Emerald

That's definitely not true. Even in nature... blandness and drabness are actually great evolutionary strategies, as they help to avoid predators and ensure that the animal will go on to reproduce. For example, in a stream with few predators... the fish with the very attractive bright colors will be more likely to survive and reproduce. But in a stream with many predators... the blandest fish will be the most likely to survive and reproductive. And funny enough, the same logic applies with women. The more attractive you are as a woman... the more men you will attract. And many of those men will ONLY be interested in predating upon your beauty for their own selfish benefit. And the most attractive women are the most susceptible to predators... just like the very colorful fish are the most susceptible to predators. And the less attractive you are as a woman... the fewer men you will attract. But a lower percentage of that pool of men will be approaching you from a predatory mindset... as you don't have much beauty or status to be siphoned off of you. And that dodges a bullet. So, many women actually do dress themselves down... as it can be a repellent for predatory beauty diggers. So, plainness and unattractiveness actually serve great benefits. Also, if you look around at the world, probably only 20-30% of women really doll themselves up. Most women tend to feel more comfortable blending in a bit more. You just may not notice them as much... and it may feel like all women doll themselves up because those are the only women you're focused on. And I've only met one unattractive woman who struggled to attract and meet men. And hers was more of a self-esteem and not putting herself out there issue in combination with her appearance. But I've known MANY unattractive women. And all of them have had boyfriends and husbands. (I've also met plenty of uggo guys who never struggled to find a partner) But even beyond human beings, natural selection always sorts for the fittest in the environment... and sometimes the fittest will be the most attractive and other times the fittest will be the one who repels predators the most.

I once heard that the death penalty actually costs more for taxpayers than lifelong incarceration. Double-check that... as I only heard that once in passing. But I think the source was legitimate. Those are exactly my thoughts. The issue is that people mix-up the concept of justice with the concept of revenge. And those are two different values. And if the justice system serves the value of revenge, it mission drifts from the actual pursuit of justice. And that's how we end up with the very rudimentary and corrupt justice system we have. Instead, if we kept our eye on the prize, which is 'public safety' and 'taking away the burdens of freedom away' from murderers and others who use their freedom to commit life-altering violence... then we're actually on-mission. And I think the justice system that would result from that would be a lot more well-developed and nuanced. Right now, our justice system basically functions like a trash can that we throw any criminal into... and we mix drug users in with child molesters and killers. And it makes zero sense. So, I think there should be different types of sub-institutions for different types of crimes. Like for drug users, they shouldn't have to be locked up at all... or to pay probation. Instead, they should just be required to seek help for the addiction... and have resources given to them. For small-time drug-dealers, there should be short periods of time at a holding facility with non-violent offenders... where they have to learn about the harm that their drugs cause to people, to try to get them to reconsider what they're doing. And then, of course, mandatory confiscation of their drugs. For violent non-lethal crimes and more established drug dealers, they should have their own holding facility that's heavily focused on rehabilitation. Then, there should be a totally different facility for intentional murderers (excluding manslaughter), rapists, child molesters, and other crimes where the default understanding is life-imprisonment... except in rare cases where there's a clear change in ethos for those who murdered because they were involved in gangs and other things like that. And these facilities should all be built in a way that is less stimulating with calming colors and is going to be less likely to lead to agitation and conflict... as that's a better environment for rehabilitation and will reduce violence somewhat. Then, I think most of the budget for the justice department should go to researching the true root causes of specific types of criminal behaviors... and (where possible) to proactively put resources to preventing the external circumstances that are more likely to produce that kind of behavior. For example, if we know that poverty tends to lead to a greater likelihood of engaging in crimes like theft, drug dealing, and gang violence... then some of the justice resources should go to remedying the issue of poverty. Right now, because we think about justice and revenge as the same thing... we're only thinking about prison, probation, and fines as the source of justice. But those are just punishments... and they don't actually prevent criminal from committing crimes. They just deter non-criminals. So, our focus needs to be totally different to actually have an effective justice system that actually optimizes for a safer society. And the death penalty doesn't belong in that paradigm... unless there is a region where there's literally no maximum security place to keep a dangerous criminal.

You're deeply misunderstanding and strawmannirg my perspective. I'm not advocating a light sentence at all. I think that murderers and rapists need to be permanently sequestered away from society (life sentences)... not as a punishment, but as a means of keeping society safe and as a means of taking the burdens of freedom away from the criminal for their own good. So, I'd say that my perspective is actually a harder line than those who have a more punitive view of justice. The only exception to the life-sentence rule is if the person shows clear signs of rehabilitation... like a young gang member who kills someone and then genuinely grows past that phase in their lives. So, I'm advocating for changing the principles that the justice system operates off of by removing an ethos of revenge and punishment.... and instead serving the ACTUAL value of justice as a means of doing the right thing by the victim, the criminal, and society at large.

The reality of relationships is definitely more fair and beautiful than those hyper-sexed fantasy paradigms. The issue with those kinds of paradigms is that it focuses solely on truths that feel hot and sexy and hyper-polarized... and doesn't focus on what actually sustains a relationship. Let's say that there are several layers of how relationships and attraction operate... The compatibility layer The friendship layer The community layer The resonance layer The romance layer The animalistic layer And the paradigms that young men learn from often have to do with the animalistic layer. And on that layer, everyone is nothing more than the sum of their parts: women are only beauty and men are only power. .And everything is one giant transaction of mutual usery. And it's hyper-objectifying where beauty is exchanged for power. And it's something that tends to make men both aroused and empowered... as men tend to "win" the animalistic layer because men are stronger, taller, and have an evergreen reproductive cycle. (And women will tend to sort men who over-index on this layer because of that) But that layer is also disturbing for men.... because it leaves them with the question, "If there are stronger, more successful men... why don't all the hypergamous women just join his harem?" or "Why aren't all the hot 20 year olds with 50 year old rich men?" But that's not how people operate. And it jut creates a confirmation bias loop where the man will only seek out evidence that seems to confirm those paradigms... as he's turned on by them but also dehumanized and objectified in them, and his worth is challenged in them. It's honestly brilliant marketing on the part of such authors and coaches. It definitely pushes men's emotional and sexual buttons. But it tends to leave men in a bind where they're not actually understanding what women really see in him when she sees him in that more holistic way. And they're trying to hyper-optimize themselves along objective lines because of that misunderstanding to try to increase power and status to prove themselves worthy of beauty. But women tend to be more holistic in the way they view a man... seeing him as greater than the sum of his parts. And she can intuitively feel for each of the layers listed above... with the animalistic layer being just one ingredient. But that ingredient is meaningless and gross if the rest of the "dish" isn't good. The animalistic layer is like butter. In small quantities, it enhances the quality of dish. But you don't want to eat butter by itself. And there's definitely such a thing as too much butter. Honestly, if you want to understand how people really pair bond, you just have to look at ordinary people, and you will tend to see an equality among spouses. And it's not novel or hot or sexy. Of course, you might go "Well those are average people. I don't want to be average." But we are all average people, at the end of the day. We're all very ordinary. And that's where the magic is. And you can find very attractive people in awful relationships... and uggos in wonderful relationships. You just have to look more at real people's relationships and marriages... and less at over-sexed paradigms that are heavily focused on excitement and hotness in the initial dating phase.

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads. But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like... "What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made. Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place. It just made you guys look silly and unserious. So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

Justice is about keeping society safe. So, I think the murderers and rapists should not be allowed in mainstream society unless they are truly rehabilitated (which would be rare). The only reason why the death penalty would make sense as a form of justice is if the society isn't developed enough to have maximum security prisons to keep dangerous people sequestered away. Like, if you're living in a tribe with no such facility and someone in the tribe is a murderer... then the responsible thing to do is to kill them. That's what's necessary to neutralize the threat. But I don't think justice should be thought of as a punishment. And I don't think that the death penalty even makes sense as a form of punishment. I see justice as being about doing right by the victim, the criminal, and society at large... You do right by the victim and society by removing the threat and ensuring that the crime cannot happen again. But to do right by the criminal, you must remove the burden of freedom from them... as they are not capable of wielding freedom responsibility without causing harm.

I know that I don't resonate with @LordFall's desire to have a bunch of wives. Most women wouldn't resonate with that. But he's fine to pursue that if that's what he wants, as it doesn't impact my life at all. People can be all kinds of poly and I'm cool with that. It just isn't my cup of tea. But what I was responding to is that his arguments were basically like, "Go out and create a social circle and build value for yourself." And it's something that he's actually doing. And that's something that I notice a lot of people on this forum are not doing. Then, the arguments back from you guys was just ad hominems and empty grandstanding where you were mischaracterizing what he was saying... and trying to insult him based off of the advice he was giving. It was giving, "I know you are, but what am I?" vibes. And dishonest argument tactics really irk me. It's my biggest pet peeve.

As I said, statistically, romantic partners tend to be each-other's looks-match. But also.. romantic partners tend to statistically have equivalent levels of education and socio-economic success... and have similar values. There also tends to be a relative equality of age among partners... where the average age difference between male and female partners is 2 years. And I feel like all your theories are looking at romantic relationships unrealistically where there are these huge imbalances that are very uncommon in real life... where the woman is hot, young, and poor and the man is old, average/ugly looking, high-status and rich. But somehow magically, this is the most desirable and satisfying arrangement for both partners. That's why you were like, "Why aren't all the 20 years olds with 50 year old men?" which indicates to me that you don't have a realistic picture of how human beings actually tend to pair bond. So, if we're taking an actual realistic non-fantasy perspective on human dating/relationships/marriages... If Sarah is an average looking educated women with a good job and good social skills... she's quite likely to find an average-looking educated man with a good job and good social skills. And if Sarah is a kind person with high self-esteem, she will likely be attracted to and attract a kind man with high self-esteem. And while it's true that women are attracted more to personality than looks, that doesn't mean that looks isn't her initial filter. If I'm a 6, there's no world that exists where I'm attracted to a 3 in looks... even if he's perfect 10s across the board in all other areas. So, looks is a hard stop for most women... even though women are generally slightly looks-hypogamous. So, what's realistic is if Sarah and Joe have about the same level of attractiveness... and he'll probably have similar values and qualities to her, whatever they happen to be. If she sucks or has low self-esteem... her partner will probably suck. If she's awesome and has high self-esteem... her partner will probably be an amazing person. Also, women are attracted to personality first... and accomplishments second. So, if there's a guy who has "confidence, status, financial stability, social skills, and charisma" but he has a terrible personality or doesn't treat her well, if Sarah has high self-esteem and is good at sorting, she's going to throw him in the trash pile where he belongs.

@yetineti @Inliytened1 You guys are just making yourselves look silly. It's like you're trying to sling mud at @LordFall in ways that don't fit him or line up with what he's saying or doing. And it reflects more poorly upon the two of you as you're both emptily grandstanding and schooling him on things he has more experience with.

It's quite normal to expect honesty in a relationship... and it's also quite normal to want/need to feel special in a relationship. And if someone lies to their partner in a way that gives them an illusion of specialness, it's normal for the revelation of that lie to hurt... even for someone who doesn't have sexual or other insecurities. For example, if a guy that I was with told me that I was the only woman that he ever felt sexually open with... that would mean something to me. And if I found out it was just something he said because he knew I wanted to hear it, that would upset me a bit and make me wonder if I could trust him. And mind you, I've never have insecurities or jealousy about the previous partners of any of my romantic partners. I actually find talking about the past sexual experiences he's had to be intriguing, as it's like exploring him as a sexual being outside of the familiar dynamic. So... as someone who doesn't feel insecure at all about my current or past partners' past sexual partners... I would be quite upset to be lied to. And I'd be even more upset if that lie gave me the illusion that I gave him a special breakthrough experience. Also, women tend to be aware that men love to feel effective and like to feel like they're being invited into vulnerable territory. In fact, I once heard a sex worker or cam girl on a podcast talking about creating the illusion of a wall of sexual vulnerability that she has never gone past. And that sets up a scenario where the man can feel like he's gotten her to open up, be vulnerable, and push past her usual sexual blocks. And I think it's fine if a sex worker does that, as her client should be aware that she's creating an illusion of intimacy to increase his pleasure. But in an actual relationship, it's quite unkind to pretend to have sexual walls that you don't... so that the guy can feel like he's the only one that ever broke through them. That's why I said, it's not just that she lied about having had sex with a few guys before. It's that she used that lie to orchestrate a one-sided illusion of specialness and intimacy.

All this is a bunch of conspiratorial thinking that soothes your own pain. But it really doesn't make any logical sense if you actually investigate the premise you're operating off of. Your thesis is that female promiscuity is leading to fewer women wanting kids... and fewer women wanting kids is causing society's downfall. But the reality is that women have already been liberated sexually and otherwise for a very long time (since the 60s or thereabouts). And Feminism was just as strong of a force (if not stronger) back in the 60s and 70s. And young women in 2026 are having less sex than women 10+ year ago. So, male and female promiscuity has wained down from previous generations that were desiring children. Sociologists even call it a "sex recession". In fact, the most promiscuous generation (for both men and women) were the baby boomers... specifically baby boomers born in the 50s. But it's only in the past 10 years that young men and women are less likely to want kids and that men are a bit more likely to want kids than women. 10+ years ago... most young people eventually wanted kids... and women and men were about equally likely to want them. So, there has been a change there. (though it's a big leap to say that change will lead to society's downfall) But you're interpreting that change as flowing forth from women's sexual liberation and promiscuity... which doesn't make sense with any of the facts. Realistically, I think the reason why fewer young people are coupling up and wanting kids are because humans aren't connecting as much in person anymore. So, I'm guessing that fewer young people are wanting kids because there's more online interactions and fewer in-person interactions. Perhaps it's even because young men and women are having less sex than young men and women a decade ago... as that tends to be where kids come from.

I don't know if women are more resilient than men, in general. In break-ups, I do think women are a bit more resilient because we generally allow ourselves to feel sad and grieve and feel the heartbreak... while men might just feel like he should move on without wallowing in his feelings because of taboos agains men having/showing feelings and vulnerabilities. So, women will grieve and cry for a few months and eventually move on. But a guy who doesn't let himself grieve and cry will stay stuck and may struggle to move on. That's more about whether a man lets himself feel his sadness or not though. A man who lets himself grieve will also be resilient.

That's one angle to look at it from. And that's the one that I said was more internal to him... and something to work through. As you said... women are sexual beings. And there are zero men with magical unique penises that are the only ones capable of pleasing a woman. And even if they were, women would still be a lot more interested in intimacy and connection. But even beyond that, she did lie to him and gave him the impression that he had a uniquely transformative role to open her up to her sexual side. And because that was a lie that created shared meaning, that's going to add layers of confusion and grief on top of the baseline insecurity that already existed. If a man had lied to me and made me feel special to him, and I found out it was a lie and he was just telling me what he knew would make me feel special... my trust would be shaken and I'd wonder if he really cares about me in particular or if he just says empty words. So, I think (even outside of the insecurity men often feel) there are extra layers to this one. And it's important not to lump the two issues together.

That sounds like something that's more about a specific woman... and not something that's universal among women. So, I couldn't answer why a specific woman might move on quickly.

Let the OP be the judge of that.

I think there are two things going on here... and it's important to separate them out from one another. One is internal to you. And that is the insecurity about her having other partners and being afraid that you don't match up. And that's important to work through. Honestly, as a woman, I've had about a dozen sexual partners before. And I never think back on those sexual experiences with any kind of longing or even really vivid memories of the quality of the physicality of the sex. And I definitely don't compare my current partner to my previous partners. My full focus is on the love and connection that I have with the man that I'm with right now. And good sex (for me and for most women) is less about sexual pleasure and more about love and intimacy. So, women almost certainly aren't comparing how your sexual techniques are compared to the techniques of some past guy. But the other thing is... she lied to you and gave you the impression that you were transforming her and giving her a sexual awakening. And men often like to feel like they're having a deeply transformative effect on the woman they love... or women in general. And then, you found out that she was pretending to have that sexual awakening with you, and that she'd always been a sexually open person and you didn't introduce her to those parts of herself like she said. So, it's not just that she lied about having had 5 sexual partners in the past. It's that she lied about it in a way that made you feel really special on the basis of giving her uniquely transformative sexual experiences. So, before that lie fell apart, you'd already begun thinking about yourself as a special guy that gave her this special sexual awakening... and having a lot of meaning attached to that idea. Then, when that was revealed to be a lie, it ripped away that sense of having given her a special experience... but it maintained the worldview where some other guy in the past gave her that special sexual awakening. So, it's quite normal to feel some grief and anxiety about that... because it's not just a lie about her body count... it's a lie that invalidates a kind of shared meaning and naturally leaves you questioning, "If she lied about this, how does she actually feel about me sexually and otherwise?" It would be like, if a guy told a woman that he's never been with a woman as beautiful before. And then, she finds out that all his other girlfriends are equally attractive to her and that he told them all that same line... that he'd "never been with a woman as beautiful." It just weaves the illusion of specialness with the lie... and then the lie gets undermined. And it leaves the woman thinking, "Am I special to him? Or is he just saying what I want to hear?" So, this lie might be making you feel, "Am I special to her? Or is she just telling me things that will make me feel like I'm special to her because she knows what a man likes to hear?"

I'm specifically talking about looks.

Women aren't usually attracted to gay guys because there's an awareness that he won't be interested. So, if the game-plan is to pretend to be gay or even just to try to come off that way in some way, you'll find that it will backfire. First off, it's not true. So, it's a misrepresentation. And women will sense the act immediately. But secondly, women are attracted to guys who give off straight-guy vibes. And if a guy gives off gay-guy vibes, there's an immediate understanding of "This guy is categorically a friend and not a love interest." I don't know if that's the plan. But that's what your post seems to be implying. And if that is the plan, it won't be effective.

It's definitely a common pattern for women to be uninterested in getting a guy who's more physically attractive than her. That said, there are women who might go seeking for a guy who's more physically attractive than themselves if they have a meaning associated with it like, "Because this hot guy likes me, that means something good about me." That's just not something I can relate to. And I suspect that most women tend to relate to men's looks in a similar way to the way I do. Women generally look for their looks-match (and women are naturally prettier than their male looks-match). So, that enables her to be the peacock in the relationship. And this creates the Masculine/Feminine polarity I was speaking of.

If I were interested in depth, I wouldn't come to this forum to find it... as real depth requires a lot more emotional vulnerability than this setting allows for. This forum is interesting to me precisely because it's a bunch of nerdy guys getting in random intellectual dick-measuring contests with one another to try to compete to be the most conscious person on the planet. So, it gives space for my more combative, competitive side that wants to get into a bunch of intellectual dick-measuring contests. Most of the contexts that I exist in, I'm very careful with people's feelings and I just hold space for others' perspectives, as I ask questions to facilitate their growth. But on here, I don't hold space. I just talk about my views and get into arguments. It's like intellectual bumper cars.

I mostly come on here because I feel drawn to spar and debate things. So, if there weren't nonsense to spar with, I probably wouldn't feel as drawn to post on here. Basically, I come her for an...

How do you mean?

The memories come flooding back!

Scenario 3: Joe, who is more of a match to Sarah than Tom is, is really interested in Sarah. And because Sarah knows how to sort guys from consideration who aren't compatible with her and who aren't interested in her for anything serious, she's naturally uninterested and turned off by Tom because he doesn't recognize her beauty... and thus she makes space in her life for Joe who does see her as beautiful and wants to build a life with her. The point is, that there are zero women that exist in the world who are unable to turn the head of a great guy. It's just a matter of being attracted to your own looks-match... and most people are. Of course, everyone considers the looks of their partner as the first basis of attraction. But my point still stands that beauty makes it more challenging to sort through low-quality, extractive options. That's because you don't understand the attraction to men average and lower than average-looking women want.... as you are operating from heterosexual man attraction logic. Women tend to like men who are their looks-match. And they're attracted to men who are equivalent in their level of attractiveness. So, an unattractive woman will tend to be turned off by a guy who's significantly more attractive than her because it messes up the Masculine/Feminine polarity. It would be like being with a woman who's a lot stronger than you. She may be a specimen of a woman and attractive in her own right. But she's probably going to make you feel less Masculine. And it may be a turn off. Similarly, being with a very pretty man for an average or below-average looking woman will make the woman feel less Feminine. And that's just a turn-off. So, less attractive women don't struggle to attract the kinds of men they want... because they want men who will see them as beautiful. And less attractive men will be more likely to see a less attractive woman as beautiful. That's why romantic partners tend to have a similar level of attractiveness, as women tend to be the most attracted to men who are their looks-equivalent or slightly below. So, women are usually slightly looks-hypogamous if anything... whilst being hypergamous with things like age, height, and strength. Men in contrast are looks-hypergamous... whist being hypogamous with age, height, and strength. So, it's important not to apply your own looks-hypergamy towards women. Looks are important to women. But there is such a thing as a man that's too pretty to feel attracted to. Your framework is off because that's not the way that real relationships operate. Men do like beauty... but they certainly don't fall in love with it. So, any woman who's in a relationship with a man who doesn't love them is going to have less power than the man... unless she's just being transactional herself. (And of course, attractive women have more power in the transactional relationship than an unattractive woman) But real relationships don't operate like a transaction. And a man who truly loves a woman will do everything in his power to hold onto her and let her know that she is his beloved... and that treatment isn't reserved for beautiful women. And a woman who loves and respects herself won't give the time, energy, or focus to a man who isn't interested in loving her and treating her as his beloved. Have you ever loved a woman before? There's a kind of power to being the peacock of the relationship. That's definitely true. But it's less about the power... and more about the fact that it's a major turn-on to be the peacock as it makes women feel Feminine. And it's a turn-off if the guy is the peacock, as it's the Feminine equivalent of emasculation. Similarly, it's probably a turn-on if you're stronger than a woman because it makes you feel Masculine... but a turn-off if she's stronger than you as it makes you feel emasculated. So, most of this is more about what intuitively makes the sexual energy flow and what doesn't. Like, an average-looking guy (that I'm interested in) who's slightly overwhelmed by his attraction for me is so hot. I like seeing that vulnerability to his own instincts play out in relation to the way I look. But a modelesque guy who can't recognize my beauty might as well be an old woman or a mannequin in my eyes. There's just no polarity there... as it doesn't make me feel Feminine and beautiful. And if there were zero men who found me attractive, I just wouldn't ever feel turned on by anyone as sex just wouldn't be interesting or exciting. That's why women are generally seeking their looks-match or are slightly looks-hypogamous... because it's a lot more arousing to be with a guy who knows he's punching slightly above his weight.

I've noticed that, when guys are into no-fap, there tends to be a lot of sexual shame that motivates them to want to quit masturbation. So, I wanted to just affirm that there's nothing shameful or bad about self-pleasuring or about sexual pleasure in general. Also, I sincerely doubt that women are magically attracted to guys doing no-fap.