Emerald

Perhaps not every woman. But beautification is a common driver for many women. It's a lot of fun and feels very empowering to peacock around. The main difference here is that women tend to openly admire the looks of attractive stylish women. For these "maxing" manosphere guys, there is often a fear of coming across as "gay" or "Feminine"... but simultaneously a rabid fascination with a particular kind of hyper-Masculine male body type. And men tend to project their own aesthetic preferences for hyper-Masculine men onto women who tend to prefer more subtle expressions of Masculinity.

I get what you're saying. I think the guy in the video (who I believe is gay) sees these patterns in heterosexual men as more homoerotic rather than actually gay. There's this preference for certain hyper-Masculine aesthetic features in men in the eyes of the heterosexual male gaze.... which is then projected onto women who actually find different things attractive about men than heterosexual men do, in reality. So, there is a driver that could be called "homoerotic" in straight men to admire the features of a hyper-Masculine guy. But most heterosexual men would feel uncomfortable admitting that homoerotic driver in themselves. So, the guy in the video seems to be implying that part of the denial of the divergence of the female gaze form the male gaze is that there's a taboo against hetero guys noticing the attractiveness of men. But moreso than that, there is a denial about women's divergent preferences for generally... because it undermines a lot of their narratives. And I see that as far more of a driver of this denial of female nature than it is about denying this homoerotic driver.

Clearly, you've never been a parent. And I'd wager from your previous post that you've never had a longterm relationship either.

100%

That's just like saying that every parent prefers an ideal child but simply just settles for the child they have. It negates the role of love and connection in the valuation of a particular partner. And it pornographizes sex and coupling by stripping these human-to-human communions of all depth and humanity until the whole male/female dynamic becomes dull, cheap, and energy draining.... and wholly lacking in true eroticism. It's a degenerative mindset to have about sex and relationships that makes men untenable relationship partners... and negates the more holistic truth of what's really valuable about male/female relationships.

This is a perfect encapsulation of the anti-social snare that so many men are caught up in now-a-days. There's always been these patterns, of course. But now-a-days, you have young men being stunted in their social development because they get hit by this kind of propaganda before they ever get a chance to have a real human connection with their female peers. And it has a really degenerative effect on the fabric of society.

I was only using the term "beta" because it's what Dr. K used... and it is a common inter-male slang used to indicate some status between men. But there are no such categories in actuality.

Just say what you're going to say. You don't have to get dramatic about it.

I appreciate the encouragement. And that's definitely true. It's just frustrating because it's like watching that one character in Austin Powers who sees the car coming from a mile away but just stays in the same spot screaming for over a minute until he's actually run over. And I'm like the person watching the movie and being like, "DUDE! Get out of the way!!! You're about to get run over!!!" But I just have to learn to let them get run over. It's just a shame about all the internet propaganda making it so much harder for men to connect with women and other human beings in general. What's funny about it is that I'm sharing more realistic perspectives that are like, "Hey guys. Women can like you as a person without you needing to be the most Masculine guy on the planet." And they're like, "NO! I'm a lowly beta simp who is below most women's consideration. And women are only settling for me because they can't get Chad."

Yes, aging will be a difficult transition for anyone who thinks this way.

Yeah, I agree on all counts. I just don't get the impression that many of the guys on the forum (including Leo) are capable of understanding perspectives beyond this one reductive mono-perspective on dating and relationships. They're really in a state of paradigm lock with it, but are under the impression that they're only locked on it because it is "the one truth" about dating and relationships. I think they fear that letting go of that one reductive perspective where they "know everything" will diminish their power... when it would actually do the very opposite. It would actually open them up to a state of not-knowing where they could have a real connection with another human being as opposed to projecting all these reductive narratives onto women. Like, maybe that works if the guy doesn't have any social anxieties... and the only goal that they'll ever have in their lives is to try to have sex with as many women as possible. But otherwise, they're really crippling themselves with these points of view.

I don't argue these things for my health. Leo's advice in these matters is like trying to cure Malaria with Tylenol because it misdiagnoses the actual problem. And the paradigms he believes relative to relationships and sexuality (other than, "just approach") will dig you all further into the internet propaganda hole you're already stuck down in. That's the problem when you confuse the antidote for the poison... and the poison for the antidote. My perspective is the antidote because I am telling you an actual real female perspective on what it's like to be attracted to a man in the most thorough and articulate way I can muster, so as to dispel the misconceptions that are causing you so much grief. But you see my perspective as the poison because you don't recognize the practicality of seeing how a real woman thinks and feels.... and you've been brainwashed to believe that only men can tell you valuable things about women. All these internet man-cult perspectives are the poison, but you see them as the antidote because they give you all sorts of "knowledge" about women and relationships... and their narratives give you the illusion of more control. But it just ensnares you into a delusional dating paradigm like a fly caught in a spider's web. And my advice is very practical if you can actually drop resistance to it, understand it, and internalize it... as it is only the truth that will set you free. It's just frustrating because you guys are on the struggle bus with this topic (Leo included)... yet you are so confidently wrong. And with these distorted reductive paradigms, you're making yourselves utterly un-coupleable and not suited towards long-term pair-bonding because you can't even hear or see a woman. And that's what's so frustrating about it. But I just need to stop trying to help you and let life teach you its lessons.

I guess it depends on how you define success. Perhaps one could argue that (evolutionarily) a guy who has children with 5 different women and 10 women on the side is the most successful with women. It could be argued from an evolutionary perspective because he's sewing his seed the most widely and passing on his genes more than other men. But that's a very myopic way of thinking about dating success. And these kinds of guys aren't exactly catches. They're usually pretty grody, tbh. Or you could define success as a guy who has a moderate amount of women interested in him and doesn't feel any scarcity with regard to female interest and who has the occasional hook-up, but who is actually capable of a real human connection with a woman and wants to add to the social fabric. That's how I define an attractive and successful man... even if he's not swimming in pussy like the grody guy. And that's the issue of framing human relationship as a purely transactional survival game without regard to the our softer communal nature as a species. Plus, most of these men (including Leo) will just use the evolutionary biology perspective to continue to be reductive about human relationships and to think of things ONLY as a survival game... and strip even more meaning from human connection... and lead them further into disconnection, loneliness, shame, and coldness.

It doesn't poke a hole in that argument at all. To have a human connection, you have to get to know that person in person. On a dating app, it's purely visual and informational. So, people have to choose based off of that in terms of who they're going to give it a try with. And men are very visual... but women are not. So, it's not the way that women actually develop feelings. In real life, there can be actual chemistry and human-to-human connection. And only then do women really see the beauty of a particular man.

Yes, there are lots of men only want the top 10% of women and just want to have a bunch of sex. Then they bitterly settle for beta gals that they don't really care about when they fail. Sounds familiar, no? Edit: I just got the God part of the joke. But what I said still stands.

Thank you. But I'm not an edge case in these ways, at all. And I don't like it when people assume that my wisdom makes me somehow not human-like. I'm a very ordinary human when it comes to my relationship with other humans. There is nothing special or different about me in any kind of meaningful way, when it comes to my relationship with humanity. And I find many average men quite intriguing and beautiful. But only when they're not trying. I suppose, the only things extraordinary about me in this regard is that I value ordinariness and have a hobby for wisdom-seeking. And you can only become wise when you stop trying to be some super-human and recognize that there's nothing so special about you. Memento Mori.

Yes! And community is truly the ultimate reproduction and survival game for the human being in general... as all other reproductive and survival needs are met through community. So, what happens when men are learning how to "reproduce" through narratives that make them more socially repellent and work at cross-purposes to their ability to socially connect within a human community? Social degeneration... of course.

Because dating apps aren't where real social interactions happen. That's just shopping for dates the way you would anything else.

The ways you guys try to solve your dating problems just make you lonelier and more disconnected. If you could really internalize what I'm telling you, then you would actually feel better and be able to connect with a romantic partner... rather than just engaging in this weird hierarchical transactional game. Propaganda is one hell of a drug.

What about women who are past menopause?

Have fun with your loneliness epidemic, I guess. I hope you all find a more fulfilling and less transactional way to relate to other people.

Consider that you have some issues with disconnection and avoidance... and that these rationalizations are just a way for you to increase your cynicism about human relationships and push other people away. You think you're a truth teller. But these are just anti-social protection strategies to keep yourself from feeling vulnerable parading themselves as "harsh truths that most people aren't willing to face. But I am so different from others that I am willing to face them."

This just reflects your own romantic immaturity and lack of real relationship experience. And it's sad that you see things in such a transactional disconnected way, where everyone is just settling for their partner instead of actually preferring their partner. The male loneliness epidemic strikes again, I fear.

True. It's honestly just carbon-copy projection of their own tendencies onto women. Literally every accusation is a confession. They are like, "All the women that I like are sleeping with the top 10% of guys." Meanwhile, it's like the top 10% of women looks-wise that they want. So, of course these women are with the top 10% of guys because those guys are their match attractiveness-wise. And because they want the top 10% of women, but they can't get them. They might settle for a more average-looking girl who they are with begrudgingly because the top 10% of women won't have anything to do with them. Then they're like, "Women only like the top 10% of men. And then they just settle for the average guys when the top guys won't have them." And then they're like, "I wish I could be promiscuous and screw all the hottest girls!" Meanwhile they're like, "Damn these women! They're so promiscuous and screwing all the hottest guys! How dare they!?!?!?" And then they're like, "I want to find a way to over-inflate my value in the eyes of women, so that I can get more women!" And then they're like, "Hoe-flation! How dare these women over-inflate their value in the eyes of men!" It's projection 101. They're really just mad at themselves for being shallow and blocking themselves from real connection.

That's just not an accurate reflection of how average men and women actually relate together in real life, at all. And you should be more responsible and let young men know that those statistics are false. You're just making all these young nerdy guys lose hope that a woman will ever prefer and love them, when the reality of male/female relationships is actually much kinder to average men... as long as they don't make themselves anti-social through all this man-cult propaganda brainwashing. And these men only become un-dateable only because their mind has been "ran-through" with internet propaganda. You need to go into a Walmart sometime. Then, you'll see how people really operate if you can look past your filters. Look around at all the husbands in the world. Do you really think they're the top 10% of men?