Xonas Pitfall

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.

The purest form of science is very much needed. I don't think science as a principle or philosophy is bad at all... 🤔💭 The actual scientific method is essentially: how do we verify and discover reproducible steps toward a certain goal? How do we verify truth? If the goal were to deliver experiences of God or enlightenment in a reproducible way to people, you would still need some sort of discipline that attempts to do that systematically for most. If, let's say, one day the goal of science became enlightenment or God, scientists would still need to create some form of methodology, synthetic psychedelics, or other interventions. For all of that, you would need very efficient, precise, granular studies of genes and molecular structures, as well as strong social sciences and psychological sciences, to administer and guide that type of transformation. I don't think science as a method is horrible at all. Its current aims are often tied to materialism, pragmatism, business, and operating within capitalism. But if the aim were God, enlightenment, or spiritual realization, then the scientific method could integrate mysticism and spirituality. It would become something more aligned with Stage Orange's rigor, combined with Stage Yellow/Teal's integrative and spiritual perspective.

Fear, lack of forethought, and social conformity (identity). I guess like most things... 😓

I think the way I understand an "alien" mind is that it simply means something far outside human cognition, so far beyond our normal way of thinking that it feels alien or foreign to us. Whether actual extraterrestrial beings that visit us, or that we visit, would be much smarter or much dumber than humans is a separate issue that is currently unknowable. That uncertainty does not disprove the existence of "alien consciousness." You could also describe it as "otherworldly" or as "a form of consciousness so foreign to you that it lies beyond the perspective of human ego".

I don't really know what you mean by "empathy social networks." If you think women will just be helped by anyone at any time, that's simply not true. There are plenty of women struggling in poverty, single mothers, unemployed women, homeless women, abused women, trafficked women, women trapped in violent relationships, women dealing with addiction, women with disabilities, elderly women living alone, women facing discrimination, exploitation, and all kinds of hardships. The narrative that any woman can automatically obtain a happy or comfortable life is very detached from reality. By that definition, you would never see a single struggling woman, which is obviously silly. Is this what you're arguing for, or...? If you're talking about genders supporting and emotionally validating their own members when discussing gender-specific issues, then male spaces have huge amounts of that as well, as I brought up previously. There are countless podcasts, forums, YouTube channels, communities, and online groups where men provide empathy, validation, support, and reassurance to one another. In many cases, they're soothing their own emotions (empathy social networks) through these communities. I mean, the whole rise of the red pill community and podcasts was literally men bringing up male issues, specifically filtering for girls who reinforce those narratives, and making people famous who strengthen those beliefs. So, of course, it’s a mutual empathy network. If you think it’s not, then you’re fooling yourself. And me as well, I think what Natasha and I are arguing for is simply that this is too myopic a view. It’s more an unhealthy human behavior, rather than something specific to women or mostly women.

ham-fisted 🤣 Yes!

Exactly! It's quite saddening to see the exact same emotional behavior get completely different narratives, levels of respect, and interpretations depending on the gender of the person expressing it. People should be willing to deconstruct gender, as well as science, materialism, and religion. All of these frameworks can contain biases worth examining critically in the search for truth.

That's exactly why men gather together, buy podcast equipment, and spend hours talking about "low-value females" and the "male loneliness epidemic." They invent incel terminology like "foid" and congregate in 4chan and Reddit communities to collectively complain, seek emotional validation from one another, and justify their own flawed worldviews. They rile up emotions across the entire online space and frame everything as a gender issue, hoping to gain sympathy, validation, or support for their grievances. Again, this isn't femininity or something inherently female. It's simply immature human behavior from people who don't want to take accountability or responsibility for their situation. To clarify, my point isn't that men or women are "more" bad. But please, these behaviors aren't inherently gendered. They're just genuinely bad examples of human behavior across the board. The stereotypes really don't help people wake up to that. If anything, they make it easier for people to excuse these behaviors in themselves and only notice them in others.

@Happy Lizard Your profile is so cool! ____...---...___ ___.....---""" . ""--..____ . . . . _.--._ /| . .'()..()`. / / ( `-.__.-' ) ( ( . . \ / \ \ . \ / ) ) . .' -.__.- `.-.-'_.' . .' /-____-\ `.-' . \ /-.____.-\ /-. \ \`-.__.-'/ /\|\| . .' `. .' `. |/\/\| |/\/\|

Humans, in general, regardless of gender, can get competitive over potential mates. If there's a handsome guy who might steal your girl, you may become competitive, hateful, jealous, emotional, sensitive, impulsive, or you might grow resentful, passive, or dismissive toward the girl. You might consciously or subconsciously try to paint the other guy as somehow inferior, whether in your own mind or in hers. That's more of a personality-based defense mechanism, but either way, you usually won't just easily and gracefully accept the situation. Just as it might be shocking that a sweet girl could have these feelings, it can also be surprising that a stereotypically "masculine," macho, strong, blunt man can become very sensitive and emotional over the same thing. These are human feelings. Gender isn't nearly as impactful as we're often led to believe by media portrayals. These are feelings that both men and women can be sensitive about. The problem is that society often frames the same emotions differently based on gender. When a person doesn't fit that stereotype, people may see it as shocking, deceptive, or somehow out of character. You can equally say: I hate this "macho" facade that many guys put up. People often assume their decisions are driven by pure logic, pragmatism, or an unwavering commitment to truth. In reality, many of those decisions are influenced by personal bias and sensitive emotions, just like anyone else's. Instead of admitting they're jealous, insecure, hurt, afraid, or threatened, they will reframe those feelings as competition, hierarchy, strength, rationality, or principle, and then use that framing to justify their trash behavior. And then people might say, "Well, they don't have a choice. Society forces men into those roles." But the same applies to women. All of us are shaped by social expectations, often without even realizing it. We absorb norms, stereotypes, and roles through conformity and social pressure. That doesn't mean we should keep reinforcing them. To me, these gendered expectations are part of a social game that deserves to be questioned rather than blindly followed.

How much are we allowed to discuss the clips? I'd love to ask more questions about them, but I'm not quite sure how unfair or bad it would be to Leo and premium content.

Hahahahahahaha