Consept

@Mesopotamian Bro i have the solution for you and i think youll be happy because it fits your logic. You say women should go against their natural tendencies, i propose you go against your natural tendencies for finding a young looking, attractive woman and go for a physically unattractive woman. You only want an attractive, healthy looking woman because it signals that she would be fertile, with modern science you can quite easily check if she is fertile, so all of that really is unnecessary. Just because shes unattractive doesnt mean she doesnt deserve love. Next time you cant find love, consider questioning your underlying attraction and you may end up with someone.

Women and men may not be aware of why theyre attracted to what theyre attracted to, you would only be aware if you looked into evolutionary biology of humans. Women of course may say theyre attracted to confidence but the reason this is attractive is because it means that the man is likely to have confidence in life and be able to gather resources as well as look after the woman and her children, if throughout history low confidence men were able to gather resources more effectively then low confidence men would be more attractive. With men the reason why youth and fitness are attractive is because that signals fertility in women, this is why looking young is very important for women in terms of attraction. Wearing lipstick for example makes women more attractive to men as red lips are signal that the woman is ovulating as this is what happens naturally, men are not actively thinking about these things, theyre just thinking that the womens hot, but these are traits that have evolved over millions of years. 'Getting rich making you confident' is a strawman, i didnt say you should get rich and then it makes you confident, its the other way round which is why confidence is actually more attractive than just having money, confidence is an indicator that you are resourceful and you can get what you want. If you got rich without being confident then youre trying to mask your lack of confidence. There are plenty of rich guys that are terrible at attracting women. You choose to create it because you have these desires in you from your biology, if you were asexual or lost all your testosterone you probably wouldnt be bothered with attracting a woman, you definitely wouldnt have the thought process of improving your life situation so that you can have what you need to get the right woman. Your goal of attracting a woman is from your biology and from your ancestors and how they evolved , you may not like this and try to rationalise it by saying that all attraction is low level and youre above it but the fact is your still spending a good amount of time planning how youll find the right woman, this is not just a choice that you made for the sake of it. Take these biological urges away and you definitely wont choose to have that experience. As i said love and attraction are two different things, no matter how much you talk you can not change what women are attracted to as much you cant change what youre attracted to and the fact that you wouldnt even consider an 'unattractive' woman because of the 'work' you put in would suggest that. I'm not saying that you cant and shouldnt try and get to true love, but i would say i think its actually quite difficult in romantic relationships, it is hard to have unconditional love in these circumstances, there will always be conditions on the relationship. In terms of experience, its not something i want to prove, but i am 37 and can guarantee you Im a lot more experienced than you are in this respect. Ive also had these deep conversations with women in intimate, vulnerable settings so when I speak it is from direct experience. I have actually learnt the most from women from my experiences with them and my initial ideas about them completely changed after these experiences, I dont know how old you are but if i talked to the me at lets say 18 I wouldve been completely clueless but probably thought i knew everything

@mr_engineer Where I disagree fundamentally is your claim that women are not naturally evolved to be attracted to physical attributes or the ability to require resources. I'm not excluding that they are attracted or can be attracted to deeper things. But what you're suggesting is essentially a conspiracy theory that all the powerful men have gotten together over the years to influence what women are attracted to and that it has worked on them. It would be easier to just go with the reality that women's attraction has evolved over millions of years and men have tried to subvert that without lasting success as you can't change evolution that quickly. If you go as deep as what you're suggesting, the need for a romantic monogamous connection would most likely fade away and you'd just connect with people in general, rather than what you said you're doing which is improving your career and making yourself more confident so that you can find a woman that's suited to you and then get her in a one on one relationship, if you have enlightenment you won't need all of that. But anyway as a say you are fundamentally wrong on evolutionary biology, in that you're dismissing the whole field to hold up your theory, which to me doesn't make any sense as a lot of the findings literally play out in the real world. The fact that you're dismissive of such relevant research of what you're talking about would suggest that your mind isn't open to truth, you have decided upon your idea and it fits into your untested reality which is why it's hard for you to shift from it or even acknowledge different points of view. Have you noticed that you haven't conceded a single point or said you understood where anybody who engaged with this thread has come from, despite the fact most that have are way more experienced on the subject than you are? You should question why that is.

I think youre fundamentally wrong on this point, evolutionary psychologists will say that the reason men are driven to gather resources and power is specifically because thats what attracts women, this has been the case throughout history and is also the case in the animal kingdom. Gorillas for example are motivated to become the strongest because if they are it would make them the most attractive to females, they dont force females to mate because they are powerful, which is essentially your argument for humans. Within many species of animals, the male has to gather resources to show that he can look after the female and kids otherwise the female will not consider him. Other species the female will be attracted to males that have what she considers good genes and mate with them. Our society is literally led by what women are attracted to, men who abuse power and try and restrict female sexuality through religion or ideology are doing that specifically because they are not attractive to women. Even if a women in the past did marry someone just because of how powerful they are, they most likely would be attracted to someone else, which is why marriage came in the first place, to guarantee paternity for the father. If powerful men did have the power to literally control what women were attracted to, to the extent that women themselves didnt recognise it why would they bother conditioning them to have traits that were hard to attain? Why condition them to like physically strong men when they could just as easily condition them to like overweight men? You can make the argument that marriage to someone they werent attracted to was kind of pushed on them as a societal norm but the argument that what they were attracted is enforced in them, literally goes against nature, i think would be pretty impossible to achieve this, especially within a relatively short period of time evolutionarily speaking.

True but your claim is that women dont know what they want and what they do want has been programmed into them by men. You're taking a higher level position and saying that the traditional ways attraction that has worked for women is essentially nonsense, so what im getting at is why are you able to keep the traditional male ways attraction that are intertwined with traditional womens attraction, but women have to change what theyre attracted to? Also do you need find it a bit hypocritical that you as a man are defining what women should be attracted to whilst simultaneously criticising men for defining what women should be attracted to?

This doesnt fit your logic, you said what women are attracted to is due to the patriarchy putting ideas in their head and women dont know what hey want. So why is that different to you, youre attracted to certain physical features because you too have been programmed that way, if you want to love on a higher level i dont see why physical attributes should come into it, if youre expecting a woman to transcend her requirement for physical attributes and just go directly to love, wouldnt be incumbent on you to do the same?

great answers @Tyler Robinson quite impressed with your clarity on the subject

Right and im saying i didnt care about all that and i was still attractive to women, so in my experience its nothing do with that in terms of attraction. Im not saying being focused isnt attractive but its definitely not a pre-requisite, some of the guys a grew up with who had no ambition were great with women. Again phrases like 'thinking with my dick' are a demonisation of a broader point. Your deeper connection strategy is great for romantic relationships but my point is that the attraction stage comes first before all of that. The point i was making is that using your strategy, girls that youre not physically attracted to should still be on the table because they could be compatible with you in all the criteria that you mentioned. Using your ideas physical traits shouldnt really come into it that much because most of them are imposed on us by society anyway, so you should get to know as many girls as you can and see if you match on the deeper levels that youre talking about. Yes womens screening does happen that way but most women will know whether theyre attracted to you within 3 seconds of meeting, obviously after they have to talk to you to decide whether they like you and would want to go on a date or talk more. But the point is attraction is quite an instant thing and if you dont have that with a woman you will get no where near the stages that youre talking about. Heres some data around speed dating stats that show the 3 second claim - https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/science-says-you-do-this-surprising-thing-in-just-3-seconds-hint-it-has-to-do-with-attraction.html

This all sounds great but im sorry from my personal experience it does not work like this at all. When I was in University, I had a lot of interest from girls, partly because they thought i looked good but also I hung out with the right people and i had a bit of a mysterious, sigma male kind of vibe. I slept with a few girls but i couldve slept with a lot more and ended up getting serious with one girl, who pushed for the relationship, it wasnt really me as i was quite avoidant lol. At the time I had no idea of what youre talking about, I was probably my least authentic self, Im much more authentic now. Point being theres 2 very distinct factors that I think youre conflating. 1. Attraction, this is essentially being fuckable. A girl has to consider you to be this at a minimum for you to have any romantic chance with her. The conversation of anything deeper will be a moot point if this box is not checked. This doesnt mean just looks and external things btw, those are a factor but vibe, social skills, game essentially all play into this. Also should be said that just because a girl considers you fuckable she still may not want anything with you. She may want a long term partner and youre almost too fuckable where she doesnt think youll fit that for example. 2. Emotional and deeper connections. This is what youre talking about through your posts and I agree this is very important for a long term relationship, but long term or short term 1 is essential. I think the issue people are talking about and probably why you dont seem to have had a relationship or whatever it is you want, is that youre demonising the first stage, you think it is in some way wrong or low tier, even if you dont acknowledge it you too feel this, otherwise you could talk to girls youre not attracted to and see if they match up to your deeper connection strategy. Youre putting attraction at the end of your strategy and this is just dishonest in my opinion, how do you know if youre sexually compatible someone if youve never actually had sex?

Ah yeah that episode was amazing, the transcendence of your physical form and all being one is done so well. This series has been great actually

@mr_engineer I mean you can definitely guess that they would want someone who could get resources, most likely could hunt for food and could protect them, someone strong etc, this is the case in a lot of ape species especially and it would've been part of our evolution and has generally been the case throughout human history. If your position is that what women are attracted to is all down to how they've been socialised by the patriarchy, isn't it weird that they're still attracted to a lot of the traits that they're ancestors were? Ie being able to get resources, being strong and able to protect, having healthy genes to pass on etc. These things are deeply hardwired into humans to find attractive, mainly at least initially for survival and producing the best offspring. Now you might say those things are not needed as women can gather resources themselves and protection is generally outsourced to police. But the evolved markings of what is attractive can't be turned off just like that and this is the problem were having currently as the standards fir what's attractive have increased a lot. So it'll be interesting where it goes and what becomes attractive but it will take a while.

@mr_engineer Again I'm not arguing necessarily from a redpill perspective, but I guess redpill aims to work out why women choose the guys that they do and essentially how the average guy can become that guy. This is not necessarily one-size fits all masculinity though, for example some women are attracted to spiritual guys, some are attracted to ambitious guys, it is subjective to some extent but there tend to overarching characteristics that are more attractive in general, for example confidence or being good socially. A lot of this is to do with how we developed as a species. You wouldn't say it's weird that female gorillas are attracted to strong males, they must've been indoctrinated to like strong males. I guess a question to you, is what do you think cavewomen would've been attracted to in a mate?

I'm not really arguing from a redpill point of view I was more looking at evolutionary biology and research from people like Dr Buss, I think it's quite a big call to dismiss all of that but you do seem set on your opinion so I don't think there's room for you to move on it, so I will leave that point. If you asked the women that you're talking about what they would be attracted to in a mate at least initially, are you saying they wouldn't be attracted to masculinity, healthy or otherwise? Apart from fulfilling emotional needs what do you think they attracted to?

Feminine women would select for traits of a masculine man, men being attracted to feminine women would be a result of biology and evolution. If women always selected feminine men, men today would be a lot more feminine. Anyway overall I'm not saying social conditioning isn't a factor but I find your view quite black and white as to say its all social conditioning and I think the implication is that people's biology is over ridden by it. Personally I don't think this is the case but also there's a lot of scientific research that would dispute this. In reality itsva mixture of both but social conditioning usually leads off from biology. For example men are evolved to be attracted to youth in women so women wear make up to look younger, red lips are a sign of fertility hence lipstick. Women are predisposed to be attracted to a man who can gather resources (as they are in the animal kingdom) hence men get good at gathering resources, those who don't their bloodline dies out. I don't see how you can disregard all of this and just men decided to choose what women would be attracted to, seems like you're missing a big chunk of the story.

When i say female attraction, im not just talking about physical, women select differently than men but there is still a criteria eg confidence, intelligence, ambition etc. Yes it is about how they feel toward you, as in you have to make them feel good in some way for them to consider you a viable partner but initially, that usually revolves around the man being fun or interesting to be around. What I want to ask though is do you put any weight on genetics in terms of women choosing partners due to how theyve evolved, also do you give them any autonomy in their selection? or do you think its completely down to their social conditioning which has been effectively chosen for them by men in power?

Hypergamy is actually where i disagree with the redpill, i dont think most women are just going to jump into another relationship if they are happy enough with the guy that theyre with, it basically speaks to a fear men have evolved to have because they need to make sure that the child they have with their partner is actually theirs. How would this work in practice though? On a desire and attraction level women are not going to get horny for someone who just fulfils their emotional needs and not their attraction needs, so im not saying fulfilling emotional needs is not important but it seems like youre down playing the role of attraction which is fundamental in people getting together. Ideally you would have both. Would you personally be with someone that you werent attracted to but fulfilled your emotional needs?

So would you say women are going against their nature when selecting men? If so what do you characteristics in men do you think they would select for if there wasn't this pressure?

Hypergamy is definitely overstated by the redpill but to say women don't have much of a say on who they mate with, of course they do, they literally push men to become who they want them to be. I'm not sure you're taking in what km saying though, so I'll leave it here otherwise we'll just go round in circles. I would recommend you read evolution of desire by Dr Buss he touches on a lot of what was discussed in the thread.

OK can you breakdown the exact philosophies from the red pill that you disagree with? The issue with your argument is that you seem to be saying red pill and patriarchy or social constructs that are outdated and we should abandon them for a higher level way of getting together. I appreciate your sentiment, but i think what youre missing is that red pill is attempting to teach what is already ingrained in human the psyche in terms of attraction and desire, its not inventing it. These attraction cues are hard wired in us and are an evolution of why our ancestors selected the partners that they did, you are how you are specifically because your ancestors had some trait that was considered attractive in the mating market place and they would have been chosen over other rivals who didnt get to reproduce. Men have always gone for women that have markers of youth as this is when they can reproduce, women will go for guys with good genes and who have resources dependent on their mating strategy. Red pill did not invent any of this, its just trying to manipulate this nature and is essentially just another mating strategy designed to help men who are at risk of not being able to reproduce. The issue isnt so much women have more say in who they mate with, the issue is that they now have more resources, which by itself is not an issue of course but the way they have been wired for 1000s of years is to be attracted to someone who has a lot of resources, so their mark of a lot of resources is basically a man who has more than them. This makes it harder for a self made wealthy woman to find an eligible man around her age who is making more than her, her pool has now shrunk immensely. Of course social media, advertising, films etc has also increased the standards of women and men, so it does make it harder all round. Also males fight over females strictly because of how women select males, a fertile female in the animal kingdom, lets gorillas for example chooses the strongest male, whoever the winner of their battles is, she sets that standard. In other species it could be the most nurturing males get chosen, i think thats the case with penguins for example, its basically whatever evolution needs you to be and the females make that choice. With humans, females select for lots of stuff inc ability to procure resources, intelligence, physical strength, this is just what it is.

You can call it more bullshit, which it kind of is, but you can also see it as just a more complexed strategy as we have more developed brains as you say. There are chimps now that adapt different mating strategies such as isolating females when they can, theres a fish that pretends to be a female to bypass the alpha male and fertilise the eggs of the haram. Point being that what youre seeing as a bullshit marketplace is just a natural development of human mating strategies. I think a good argument is that its kind of on steroids because of social media and capitalism in general but even so, it is what it is and the 'successful' humans will reproduce. Once you get into a relationship then of course set your system and find a mate who will partner with you, but in terms of changing mating strategies as a whole which i might be wrong but its what you seem to be suggesting, thats not going to happen

This is not me taking the piss here but try and make your argument in regard to Lions. Male Lions have to become strong and dominant so they can be protectors, female Lions pick the most dominant males so they can pass down these genes, the males will then mate with the most fertile Lionesses. This is basically a market in the same way we have a market, we select for different things but the idea is the same and its all about reproduction. So what it seems youre arguing for is a man made system over nature. The market place we experience is our reaction to our nature, its nothing to do with redpill, at its core. You can make the argument that redpill tries to manipulate this nature for the benefit of men, which is true but all that is is just a mating strategy geared toward men, the criticism could be that it hurts women in the process but some female mating strategies hurt men in the process, its just one of those things. Your mating strategy might be to convince women of dropping their ego and work on the relationship and thats fine, its not even a bad strategy. If you want to talk about higher level love then that would exist with or without a relationship.

This is fine for when you actually get into a relationship but the selection stage is completely different and is more like a marketplace. For a women to want to take you seriously enough to work out a system with you she has to choose you, shes not going to choose you just because you drop your ego aside, shes going to pick the best person she thinks is suitable and usually women will want the same 'suitable' man that other women want, in which case that man is now going to choose out of the women that hes managed to get interested in him. It works similar in the animal kingdom as well, its very difficult to get around.

The more i think on this topic the more murky it seems to me in terms of how you even judge intelligence. A persons intelligence is adapted to whatever the environment is around them, for example African or South American tribes that were around a few 100 years ago, must have had incredible intelligence in terms of their environment, they would know what slight changes in the wind meant, been able to hunt, how to track etc etc. These wouldve evolved and wouldve been learnt over 1000s of years, to then suddenly rip them out of this habitat and judge them as intelligent based on a world they had never experienced is almost insane. It wouldnt even work the other way, any of us now who had to live in that envioronment probably wouldnt last very long. So it stands to reason that the ancestors of these tribes maybe at a slight disadvantage within the western world, however the adaptability of humans is phenomenal as there isnt much difference in iq and this is shrinking as conditions improve. But its even more murky considering how mixed up everyone is, especially in America, most white people will have african dna and vice versa. As well most south Americans will have european DNA so to separate the races and say one is more intelligent than another really seems kind of an impossibility. In reality the more interesting questions are things like, what affect does poverty have on intelligence? or what parenting style produces more intelligent kids? Are there certain areas that have higher IQ and what might be the reason for this?

I second this, I havent been able to find any scientific research that confirms and can say for sure that one race is innately more intelligent than another but im curious to see if there is actually any evidence to back this up. As i said before it is so hard to get a study thats completely independent of environmental factors it could be near on impossible to find. Maybe if you had children of all races growing up together in the same environment maybe a foster home or orphanage and then tested their intelligence and one race always stood out that could maybe be something. But I can imagine anything that proves this will be very difficult to find if it exists, but always open to changing my mind

Thought this Forbes article might be relevant to your contention - Statistics Show IQ Disparities Between Races. Here's What That Really Means Yes. there are differences in measured IQ between various ‘races’. But what if anything do these differences mean? One cannot accurately and meaningfully compare scores of people with differing experiences health status and educational opportunities ( see the answer to the question Why is African IQ so low compared to Asians and whites? below).” If IQ tests are being used to compare individuals of wildly different backgrounds, then the variable of innate intelligence is not being tested in isolation. Instead, the scores will reflect some impossible-to-sort-out combination of ability and differences in opportunities and motivations,” writes Brink Lindsey. Moreover, IQ is not a measure of inherited, permanent, unvarying intellectual potential. Although it is often discussed as if it is. It does measure, albeit imperfectly, how well one has mastered certain intellectual skills such as literacy and the ability to analyze and use basic math. People who do this less well than others may have intellectual deficits or they may be suffering from poor educational exposure, trauma, poisoning or even from poverty. So IQ is a useful metric for perceiving such limitations, but NOT for discerning that one has a genetic or permanent intellectual decrease: unfortunately it is routinely interpreted in this manner to claim the innately lower intelligence of dark-skinned people. In evaluating the claims by hereditarians with known racist ties of higher white and Asian IQ, we must be mindful of a tendency called the ‘Pygmalion effect’ The high intellectual achievement and IQs of whites and Asians may owe something to this. In a classic 1960 experiment, California teachers were informed that as a result ofIQ test scores, certain students of theirs were found to be “special,” with prodigious potential and the expectation of intellectual greatness. Accordingly, the grades of the children labeled “special” improved dramatically, and, when tested a year later, half of their IQ scores had risen by 20 points. In fact, these children had been chosen at random, and the improvements in their scores served to demonstrate the outsize role that teachers’ expectations can play in a student’s academic success. Also, in 2005 we saw an example of this effect when Broward County Department of Education which had formerly assigned children to normal, remedial or gifted classrooms solely according to their teachers’ assessments, began administering standardized tests to all second graders. The number of gifted African American children in the district soared 80 percent, and that of gifted Hispanic children immediately skyrocketed 130 percent. Shortly thereafter, the policy shift resulted in a tripling of both black and Hispanic “gifted” students. None of the students’ genes had changed. It’s worth noting that some point to the fact that some Asian populations, not whites, are accorded the highest scores and point to the fact to counter accusations of racism. However not all Asians are accorded high scores, and the higher scores are use to reinforce the model minority myth— and to demonize Asians. Frank Wu who wrote Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White points out that “Asian Americans are brought into the discussion only for the purpose of berating blacks and Hispanics.” He also notes that the high IQ scores and intelligence accorded Asians is also subtly turned against them to characterize them as lacking creativity and as unfair competitors who are clannish and unwilling to assimilate. Meanwhile the gap between white and Asian IQs continues to grow, with Asians outstripping the growth of whites’ IQs. The average gap between African American and white IQs is narrowing, which some ascribe to greater access to higher education but more study is needed to understand it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/08/14/statistics-show-iq-disparities-between-races-heres-what-that-really-means/?sh=3c77c4274490