Emerald

There are two groups of misogynists... nerdy misogynists with victim complexes who are sucked into online propaganda pipelines (Incels/Red Pill) and hyper-aggressive misogynistic guys with machiavellian tendencies (who are like that regardless of propaganda, as they have been in every era). Both of these groups have extreme disdain for women... and a resistance to the Feminine more generally. So, either way, neither of these groups are good husband and father material. And any woman who gets into a relationship with a man from either of these groups will be in for a world of misery and abuse. But I can see that some women might be attracted to the hyper-aggressive misogynist guys... as these guys might be more outgoing and socially adept than the nerdy Incels. And these guys might actually come across as having some level of Masculine swagger. Plus, they might be pushy enough that they push themselves into a woman's life who has more porous boundaries. But the kind of men that a huge swath of the female population are sorting for are the ones that whine and complain about women all the time... and use the same misogynistic talking points that they picked up from internet propaganda. They're easy to pin-point out because they talk in propaganda speak about hypergamy and Chads and women being "ran through". So, they're very easy to sort for on dating apps and in person. Hence why there's so much complaint around the "male loneliness epidemic".... because these bitter guys who resent women are being sorted from consideration.

This is a study of 8th and 10th grade boys. Not exactly a great sample population for the study. Also, going on more dates doesn't mean that those dates are turning into relationships. In fact, more dates could mean less relationship success. Who do you think has gone on more dates? Someone in a longterm relationship? Or someone who has never had a longterm relationship but is continuously looking for one?

Not sure if that's true. I've known guys in college that hooked up quite a bit by going out to bars. And they were average looking guys... and not particularly dishonest. Just regular guys who happened to be social and outgoing. My perception is that women out at clubs and bars are not so difficult to pick-up because that setting is already primed for that kind of thing. And the guy definitely doesn't need to be Brad Pitt... though it helps if he's a 4 or above in level of attractiveness. If you don't mind my asking, what were your numbers when you were doing pick-up regularly... in terms of approach rate, phone number rate, and close rate? For example, is it like for every 100 girls you approach you get 5 phone numbers and 1 close? Honestly, if it's more difficult than that... why not give men advice on how to build their own social circle around themselves? (Not the OP specifically) Most of these guys are just nerdy guys looking to get their first girlfriend. There's no need to be on hard-mode approaching a bunch of randos unless you want to have sex with a bunch of women. Honestly, a co-ed social circle would help like 60% of the guys in this section of the forum tremendously.

Fair enough. I don't recommend the OP using his social circle for random hook-ups. I'm just saying that sex isn't that scarce to come by. It's just that men have a lot of limiting beliefs that keep them held back from opportunities for interaction with women and hook-ups... and make it out to mean more about themselves and their level of attractiveness than is necessary. But even if there were a sense of extreme scarcity of women who are open to hook-ups (which there isn't)... a guy can't be operating off of scarcity thinking. It's his scarcity mindset that's causing him to feel like he needs to act out of integrity... and not actual scarcity itself.

I'm hardly talking about Brad Pitt. I'll remind you that I'm originally from a redneck town in Florida with all manner of odd people. And I know tons of very unattractive guys who were getting girlfriends and hooking up just because they had a social circle that had women in it and were interacting with women regularly. Perhaps I'm biased because I've definitionally only interacted with men who have women in their social circle. But the reality is that, if you develop a social circle with women in it, you can definitely get laid no problem. I know a guy who was super creepy with a high pitched voice... and who looked like a walrus with the white whiskers and everything... and he still hooked up with a couple girls in my wider social circle. So, I'm sure that men who have no social circle might find it difficult to get laid because they need to learn how to approach random women. But any man who has a co-ed social circle and who is social will be able to find someone to sleep with.

Are you asking about what attracts men? (Also, if you don't mind my asking, are you a woman or man?) If you're a man who wants to attract a man, I can't help you there because it's not something I'm experienced with. But if you're a woman... Honestly... the secret is just being a woman. Women are already attractive to heterosexual men. So, we don't have to come up with any crazy strategies to attract them. It's like birds... where the female bird sits there and the male bird comes up and does all sorts of crazy dances to impress her. The female bird doesn't have to do anything other than simply be a female bird and say "yes" or "no". And even going into strategic thinking about how to attract men puts us more in our Masculine, which is less attractive. So, the key is to NEVER do anything to deliberately attract a man. Instead, just do what makes you feel good and invest in taking care of yourself for your own enjoyment... whatever that might look like. And stay connected deeply with your intuition and your feelings so that you can properly sort the men you like from the ones you don't like. And be willing to walk away from men who can't/won't provide for you the type of relationship experience you want to have. And just focus on having a good time and enjoying the experience. That's really all you need is to enjoy yourself. Consider this... women appreciate a man who's funny, while men like women who laugh at their jokes. So, women don't need to learn any humor skills or to learn how to be playful, but simply be open to enjoying the guy's bird dance... but ONLY IF she actually enjoys the bird dance. So, if a guy is being playful with you and you genuinely like it, just enjoy his playfulness and laugh at him. That will let him know his dance is having an effect. (But don't do this as a tactic. Just enjoy what you enjoy.) So, never focus on attracting a man. Instead, just focus on feeling good and being in the moment. Attraction is a male problem that men need to solve. Sorting is a female problem that women need to solve. The issue is that we live in a society that makes women feel like we're the ones who need to do the mating dance and hyper focus on being attractive. But this puts us in our Masculine... as it is always the male that does the mating dance in nature. And getting us to focus so much on doing the mating dance and being attractive distracts us from our real task... which is sorting the wheat from the chaff. Instead, just know that you'll be attractive to the right guy... and sort ruthlessly until you find the relationships dynamic you really want. And when you do, just feel and enjoy.

I meant more along the lines of one-night stands. There's plenty of those. But either way, the OP should not lie about his intentions. Otherwise, he'd be engaging in sexual coercion because the women would be agreeing to sex under false pretexts... which is non-consensual. But since he's also looking for a relationship, my advice is for him to keep his sexual search separate from his romantic search. For romantic relationship, he should probably just develop a social circle where he can be social and get to know lots of people. And deeper feelings will arise organically with someone. That will help him find someone to be in a relationship with that he really feels connected to. Until then, he can go out to bars and clubs and seek out one-night-stands to get his sexual needs met. The issue is that he's combined these goals together as one. And it's causing him to feel like he's in a dilemma where he needs to lie and sexually coerce women into sleeping with him in order to get both sex and the potential for a longterm relationship. But that's just not the way to go about either of these goals. It's chasing two rabbits and catching none... combined with the false notion that rabbits are a rare animal.

It's the issue of Maximizers versus Satisficers... only as it applies to relationships. Maximizers are always out looking for better and better and better choices... but never feel satisfied with their choice. It's all expansion and no contraction. Maximizers are always looking for the most ideal and most perfect choice. And when applied to relationships, they can never find a partner that they actually want to invest in because there's always a sense of needing more and more and more ideal options... as they are not emotionally mature enough to appreciate an imperfect relationship with an imperfect person (which all humans are). Satisficers on the other hand, find what they like and then commit themselves to that one choice and find what is satisfying in that choice. So, it's a brief expansion and then a contraction and deepening of a relationship with that choice. It's a devotion to what is. That's true whether it's a career, a relationship, a purchasing decision, a life path, etc. Beware the path of the Maximizer. It's a foolish path that presents itself as the 'wisdom' of having high standards.

Whether in integrity or out of integrity... a man can easily have sex with someone if he's a social guy and is willing to interact with women. There's no need to misrepresent one's self to get sex. If a man wants just sex, there are plenty of women who just want that too. So, just be straightforward. It's sexual coercion to do it any other way... as a woman who says 'yes' based on misinformation when she would have otherwise said 'no' is not actually consenting to the sex.

Just be straightforward and honest about what your motivations are. Otherwise, it's out of integrity. But the thing is, you don't even need to be romantically involved with a woman to know if you want a serious relationship with her. So, it's not like you have to be in a bunch of relationships with women at once to know. It's just your scarcity-thinking that makes you consider all these "What if" scenarios. Just build a social circle for yourself with both men and women in it. And then, you'll eventually develop feelings for someone who will reciprocate them. And as long as you are social, things will arise organically. I can tell by the way you write about your dilemma that you haven't yet had really deep feelings for a woman. It's more like the question "Who do I find attractive enough to want a relationship with?" But attractiveness is just the first bar of consideration. And once that bar is crossed, there are deeper feelings of desire for pair-bonding that arise when there is something deeper there. And no logistics are needed simply because you're certain that you want something deeper with this particular person. But because you haven't had that desire yet, you're stuck in these logistical thoughts around the attractiveness of the woman... and how to navigate situations you don't want to be in... and considering trade-offs. It's all too logical. The reality is that, if you're thinking logistically, you're not going to be well aligned with the deeper kind of connection that begets a fulfilling relationship because you're in your head thinking about pros and cons and trade-offs. Just trust that options will be there, open your heart, be yourself... and (most importantly) be social... and you will eventually find a woman you genuinely want to be with. And you'd probably benefit from allowing these relationships to slow-burn and develop organically... instead of trying to jump right into something romantic or sexual. That will give you a more platonic period of time to get to know a bunch of people... and then have feelings arise organically.

Very well said. That's 100% the game of Red Pill grifters who want to part vulnerable men from their money. You sell them a framework full of both dangers and solutions to those dangers that make them feel like adopting that framework keeps them safe and empowered. But in actuality, it just keeps them stuck in their problem and not socializing... with no real experience dating. And add to that, that this propaganda makes them come across as a big red flag to a sizable portion of the women that they might want to date. So, it hurts their chances even more and creates even more road blocks to connection.

These all seem like very simple scenarios to navigate if you value integrity... and you aren't in scarcity mindset. Just don't sleep with or get involved with women you're not actually attracted to. If someone (male or female) gets into a relationship with someone they have no attraction to, it just won't work. And don't pass yourself off as monogamous if you don't want to be monogamous. Simply own being poly... or wanting to sleep with lots of women. And just be straight-forward about not wanting children. All of these issues really come down to scarcity thinking... and believing that you need to sleep with women you don't find attractive or misrepresent your intentions to get laid. Just trust that some women you're attracted to will also be attracted to you... and that some of those will also not want children and be okay with hook-ups.

I see that this situation has left you once bitten, twice shy. So, it's a very common response after heartbreak to be hesitant to open up again for fear of experiencing the pain again. What I would say is to allow yourself to fully process the pain of the disconnection. But then, after a time, you must allow yourself to trust another person with your heart. The price of opening up to love is to risk heartbreak. So, the more okay you are with experiencing the pain of heartbreak and loss, the more capacity you will have to open up to new love.

@Tenebroso Do you really think that the Red Pill/Incel stuff being so prevalent will have zero impact on how women select for male partners? Surely it won't be every woman that picks up on these patterns. But I'm sure that at least 30-40% of women under the age of 30 are actively sorting out men from consideration who include misogynistic buzzwords or Red Pill buzzwords... or even just plain conservative vibes on dating apps. The reality is that, now-a-days, men who hate women are all consuming the same exact propaganda. And they all use the same exact talking points. So, they're very easy to spot. Honestly, women in their teens and twenties now HAVE TO be aware of these patterns, buzzwords, and talking points just to stay safe. So, while a minority of women might go for antisocial guys... you can't expect that the majority of women won't notice when huge swaths of the male population are getting sucked into a propaganda pipeline that conditions them to be in victim's mentality and blame women for all of their issues. The problem is that guys believe that women are getting pickier based on physical attributes or wealth or status. And the common misogynist talking points are... "6 figure, 6 pack, 6 feet" or "All women go for the top 10% of guys" or "Hypergamy", etc. So, men refuse to acknowledge that the propaganda that claims to help them is actually hurting them... because the propaganda feels safer and more empowering. And they double down on the real impediment to connection with women... the propaganda itself. But most women's concern is safety first... not all the "666" stuff that some guys on the internet made up. And when most dating is happening on dating apps (which enables women to be very logical in who they choose because there are no emotions involved)... there are always buzzwords and tells that indicate that a man might have misogyny issues. And if he doesn't give it away on the dating app... he's certainly reveal tells during the date. So, these guys are getting sorted from consideration because women don't live under a rock. Most young women know about the propaganda pipeline. And it leaves a lot of men lonely because women aren't attracted to bitter misogynistic guys who are blaming all their issues on women and feel so pressed about women.

It's really not difficult to eat 100 grams of protein per day as a Vegan. So, I don't know why you think that. The pasta she uses in her last meal is Lupini bean pasta which has like 21 grams of protein per serving. Then, she uses tofu in the sauce... plus the lentils... plus the broccoli. These are all great sources of protein.

@AION Certainly, my take is a "girly" take... as I'm specifically communicating about how women tend to select for partners in the current era where (because of social media) misogyny and anti-social tendencies in men are much more well-known for women as a collective group. And there are common perspectives and buzzwords that the men who think this way will say that most young women will immediately be able to clock such a guy. Women don't want to be with anti-social mean-spirited guys who lack emotional intelligence and who hate/resent women. That's why these guys are complaining of loneliness... because women (as a collective) have become conscious to the point that they are sorting these guys out. And all of the misogynistic propaganda just exacerbates that issue by selling men a version of Masculinity that most women find repellant and will guarantee that most women will sort them from consideration. Think about how birds mate. The male bird does his dance... and the female says "yes" or "no". And because of the internet propaganda, huge swaths of the male population are being taught unappealing "dances" by men who claim to be experts... and who also convince their marks to never listen to women about what they want. So, it keeps these men doubling down on mating strategies that make them less and less and less appealing to women. Add to that, the fact that people are socializing less... and you have a situation where lots of men simply won't partner up and won't have children. That's what The Amazing Atheist was talking about in his video.

I'm not too familiar with Rick Ross. I can say that I don't personally find him aesthetically appealing but that some women might. But most men who aren't integrated with the Feminine side are pretty nerdy and socially inept... like Incels. The lack of integration of the Feminine is socially crippling... and prevents deeper connection on a human level. So, I don't think that a famous musician falls into that category. He's got to have some degree of Feminine integration to have the social skills and creative skills to do what he does. But ultimately, how you define "success" matters. And when I speak of success (relative to this video by the Amazing Atheist), I mean men who will be good husbands and fathers (if they so wish) and who are an asset to their community. And you can't do that without Feminine integration... especially not in this current era. And it seems to me that the men complaining of the "male loneliness epidemic" are men who have the behavior of trying to maximize their Masculinity and repress all signs of Femininity. And with social media, many women's collective awareness has expanded in the past 10 years, such that they are more aware of signs of anti-Feminine behaviors and ideologies... and select partners based off of that information for both safety and attraction purposes. Men who repress their Feminine side will treat women the same way they treat their own Feminine side. So, a men who tries to eradicate the Feminine from himself cannot be a good partner to a woman. And the current state of things, makes it quite evident who's who in terms of men who are safe and men who are unsafe. And women (as a group) will tend to select for safer male partners over ones who come off as creepy or dangerous.

The OP is very young... born in 2006. So, she's only 19 years old. (I just looked on her profile) I just interpreted her words as meaning that she still hasn't grieved the end of a previous partnership... which can make it difficult to open up to a new relationship.

From what you'd mentioned, it seems that you have been in love in the past. And now, you're having a hard time opening up to a new relationship. If I'm reading your situation correctly from the word "again", how long ago did you get out of the relationship with the person you loved? If it's quite recently, you'll likely need to go through some more grieving to fully let them go. But if it's been quite a while and it's hard to let go and open up to someone new, you'll want to explore the deeper reasons why you're still holding onto the past relationship... including attachment to the idea of the future which never came to pass. There could also be an element of limiting beliefs, where you conceptualize of yourself as very different from others. And this could impede the ability to open up.

Here's a channel that shares recipes and tips on how to prepare simple and healthy whole food Vegan meals... https://www.youtube.com/@fullonplants/videos It's good to have some easy staple meals that you can throw together in 5-10 minutes.

I haven't read that one.

Also, a bit of historical context that might be helpful for understanding the ire... and the perception of the powerful "other". During the medieval times, it was seen as un-Christian to be involved in financial matters. And that's because there's a lot of notions like "blessed are the poor or spirit". And it was seen to be of lower morals to be in the merchant class because of its proximity to money. They royals and nobility didn't want to "lower" themselves. And Kings and Queens would enlist the help of a "Court Jew" to help with the matters of banking and finances, so that they could outsource those tasks they saw as un-Christian. So, because of the way that money was viewed in Christendom as non-Christian, there has been an association of Jewish people with money. And the pattern of Jewish people being associated with money and riches gets started. Then, as we've moved out of feudalist fiefdoms and towards a more consumer Capitalist society, the most powerful people ceased to be the royals and nobility... and instead became the merchant class and the bankers. So, because there had been a patterns within the mainstream Christian society of it being anti-christian to handle money... this set up a pattern that later gave Jewish people more power because of their association with banking and money as things shifted away from Feudalism and towards Capitalism. This further solidifies the stereotypes associated with the "powerful other" who is plotting to take over like I mentioned in the previous post.

Consider that most of our default perspectives are coming from European Christian perspective because that is the perspective of the most dominant cultures who have the most imperial power. These are the same cultures that have the most impact on popular culture and what's coming up in the collective Zetigeist of the now international human species. So, anything that is considered "other" than white Christianity will be hated and marginalized in the collective Zeitgeist. And there certainly is a lot of Islamophobia as well as antisemitism because those are competitor religions to the dominant Christian perspective. So, they're going to be treated with a special amount of ire... moreso than smaller religions that aren't seen as real competitors to Christianity. But Islam is seen as more distant... and as something that's a fixture of the Middle East. So, Islamophobia is a more distant hatred of the distant other from the white Christian perspective. But there is a strong association between the Jewish identity and white European culture. And when most people think of Jewish people, they think of white people. So, Jewish people are perceived as a closer competitor to the default perspective... like a closer rival. That's why a lot of the antisemitic rhetoric is one that's more in the framing of "look at these powerful people that are plotting to take over" rather than the inferiorizing rhetoric of more distant others. Basically, the white Christian default sees them as closer rivals to the dominant perspective. But really any "other" will be hated and marginalized. That is the way that people with strong collective identities operate, as a strong tribal/national/ethnic/racial identity requires a contrasting other to give definition to the collective identity. Anytime you're saying, "I am this", there is an implied "I am not that." And the stronger identification we have with "this", the stronger resistance we will have of "that".

As a woman who doesn't respond to pick-up at all, I can tell you that guys who are into pick-up lose attractiveness. They come across like a salesman trying to hit quota, rather than like a regular human being. What I notice about guys who get into pick-up is that they lose the ability to simply interact with a woman without going into "agenda-mentality" and can't just let the connection form organically. They get too clouded by their knowings and agendas to truly be open. It's like, they have to do the legwork and escalate... and be the driver of the connection. And it becomes this really linear goal-oriented thing. And most women aren't into that kind of linear progression. But it will work on a sizable minority of women (maybe 20%-30%). So, men will get success with that sizable minority of women while functioning in that very mechanistic, utilitarian, goal-oriented way of operating relative to human connection. And they will come to the conclusion that this way of operating works on all or most women, when it doesn't. And it will repel women who are more open to organic connection and who only respond to the longer-winded and non-linear "fermentation process" of developing mutual feelings. And the men will believe "Focusing on organic connection doesn't work as effectively" because it gets them fewer numbers. So, a whole mode of connecting and operating gets cut off because the "pick-up" mode is more effective for the numbers game. And the women who are susceptible to the numbers game have an MO that's less prone to the natural slow-burn or intimate connection. So, it becomes like a fast-food version of human connection, which is far more transactional and unsatisfying. But it seems difficult for the guys who are into pick-up to notice what's lost because they're more likely to win the numbers game.