mr_engineer

I only know about my own experience, to be honest. Boobs are a thing for me, ass isn't. When I looked into why this was the case, turned out that it's cuz my mom has this body-type. If my mom fully self-actualized her femininity, then this would be her strength in the looks-department. We also tend to want women who are improved versions of what our moms are. For example, if your mom was fat and she was insecure about that, you will want a woman who is slim! If your mom wasn't insecure about it, you won't mind a fat woman. The regrets your mom has relative to her lack of self-actualization will heavily reflect your preferences in women. And, the morality of which woman is 'good for you', comes from your mom. Not your dad, your mom. Her morality heavily influences your choices. (The morality of which career is good for you comes from your dad, but that's another story)

@Yarco The question said 'a specific person'. You can attract someone who will give you what you want! But, when you're asking for a specific person, you're operating from the illusion that they're real. When they're not. When you admit that they are an illusion, this gives the universe a lot more options for creating the illusion that'll give you what you want. And manifesting that for you!

No. Because 'other people' are an illusion. You can attract whatever gets you towards enlightenment, towards realizing the Absolute Truth.

@LordFall A huge part of your personality is in your creative-capacities. Human beings are fundamentally creators. So, when you talk about dating, it's all about what value can you bring into the other person's life. This is largely reflected in your work. Cuz work is all about creating and selling value. What kind of mind do you have?! Is it a judgemental mind, i.e. the mind of a narrative-creator, or the mind of a believer? What needs do you have from other people? What do you look to other people for? That is its own rabbit-hole. And this is the meat of the work when it comes to compatibility. When I say 'religion', I mean, your actual belief-system relative to God. If you don't agree on that front, you won't 'get' each other.

@LordFall It's not the frivolous shit like 'tastes and hobbies'. What's infinitely more important is your personality, which is very much defined by your survival-strategy/your work. Your priorities in life, your values, even your religion and politics. Dating is no joke, it involves an integration of pretty much all aspects of your life. Redpill does kinda explain the status-quo right now, where blonde busty slim girls are high-value simply because of what they look like. Because we live in a shallow world. As our level of consciousness rises, that's changing! And, by the way, that is flat-out wrong. The personalities of those women really matter too! It's not just how they look. If one of the women with the body-type you described wears clothes that fit her, she'll be a lot more attractive than someone with the same body-type, but who wears loose, baggy clothes. The whole thing about body-type is really overblown. The reality is that different individual men prioritize different aspects of the female body, depending on what their mom looked like. You can extend this to women with all body-types. For example, fat, Hispanic women. Same thing applies to them too!

@LordFall You are right about the transactional aspect. Here's the thing, though - that's not what most adults are doing on dating-apps. They aren't actually making mature decisions! Including redpillers. They have certain personal preferences that they have rationalized into a theory. And, this transaction is highly specific to individuals. Commodities, by definition, are replicable. And replaceable. But, the reality of people, is that every person wants unique things and every person has something unique to offer. So, the whole issue becomes about compatibility. And, generalized theories painting everyone with one brush-stroke aren't very effective for that.

Wait. Dude. Don't pay! Treat a friendship like a friendship. If you cross the line but they aren't, you're being a simp now! If it bugs you to lead, don't do it. There are no stakes in a friendship, you can do whatever you want. That's the point of doing it this way! These are toxic people that you should cut out. And work on yourself on your own time. Find better friends who treat you respectfully like a friend. Toxic people should not deserve your friendship, much less your romantic partnership. Meet more people if you have to, honestly. This thread is about the utility of friends, so that's what I talked about. But, this does not negate working on your game and developing your masculinity. Edit : Don't use the friendship-thing as a coping-mechanism for the lack of a romantic-relationship. To me, it sounds like you're trying to turn a friendship into a romantic-relationship because you're not admitting to the reality of what you want. Maybe stop hanging out with these 'friends' and work on yourself on your own time. work on your game.

Yes. They do have a lot of value. You get to practice offering them what you'd like to offer to a woman in relationship. And, you get to practice the relationship-dynamics with them (especially the kind you're mentioning) that you'd like to have with a woman. The way I managed my relationships with women, was that I had a few of these friendships first, that I made use of as mentioned above. Then, I really started thinking about romantic-relationships and what exactly I want from women sexually. I'm in that phase right now. Then, I'll actually start dating! The transition in which you let go of your friends and try to replace them with a romantic-partner, can be painful. Cuz you're going to have to implement all of that stuff that you learn about relating to women in general, in the context of game. It'll feel like a big risk to you. But, it will be very rewarding!

@Consept We can speculate all we want about who cavewomen were attracted to based on who they ended up being with. But, the fact of the matter is - we don't know, cuz they were never asked what they're into.

What I'm concerned with isn't what they're attracted to per se, but who they choose to be with and why. Fine, redpill may have the ability to rationalize what they're attracted to, in general. But, I don't see having a one-size-fits-all standard for 'masculinity' as beneficial. Especially when women's choices are a lot more subjective and the trends in those generally come from patriarchal conditioning. Ultimately, I imagine that this is what redpill aims to theorize about, right?! About women's choices.

@Consept All I'm saying is that biology isn't the absolute truth. Most of this is bro-science. And, I wouldn't take these theories too seriously. Yes, there are trends in that men are attracted to big boobs, big ass, a certain type of figure. Trends. Not absolutely, there are variations and the reality is that you're attracted to the woman who has the body-type of your mother, but culturally, we have defined certain beauty-standards. And redpill is essentially a rationalization of these trends in scientific terms. You change the data, the theory changes. Tomorrow, if there's a new trend of men being into short-haired women, I'm 100% sure there will be some counter-theory to redpill justifying that. It's mostly mental-masturbation and I don't take it seriously. The important part is the part about hypergamy. That's highly controversial. And it raises questions about women's fundamental conscience relative to loyalty and female animal nature. The 'bluepillers' believe that you get a good job, stable income and you get a woman and you get to raise a family. But then, when their women cheat on them or shit goes wrong, they become 'redpilled', where they look for justifications in 'female nature'. Do keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff about sex itself that redpill doesn't account for. For example, there is a section of men who are into cuckoldry. Redpill will look down on them and say 'that's dysfunctional'. Really?! Are you sure?! It's pretty narrow. What you really need, are sources of information coming from conscious women who can keep their personal biases in check, telling men what women want. They tell an entirely different story, trust me. Edit : All this while, we have been assuming that the heteronormativity of this ideology isn't a problem. Which it actually is.

Most women who are genuinely feminine have a relatively low bar for genetics. Yes, you can build your body and stuff, and that matters, but that isn't as much genetics as your own work. For unconscious women, for women who are unconscious of their femininity, yes. I really do think that it is completely down to their social conditioning. Can't be otherwise. And there is no autonomy on that front. Cuz consciousness is a pre-requisite for autonomy. The reality is that most women don't use their brains in the way they choose men. It's totally feeling-based. And their feelings towards someone will be based on their mental-associations, which come from conditioning. What I'm essentially saying is that women who are unconscious of their feminine power are lost in the patriarchy and aren't living in reality about men, which is why they concoct all kinds of stories and rationalizations for why they choose the men they choose. None of which are true. And this, ironically, includes feminists.

What you're saying is true for men. Men's attraction towards women is purely physical. Because, the masculine epistemology is facts-first. Aka, masculine individuals see the world in terms of 'facts'. But, feminine epistemology is feelings-first! This is another mistake that redpill makes in understanding female attraction. What if, this is what women are actually attracted to?! Someone who can meet emotional-needs such as safety and closeness and intimacy?! And, what if it just looks and feels very different to them than it would to a man? And, one final point about this - the reason 'hypergamy' plays out the way it does, is because women associate 'safety' and 'protection' with resources, or power in a male-dominated world. Because women have been conditioned into a masculine, facts-first epistemology in a male-dominated world. The day women start waking up to their own feminine power, which is more energetic and vibrational than physical, they will question the patriarchal conditioning that represses their femininity. And, because religion is a big part of this, questioning religion will improve their relationship to their sexuality and this will make them wake up to their emotional-needs. This will radically change their mating-choices! This is how I see this norm shifting. And, the fact that this system is coming down and the bullshittery of feminism is being exposed, also helps.

Women would look at who they are, what their own emotional-needs are and then, look for men who can meet those specific emotional-needs. This is the root-solution to the problem of hypergamy as we see today, actually. You can liken hypergamy to a 'rat-race' of sorts, where no matter how 'high-status' your man is, it doesn't fill the hole in your soul. That's why you have to monkey-branch. The actual solution is to do inner-work, to come to terms with what you actually need and to change your life-priorities radically. It's just not the norm cuz it's hard. And 'hard' is bad in a capitalistic, consumeristic society, so it's not the norm, it's not the 'trend'. As times get harder, this is what women will turn to.

Grifter. Mostly rhetoric, one chart with a couple of numbers with no explanation for them. Overall, intellectually dishonest.

It's not women pushing men into who they want them to be. It's other men! The more powerful men. They're in charge of the status-hierarchy, so they set the rules. And women are just trying to operate in this situation. Most women are hopelessly conditioned into this way of quantifying people's value, so the peer-pressure factor is also there.

It defines 'hypergamy' in a very one-dimensional, linear way. In terms of financial income or social-status. The reality is that this is because most people are indoctrinated into the patriarchal style of family. This is the role that women have been essentially forced to give men. Now, when women are able to go on their own, women's need for men changes. The roles that individual women give to individual men change! For example, some women may really value a man who's good with technology. Someone else may value a man who is adventurous and can lead the two of them on an adventure. Someone else may value a man who is able to lift stuff. Someone else may value a leader who is able to take the pressure of crises. If women are given more of a say in what the fundamental building-block of society should be, I am 100% sure they won't say 'a single family home'. It will be more community-oriented. And, the need for men in that kind of system radically changes. 'Hypergamy' the way redpill defines it, is not fundamental to human female nature. It's just the norm right now, in an unconscious society. It's the Ockham's razor explanation for female behavior, basically. Works for now, but isn't reliable long-term. It'll change as conditions change.

I'm not suggesting that we 'change mating-strategies'. I'm suggesting that we're fundamentally wrong about how it actually works. Because of the reductionism of redpill. How many women agree with redpill as a philosophy? Probably very few. This should give you a clue that something is wrong with it. And that what we think is 'natural' for humans specifically, isn't actually natural. Especially human females. For example, in a lot of species, the males will be stronger than the females. So, the males will fight over the females. But, humanity has managed to civilize ourselves and construct a system in which women are even getting a certain degree of equality! This would never be possible without a superior human brain. As women get more and more of a say in how they mate, the validity of patriarchal hierarchies to determine who's 'high-value' vs 'low-value' starts breaking down. Women will probably agree with me on this. And this is where redpill breaks down. It's not just that redpill benefits men and hurts women as a mating-strategy. It's that it's so wrong that it hurts men much moreso, actually!

@Consept You're right about lions. The problem is that a lot of human bullshit comes with having a well-developed human brain. Living a harmonious existence with nature isn't an automatic for us, we have to work towards it. Now, we rely on systems to have a relatively stable, orderly existence. And my suggestion is that we would need to set aside our biases to truly prioritize and take care of and troubleshoot our systems. The family-system being a huge candidate for this process.

@something_else I'm talking about redpill as a philosophy and the problems with it. I'm not telling anyone what they should/shouldn't do. That's your call.

People are not just commodities. They are creators. Of the very relationship/system they inhabit.

My entire point here is that commodification is reductionistic. From a systemic perspective, it doesn't hold up. And this is the problem with redpill.

You were warned that it is a biased example.

Both sides are doing it together. Both sides are independent agents with equal rights before the relationship is defined. In the big-picture, both sides must agree. However, when you get into the relationship and shit goes wrong, then the masculine side must take over and improvise on this stuff. The masculine side reserves the right to do that when push comes to shove.

Highly specific to the individuals. But, I can give you an example. The first thing to understand, is that a 'relationship', is a system. And, a system must have a purpose! So, the goal of the relationship must be defined. By the person in charge of the relationship, by the masculine figure. (I don't believe in the equality-stuff, I believe that a hierarchy results in better teamwork to get shit done) And agreed upon by both sides. Then, the roles must be defined. Clearly. For that, there must be a compatibility in values and priorities. The roles must be authentic to the individuals, the individuals must have the prep to take the roles on, and the roles must work well together in relation to one another. For example, if the 'goal' is a certain sexual experience, then the 'roles' will be the specific roles of the roleplay that you want to go for. That's how they work well together in relation to one another, because that masculine/feminine dynamic will work that way. Your egos will have needs. That you will want the relationship to meet. But, in the process of committing to and following through with your commitments to the relationship, you will want your relationship to take a shape and design such that it meets the ego-needs for all parties involved. And, ironically, in order to actually have that work, you will have to set your ego aside when it's time to do your due diligence in your roles, when it's time to do the duties your role asks for!