ageing and expect to find another man that easily so they prioritise and appreciate their current partner. Also, people's self esteem can feel intimidated being with people too much higher than them so they seek around or over above their level but not so much. Top performers come with certain mindsets habits etc that women will feel too pressured to keep up with just in order to maintain that man, it will cause too much anxiety and insecurity.

https://twitter.com/TellYourSonThis/status/1385261351866675206 Heres the link.

Society / environment nurtures a certain nature out of us, hopefully a healthy sociable one, thats lacking today. If a baby was just to be him/her self and not emulate society / parents it would stay a baby. Manipulation has a bad connotation but everything is being manipulated, I'm manipulating my hands to type this rite now, usually the word is used in a negative way to trick someone, its the place its coming from. If a child is learning how to speak another language and they go practice with someone, do we say their manipulating the other to speak to them back in that language? What is our authentic self? There is a greater self in everyone thats waiting to come out. The potential yet to be made potent, action is what sprouts that seed of potential. People when trying new habits are bound to make mistakes but eventually the BEhaviour starts changing the Being and it becomes them, thus no longer an act. Being can change behaviour as can behaviour change being. When in the past only 40% of males got to reproduce, then agriculture / monogamy came around and every one got partnered up finally men could be themselves even if they were effeminate, soppy romantics, average earners they'd still get a mate. Now that women don't depend on men and can choose the strongest genes, telling men to just be authentic is a disservice and the past patterns of history may repeat where a large cohort of society don't ever get to partner up and reproduce. This is now the wild west. Women are bound to have a natural instinctive repulsiveness to pick up because evolutionarily, if they mated with weak genes thinking they were strong due to a front or act that would mean death. Men are made valuable, women and children are naturally valued by society for their life giving ability, with out them there is no society. Men build their value, women preserve it.

Hope this helps. ''Hypergamy is overstated and used to explain everything to the point its almost reductionist. Whilst hypergamy certainly exists, there are many relationships in which the woman could clearly do better (marry richer or smarter or better looking) but hasn't and won't. Women value the emotional attachment they have with their man. If she can easily discard you, that's not because of hypergamy, it's because you aren't very masculine and never made her feel like a woman under your masculinity so she sought to have that void filled elsewhere. Stated another way, a man smarter, better looking & richer than you could show interest in your woman. But if you've been having good sex, bonding with her, leading her and taking care of business, she's never gonna leave you. You're her world. She doesn't care about that dude. Sure he's better than you in a bunch of ways, but why would she care? You make her feel like a woman. She has history with you. She's bonded with you. She knows fuck all about that guy. He could be a piece of shit. They have no history. She isn't unhappy enough to "try him out". She's happy she's with a committed guy as her looks fade and she has younger competition for those same guys. A man only need reach a certain threshold of competence and emotional connection with a woman for her to be loyal to him and feel like she's his. Be passive and lazy as a man and sure she might cheat, but is that hypergamy, or just leaving a guy because he's a lazy loser bum? Believing women are constantly optimising hypergamy to get the best potential man at any given moment means they are being hyper rational. It suggests they're hypervigilant opportunists, when really they're too emotional to keep breaking pair bonds like that. There is also the sunken cost effect of not wanting to lose out on what you've invested so much into, the shared history created with some one. Really broken women don't trust men and don't pair bond easy. They in actual fact, hate men. So they want to use them. They're predatory, and money driven. They see men as wallets & never truly connect. These gold digging types do optimise their hypergamy.'' Practical point of advice, choose well and older. Women in their early 20's are still maturing and don't know what they want, they change and want to see what else is out there whilst they have youth on there side. Generally late 20's realisation sets in of ageing, someone is more set in their ways values and being and you know what your getting into, plus them not getting the same attention their younger selves used to get and that they need to settle, appreciate who their with, want a family before the biological clocks ticks out all improve odds of a longer relationship. Theres a reason younger marriages have the highest divorce rates.