Xonas Pitfall

@LordFall I was arguing against the original post, so that above response isn’t really relevant. Nonetheless, I fully agree with the tip. I would even argue that, for both men and women, it can be useful to do this, either by setting up as many dates as you can, promoting yourself, or using social media. Essentially, you’re creating a kind of “brand” around who you are, so whatever you’re looking for is more likely to find you. This is very helpful advice to people. Although I think Andrea wouldn’t be that open to being in a harem, haha. If you want a specific type of girl, most want to be in a long-term monogamous relationship.

All of the examples you gave are people who are already attractive, no? Wouldn't many men do the exact same thing if it were a really attractive pop singer, actress, or model? "Bro, if I had a chance with Megan Fox..." I'm sure plenty of men would gladly fly across the world for that opportunity too. So I'm not sure those examples are all that relevant, given that they mostly involve attractive celebrities. I also think celebrities are a tricky example because they have a massive numbers advantage. When millions of people know who you are, you're naturally going to have a much larger pool of potential partners to filter through. Eventually, you're bound to find people who want to be with you simply because of the sheer volume of people you have access to. It's similar to that guy who made the "My Experience Being Ugly" video. He ended up finding a girlfriend. So I don't think celebrity examples are necessarily that informative when discussing general attraction dynamics. I think I also watched a video discussing dating app statistics, and the conclusion was similar to what I was saying. Women's standards for casual partners tend to be higher because they're evaluating based on physical attraction and personal preference. When it comes to long-term relationships, they're often willing to place less emphasis on looks and consider many other qualities as well. I doubt this is very different from how the average man operates. It's just that men tend to both want more and be more comfortable with casual sex than women.

I feel like the whole framing of this conversation is flawed. The discussion is framed as men vs. women, but I think it's really about short-term vs. long-term mating strategies, like I mentioned before. If you're looking purely at a "have sex and leave" scenario, I don't think most women care much about a man's status either. They would probably prioritize someone they find physically attractive, who seems fun, playful, hot, confident, and likely to make the experience enjoyable. It simply isn't incentive-compatible to weigh a bunch of other qualities if the interaction is only meant to be casual. However, once we're talking about long-term relationships or choosing a life partner, both men and women care about far more than just looks. Personality, competence, values, emotional compatibility, reliability, reputation, social perception, and many other factors all become relevant. People also care about what their partner says about them socially and how others perceive the relationship. So the only way I can really agree with the original claim is if it's reframed like this: men are, on average, more likely to engage in short-term mating, so they tend to consider fewer variables when selecting a partner in those situations. In that specific context, attraction may appear less relative simply because fewer factors are being evaluated. But I don't agree with the claim when we're talking about long-term relationships. I've seen plenty of men who are highly conformist and heavily influenced by social status, reputation, and how their partner reflects on them. In that sense, I don't think men's mate selection is any less "relative" than women's on average.

I think the next "Guys... I have a newfound level of awakening" for Leo will be deconstructing the biases surrounding femininity and masculinity. Leo's "Alien Mind" is really the "Feminine" mind (Joking, a little bit . . .)

Yes! I think Leo's past blog posts, and comments suggest that he has bought into the traditional bias that masculinity is more objective, logical, etc. He seems to overlook just how much of both masculinity and femininity is shaped by relative, emotional, and social factors. And he seems to enjoy identifying with it, and often mocks the feminine as being more fear-based, emotional, or something along those lines, which is quite silly. If you're charismatic, that's a real skill you'll be recognized for in most social groups. If you're wealthy, your ability to make money doesn't disappear just because someone richer is in the room. If you have an attractive, masculine physique, that doesn't suddenly vanish either. They are, to an extent, "objective" traits.

I also think the logic behind this argument is flawed because you could just as easily argue that status itself is "objective" to some extent, as well. If someone is wealthy, competent, charismatic, physically strong, or influential, those qualities don't disappear because someone "better" enters the room. They may rank lower relatively, but they still possess those traits. I'd argue that both beauty and status are relative within a group, but they also have objective components. Neither is purely objective nor purely subjective. If a very attractive woman walks into a room of less attractive women, she'll likely have the highest status in terms of desirability, and most men would pursue her. But the same applies to men. If a very attractive, high-status, or physically dominant man walks into a room of less impressive men, he'll likely become the highest-status man in that group. Now imagine placing that same attractive woman in a room full of equally attractive women, or that same high-status man in a room full of equally successful and high-status men. Neither of them suddenly loses their qualities. Their objective traits haven't changed. What changes is their ranking relative to everyone else in the room. So I don't think the premise of this argument really works. Yes, a hot woman is still a hot woman, but if there are 50 even hotter women around her, she'll simply rank lower by comparison. Likewise, a rich or high-status man doesn't stop being rich or high-status just because he's surrounded by billionaires. His money, competence, and status don't disappear. They're simply less exceptional relative to the people around him. Both beauty and status are comparative. Ranking changes depending on who else is present, but the underlying qualities themselves don't suddenly vanish. The same principle applies to both men and women. Put the model in a room of average-looking people. She'll likely be perceived as exceptionally attractive. Put that identical woman in a room of supermodels. She'll probably still be attractive, but she won't stand out nearly as much. Put a millionaire in a middle-class town. He's extremely high status. Put that same millionaire in a room of billionaires. He's still a millionaire, but he no longer stands out.

How so? To clarify, I’m not saying they want the same type of status, that’s not what I’m arguing. I’m just saying both are highly susceptible to what society tells them a “high-status/value” woman or man is, and that both men and women can be extremely conformist and manipulated by society in terms of what they should seek and find attractive, which was the original point. That’s how you get incel men who get fed and influenced by red-pill ideology, conservative tradwife content, pick-me content, or ultra-filtered “baddie” looks Sydney Sweeney meme, and then genuinely believe they should keep chasing that type of girl and that they “failed as a man” if they don’t get something like that. Or they feel ashamed if their actual girlfriend has too “high of a body count,” or someone from their friend group might call it out, or she’s not really someone their friend group approves of or finds cool, attractive, even though the guy might actually like her, etc. The point is, men are also heavily socially influenced here and can be very conformist in that sense. Even if they might be attracted to a specific type of girl, style, or personality, if that doesn’t really conform to what their social group or society tells them is appropriate girlfriend or wife material, many won’t even introspect on it and will just follow it blindly too. I’m not saying women don’t do this either, but I just haven’t seen less or more conformity on either side. Plenty of men will keep chasing whatever social media idealized girl without even questioning if that’s what they actually want. So to say men have some sort of more or less objective radar or are less influenced by what social standards deem as "attractive", I don’t see that as true, but I might be wrong.

All else being equal, a man will choose the high-status girl if he can get her. It’s just that women’s status isn’t the same as men’s, but to claim it isn’t heavily socially influenced, or that what is considered a high-status girl doesn’t change across location, religion, “social tribe,” and time, is definitely not true. And that men aren’t sensitive and don’t take it into consideration when picking a girl, and that it’s based on just "objective" attraction, is also not true; or that somehow women do it more or less objectively than men, I suppose. That’s also how you end up with a lot of incel men who cannot find anyone they think is "worthy" of a long-term relationship, or who even mess up basic hookup dates because they’ve deluded themselves into thinking about what kind of girl they “deserve” or are “supposed” to be with. Men also LOVE to chase girls far beyond their “league” or “status.” Of course, there are women and men who don’t care, are more grounded, or/and are non-conformist and will just date more "normally, within their range". But if we take your average guy and girl who are playing more of these dating “games,” then both are heavily influenced by social media, their environment, social groups, etc., and what they think their definition of attraction and success is. I’ve heard and seen a lot of conformist takes on both sides: men who pick attractive women but don’t care about being around them, they just keep them around to "flex" to society; and women who try to find and demand the most from “high-status” guys, "princess treatment," etc. The way people mostly date is just that they find people they’re comfortable around through hobbies, getting along, workplaces, or someone within their attractiveness range, maybe a bit less or more. All of these other takes like hypergamy, social games, overly filtered “baddie” looks standards, resource-sharing dynamics, "high-status, high-value" are a lot more red-pill, extreme terminology.

But men absolutely care about women’s status too, just in the way society and other “men” prescribe high-value status to a woman. So they might be put off if she seems too promiscuous or “high body count,” or if she doesn’t seem like someone the “boys” would find hot or attractive to show off or brag about, or just to be socially seen as a "high-status" guy who can and gets the hot girls. They can be very heavily sensitive to social perceptions of what kind of girl they choose says about them. So this idea that it’s less relevant for guys, even on a bell curve, doesn’t really hold up. I feel like you definitely see men being very sensitive here, too. What kind of women does society signal as indicating that a man has succeeded and is attractive? As we know, people are very conformist in general, so many will end up chasing that ideal, which again points to the relative and societal influence in what is considered attractive for both men and women.

Here it sounds more like... Cock 🐔 caring about cock 🐔 if you ask me Cock-fight 🐔 If men choose a partner based on what other men or society see as inherently valuable, but they don’t actually feel that attracted, and then they cheat, feel lonely, etc... well, then I’m not sure if that’s really about caring about pussy or about the opinions of other men / society.

There are so many men who pick women based on the social perception of what an attractive “baddie” is, yet they don’t really see her as their type at all. A lot of red pill spaces are essentially a circle jerk of men who flex on each other about how attractive of a woman they’re with and how it boosts their position in the social hierarchy, even though they themselves couldn’t care less about the woman. A “trophy girlfriend” or “trophy wife.” Or men who pick their wives based on the idea of the “good girl,” the “good wife” archetype because that’s what society tells them is ideal, even if they don’t feel any genuine attraction. Then, they end up cheating because of that mismatch. A classic trope. Cock also seems to care quite a lot

Hahaha, don't look at me, Chief - ask the furries, maybe...? I'd say there's definitely some merit to that. A lot of the traits we find attractive are probably influenced by the fact that they're also perceived as indicators of health. Not all of them, of course, but many are associated with sexual development and health. Things like facial symmetry, secondary sexual characteristics, clear skin, a healthy physique, and other cues can all signal underlying health or reproductive maturity.

I think women experience this as well, which is why I feel it's more about short-term versus long-term mating strategies than gender itself. Height, a symmetrical face, stereotypically masculine facial features, appearance of strength, thick hair, lean muscularity, a defined jawline, a deeper voice, confident body language, and overall physical attractiveness. Health indicators.

Yes, definitely! I was mainly trying to address the original question, which was about how much mate preferences are socially influenced or relative for men versus women. If you're pursuing something short term, then, as you said, immediate feelings tend to dominate. People rely more on instinct, physical attraction, chemistry, and personal preferences, so the decision is much more subjective, personal, and emotional. If you're looking for something long term, and you're being deliberate about it, then it makes sense to consider a lot more socially relative factors. Things like whether someone has a stable career (largely dictated by society), whether your values align, family background, religious beliefs, financial stability, lifestyle compatibility, and long-term goals all become much more important. Those are the kinds of preferences that tend to vary much more across cultures, time periods, and social expectations than immediate physical attraction. You can see both men and women sometimes choosing partners they might not even be the most attracted to because they believe that's what they should want, or because that choice better conforms to their social circle, family, or cultural expectations.

Exactly. You can also see this manifest in men through the Madonna-whore complex. Society tells them what the "picture-perfect good girl" wife and family should look like, so they marry that kind of woman. But privately, they may have a completely different set of attractions or desires, leading to dissatisfaction and infidelity.

Yes, I agree with this way more! But then I'd say it depends more on whether you're looking for something short-term or long-term than on gender itself. If you're seeking short-term fun / lust, then I'd say both sexes are going to be influenced more by primal attraction and immediate physical cues. You'll see both men and women gravitating toward the classic hook-up/bar dynamics: he's tall, muscular, has a symmetrical attractive face, seems confident and fun; she's sexy, beautiful, has an hourglass figure, seems sexually open, playful and fun, and so on. In those situations, people are often making judgments based on immediate attraction. For long-term attraction, though, I think both men and women become much more context-dependent because they're considering how well someone fits into their life and the society they're in. Things like social norms, religion, family background, career, financial stability, and reputation start to matter a lot more. For example, society largely influences how acceptable promiscuity is perceived to be, what people expect from a husband or wife, how important religion is, what careers are considered respectable or financially secure, how much weight is placed on someone's family background, etc. I guess that way I could argue the OP's point as leaning more true through this lens is that many men seem more willing to pursue short-term relationships, while women have historically been judged much more harshly for doing the same. As a result, women's choices have often been more oriented toward marriage or long-term partners than short-term relationships, more socially relative, with more factors being considered.

Yes, but that's exactly my point. You have to consider that if you were born in that exact era, as a man, you would likely genuinely find those women more attractive than what we consider attractive today. I don't mean you'd just think, "Eh... she's kind of ugly but... she's from a noble family, so I should marry her, fuck her, etc." I mean you'd actually feel attraction, desire, excitement, and all the same emotional reactions people feel when they see someone they're attracted to. That's why I push back against the idea that men have some consistent, objective evaluation system that tells them what women are attractive. (at least more or less than women do for men). Plenty of men even today pursue women who aren't really their "type" but just because they're considered socially desirable and conventionally attractive. The idea of the "trophy wife" exists for a reason. Social influence affects male attraction and mate choice very much too. That's why I don't really see how one is more relative than the other. If a woman living in the caveman-era would never bat an eye at some skinny nerdy guy and he'd essentially be pushed out of the "gene" pool, but today that same guy can suddenly become attractive because he owns a company, that shows how relative attraction can be. Likewise, if you were born a man in a period where higher body fat or extravagant pale skin aristocratic makeup were seen as attractive and signs of status, you'd probably find those women attractive too, even if those traits don't align with modern beauty standards. If you as a man were born into a different village, culture, or time period, you'd probably end up finding the women in that environment attractive, while other beauty standards might seem unappealing to you. Likewise, in some societies, it may have been far more important for a woman to come from a noble family, be highly educated, be exceptionally religious, etc. Society heavily influences what people perceive as the baseline level of attractiveness, and it also heavily influences what people perceive as being at the top of the hierarchy, so to speak. That's why I don't really see how one is supposedly objective while the other is relative.

I just don't quite understand how this relates to the post, though. The original poster was claiming that men's preferences are definitive and objective, while women's preferences are somehow more relative and comparative. But that makes very little sense to me, because what people find beautiful has changed heavily over time, even just in the last few years due to social media. Likewise, what is seen as masculine can vary by environment; a woman in a rough neighborhood may value toughness and protection, while one in a tech hub may see a crypto millionaire or SaaS founder as more masculine. All of these things are heavily relative, so I don't see how one is any more objective than the other.

If you only had one woman, she would automatically be seen as the most attractive because there is no comparison. If a more attractive woman appears, she becomes the new reference point, and the standard of beauty shifts again. The same logic applies to strength or masculinity in men: a man seems strong until a stronger one appears, which changes how the others are perceived. I don't quite understand the difference you are trying to point out.

This argument is pretty easily debunked by the simple fact that women's attractiveness has been viewed very differently throughout history. So no, male attraction to women isn't a fixed, objective thing either. It's heavily relative and shaped by culture and time. The same applies to women and who they perceive as an attractive man. The idea that you would always pick out your “type” in any environment, any culture, or any time period because it is purely objective and independent is not true. Many other cultures also have their own ideas of what is attractive, and people within those cultures notice and value those traits. Attraction, for both men and women, is influenced by survival and social conformity, so people tend to find the cues valued in their own culture attractive, no matter how strange they might seem to outsiders. For example: You have to consider that society and media heavily shape your natural instincts and influence what you respond to, and that social conformity is also deeply embedded in how you choose a partner. A good open-mindedness exercise is to imagine genuinely living in these different cultures and naturally preferring to have sex with the type of women considered attractive there, genuinely enjoying it, and then feeling just as devastated if you were unable to have that experience as you would in your own culture with your “classic” beauty standards. Even if you argue that there are still some overlaps and consistent traits in what people find attractive, the same applies to male attractiveness as well. It still shows that both are relative.

Always just start building it first. Get to building as fast as possible. Nothing else matters more. The devil is in the details. The more you actually work on something, the more painful implementation details you discover. Those details are where the value is, and they're also what make it difficult for someone else to copy. The longer you spend thinking instead of building, the more likely someone else arrives at the same idea. And if your project is still just an unreleased prototype or a simple vibe-coded demo, it's much easier for someone to recreate. TL;DR: Your biggest asset is execution. Just build it. Keep it as a dirty little secret between you and Claude. As you refine the product, it naturally becomes harder to replicate. Every iteration adds layers of polish, edge cases, design decisions, and domain knowledge that aren't obvious from the outside. There are plenty of indie developers who release demos of unfinished games. Even if people understand the concept, it's incredibly difficult to reproduce the exact feel because their style is so distinctive. And once a project starts gaining traction, the original creator usually becomes associated with that style anyway. Marketing, community, and consistent execution create a moat that's much harder to copy than the initial idea itself.

Can infinity arise from the finite? Can randomness (or noise) arise from a signal? Can informality arise from formality? I feel like this is one of the central questions when thinking about infinity: can the finite give rise to the infinite, or is some form of infinity necessary even for a finite, mechanistic universe to exist? Which ultimately leads to the question of bias: can something that is inherently defined, constrained, or biased ever transcend its own boundaries? Can a collection of finite, bounded things, through their interactions and collisions, generate the vast complexity and apparent openness of reality without requiring infinity at its deepest or most fundamental layer? Or does such richness ultimately depend on some form of infinity already being present at the top, bottom, or foundation of the system? Some arguments: However: Are finite rules genuinely creating infinity, or are they merely exploring an infinity that was already implicit in the space they inhabit? If every rule is finite and every state is finite, where does the extra room for novelty come from? Why doesn't the system eventually exhaust itself? A finite-state system actually must eventually repeat itself. If there are only finitely many possible states, then after enough time, it cycles. No true novelty remains. So if reality exhibits genuinely inexhaustible novelty, one might argue that somewhere there must be: an infinite state space, infinite divisibility, infinite time, infinite possibility, or some other non-finite feature. Is emergence enough, or does emergence itself require an infinite reservoir of possibilities underneath it?

It's hilarious to think just how woo-woo, "irrational", and mystical science 500 years from now might seem to current scientists. Kind of like how Jesus would probably be (is) rolling in his grave, facepalming at the current opinions of "religious conservatives," hehe 😄

Hmmmm... Gotcha, but couldn't the same thing be said about philosophy? You could say, "As of now, the common consensus around 'philosophy' is very much not it." I suppose that's kind of what I mean with science. The "purest" form of science is what I described earlier. The same applies to your idea of a "pure" philosophy. It's just that the mainstream now corrupts all of these things. Yet they still have a pure form underneath all of that, or at least I'd argue they do. Not arguing against your point. I agree that science, as it currently exists in mainstream culture, is very far from what it could be and "should" be.