Emerald

I figured that that's part of it. But it's just funny to imagine the dynamic flipped around, where an unattractive and abrasive woman who's teaching bad advice becomes a super popular female dating coach.

That logic doesn't actually work out in reality. I've known plenty of unattractive guys who had plenty of sex just because they were social and persistent... and slept with less discerning women. The issue is that most men have this inaccurate belief that women are universally picky about sex... and that that's why a high body count means something objective about a man's level of desirability to women in general. And men tend to want to hold onto that illusion that sleeping with women means something about their level of attractiveness, values, Masculinity, worth, etc. But there is a sizable minority of women who aren't picky at all. So, getting low-discernment women to sleep with you means literally nothing about your level of general attractiveness. (And to clarify, there are low and high discernment women of all levels of physical attractiveness) So, the idea that a man having a lay-count means something about his level of attractiveness isn't true. So no. There are TONS of very unattractive men getting laid... and it doesn't qualify them as attractive. Case in point... the guy that this thread is about. And it's a nice compliment that you think I'm very conscious, but I am still a woman and my perspective on men would be shared by many women. And there are plenty of scrubs getting laid and plenty of low-discernment women willing to accept them. But that doesn't make the scrubs attractive.

Very well said!

My whole point is that it's a better life strategy that will lead to better outcomes. You will get a lot of things by prioritizing becoming a great man over optimizing yourself to sleep with lots of women... including better relationship options. It's really the key to living a good life and being respected within the wider community. The side effect of prioritizing being a great man is that women will be more attracted to you in a deeper way and respect you more. And you can parlay that into a great relationship and great marriage.

I'm sure that Andrew Tate and I would have a mutual disgust for one another. That is true. Also, you need both partners to be mature to have a good relationship. If one or both partners are immature, the relationship will be a total mess. But those things aside... my point is that there is a real dichotomy that exists with these priorities... and one thing must be prioritized over the other. A man can either prioritize maximizing the number of women he sleeps with by trying to mold himself to be a sexual option to the lowest common denominator of women... Or a man can prioritize becoming a great man. He will have to choose one or the other... as becoming a great man is very self-directed while being a sexual option to the maximum number of women is very centered on the question of "How can I become the type of guy that women are more likely to say yes to?" And this is one of the main bottlenecks that men have with regard to developing maturity, character, and more refined Masculine strengths. A man who takes the former option develops a more detached relationship with women and sexuality... and he focuses on making himself great and working towards his purpose. And this has a side-effect of making him a lot more attractive to women, even if he doesn't go out looking to get laid as a major life priority. So, his lower number of sexual partners compared to the man who prioritizes sleeping with lots of women could be interpreted by the uninitiated man as "The man who has a lower number of lays is a less attractive man than the man with a higher number of lays." Men often think 'The man with more lays is more desirable to women.' So, they devalue becoming a great man... and get focused instead on optimizing themselves for maximum sex and believing that that's what makes them Masculine, desirable, and attractive. And it leaves them much less attractive for it... as it's a very needy stance to take to prioritize maximizing sexual options over becoming a great man. But a man who knows that there are plenty of women out there who would be interested in him, where he knows that he needn't mold himself to be a sexual option for women because there is no scarcity, is able to prioritize authenticity, purpose, contribution, fun, and all sorts of other things. I notice that guys who get heavily involved in pick-up tend to get so bogged down in it that they end up losing focus on developing themselves as people. It all becomes about women. And it ironically ends up making them less attractive to women.

That's a reflection of your own priorities. And that's fine if those are your priorities. All you really need is audacity to achieve that. Just don't mistake having women sleep with you as an indication that you're an attractive man or a great man.

He might just prefer that aesthetic. But it very likely stems from trying to compensate from past situations, like he describes. And he does that by trying to look his very best... even if it's not geared towards dating. Even his idea of "fixing the unattractiveness problem" for women and for people in general seems to come from an unhealed place. Like, I watched the first 20 minutes of this video several weeks back. Maybe a month or so ago. And he was talking about a hypothetical example of a young unattractive woman who likes a guy. But the guy doesn't like her back. And he was empathizing with her but projecting his male orientation towards dating onto this hypothetical unattractive woman as well. And (as a side note) he seemed to be under the impression that the "guy doesn't like you back" scenario only happens to very unattractive women. But when a woman likes a man, there's probably only a 50% chance or less that he'll like her back. Of course, women who are in the top 5% of attractiveness will have most guys saying yes. But that doesn't mean those guys really like her either. But listening to his reasoning for why he wanted to create this attractiveness solution, I was like, "This guy needs to learn the wise woman way of dealing with this issue." If you're a woman and the guy you like doesn't find you attractive, if you're wise, you learn the lesson of "This isn't the guy for me." And you sort that guy from consideration. You don't try to attract more or fix your appearance to be appealing to the guy who's not interested in you... you become more ruthless in your sorting until you're with a guy who's really into you and your typical physical appearance. And that might be somewhat difficult for a woman who's a 1 or a 2 because the pool of candidates will be smaller.... but it's still totally doable. And for a woman who's a 3 and above, there will be plenty of opportunities to strike a good match. It usually takes girls/women some years to learn this. But learning it leads to a greater sense of self-respect and a raising of standards regarding the depth of interest the guy has in her. I feel like Mike Israetel is still operating in the, "I need to maximize my attractiveness to be accepted by people" dynamic. But he's a decent-looking guy in the first place. And even if he weren't, that mindset shift around his appearance would do him well. One doesn't need to be maximally attractive (or attractive at all) to have a partner and friends. The only thing that's necessary is a high degree of self-respect and the willingness to sort those from consideration who don't value you.

I don't have a ChatGPT account, so mine isn't trained on me and my preferences. I just typed in the exact prompt you had... plus the phrase "In regards to Spiral Dynamics..." at the beginning.

What is great about hermits, in your opinion? It's a valid path, but it's definitionally not "great". Conceptualizing of it as "great" defeats the purpose. Becoming a hermit is about sinking to the lowest and embracing the path as the ultimate societal "loser" and to deny all greatness. And from a human perspective, it is that. Hermits essentially neutralize their lives and don't contribute to the societal matrix. And it's important that there is nothing that distinguishes a spiritual hermit from a vagrant down on his luck. That's the point of the path. So, it is not a path of greatness. It's very self-contained. And from a higher perspective, it's just a game that God likes to play with itself to recognize itself from the state of separation. It's one of many games that God chooses to play with itself. So, it's a valid path from that perspective. But hermits don't have a greater purpose than the kindergarten teacher that shows up every day... or the person working at the grocery store stocking the shelves. They are just people practicing self-nullification in order to play a very specific game in this reality. It's fine to play that game. But let's not put a value judgment on it. It's really not valuable. And that's the point of the hermit game.

I didn't say anything about a man having an exclusive relationship with one person. A man can be great and choose not to have a romantic partner. But he must provide value to the broader community. What I said is that great men are pro-social... not anti-social. So, the idea that great men become less social just isn't true. Anti-social men don't provide a lot of value to the broader community.

I would push back on notion and ask you... "Are hermits great?"

Becoming better at socializing does make a man more attractive. So, talking to women is definitely helpful. But the intellectual frameworks that men learn from male "dating gurus" end up making them less attractive. Like, I can sense when a man has learned pick-up as it gives off the same generic vibes. It actually gets in the way of his natural attractiveness. Honestly, the best advice for meeting women that one can give to a man is "Go and talk to women." But that doesn't sell courses. So, you get all these not-so-attractive "male attractiveness gurus" who present a lot of other advice mixed in with the effective "go approach women" advice... and men will think "It actually worked. I approached women and acted like Andrew Tate. And I got a woman to sleep with me. I need to keep acting like Andrew Tate." But it's a "Dumbo's Magic Feather" situation. The man could have just approached women and operated in a generally social way, and he would have had women attracted to him. But he implemented the other ideas and bits of advice and thinks that that's why he's successful. Honestly, to be attractive as a man... talk frequently to men and women, build yourself a robust social circle with friends/family/acquaintances, develop a good reputation within that social circle, prioritize sticking to your values, and develop good social skills. And approaching women and talking with them is a good way to develop social skills. So, that will check off a box in the "How to become an attractive man" bucket. But anything beyond the things I listed above is just developing more audacity. And that's the number one quality that a man needs to up his lay count. But audacity doesn't make a man more attractive.... even if he is getting more sex.

A man who develops himself and aligns to his greatness doesn't become more anti-social... he becomes more pro-social.

The misread is that pick-up makes you more attractive. It really doesn't. Becoming a great man who lives by his values and is an asset to the community makes you more attractive. And this will increase your options for romantic partners significantly because your social status will improve and you will be more respected in general by others. But it won't get you laid at the volume that pick-up does. But it's way more efficient for finding a partner and other opportunities in life. Pick-up is about audacity and persistence... not attractiveness. Pick-up is about sleeping with women... not being attractive to them or admired by them more generally. All you need is go through he numbers game to find a woman who's looking for a hook-up out of loneliness, boredom, or horniness to succeed at sleeping with a woman. And if you show up as an option and you're audacious about it without completely bungling the social cues, sometimes you'll get picked. But it doesn't mean you're attractive. It means that you're good enough for the moment. So, I'll ask you this question... "Is it more important to you to become a great man in your own eyes, the eyes of women, and the eyes of the world at large? Or is it more important for you to maximize your lay count?" That is why I am breaking my rule about body-shaming and emphasizing the fact that these male "role models' that teach men how to attract women are not attractive men. A discerning woman wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. And while there is a sizable percentage of undiscerning women, probably at least half of women are discerning women. So, these guys may get laid often enough... but they aren't attractive. They're just audacious and persuasive... and more willing to impose themselves on the situation.

That's where a man has to ask himself... "Is it my priority to develop myself into a highly conscious man who will be a significantly more attractive and high quality man in general... but will attract a smaller number of highly aligned women." Or "Is it my priority to learn the tricks to have sex with as many women as possible?" The man who chooses the latter will make himself significantly less attractive and less respected in the world. But he will get laid more. And honestly, this is a huge bottleneck for men in terms of personal development. If you are crafting yourself as a product to be consumed by the highest number of people possible... you're taking away everything about you that makes you interesting and attractive. And you're taking away your uniqueness as a person. So many natural cult classics who would have a smaller percentage of highly discerning women with exquisite taste raving about them are trying to craft themselves into generic Summer blockbusters that the highest number of low-discernment women would feel lukewarm enough about to sleep with on a lonely or bored day. I just think it's a really important thing for men who are actually looking to become an attractive and great man to think about. How much of your Masculine greatness are you willing to sacrifice for slightly easier access to sex?