Emerald

Sure. I'll answer some questions. It's a very broad topic, so you can ask specific ones. The reason why 70%-75% of women aren't really open to PUA methods is because women get approached a lot. And 95%+ of those approaches come from guys who are just looking for sex or to puff up their self-esteem via sex. So, there is an intuition based in a multitude of personal experiences from age 12 onward about when guys are simply running game to get laid... Pick-up has a very "used car salesman" vibe... or like the people in the mall that try to stop you and sell you something. You may fall for it at first. But usually by 15 or 16, you can sniff it out fairly easily. This is ultimately why Leo talks about having such a low conversion rate when he does cold approach. Women are prone to experiences involving sexuality from a very young age. So, most women will see it coming from a mile away and will filter it out like your email provider filters out the majority of spam and phishing attempts. There are tell-tale signs. That said, 25%+ of women don't have that filter for one reason or another. This can be due to more negative things like low standards, desperation, low self-esteem, poor boundaries, naïveté, or simply a confusion about what they want. Or they may simply be looking for NSA sex too... kind of like the female version of a PUA. So, both of these categories of women might be open to cold approach. And I have found Teal Swan's insights into the female experience to be dead on the money. I feel that most men may have the impression that women have the upper hand in dating/relationships. That's true in the sense that you get a lot of male attention. But lots of male attention comes with A LOT of problems. Lots of men see you more as an idea and a drug than they see you as an actual human being. So, there is a need to be on guard quite a bit. It's like if you were prone to attracting zombies (zombies being specifically men who are just looking for sex) and you just carry a big stick with you now everywhere you go to fight them off (the stick in the metaphor being the auto-reject response).

All people do have some degree of trauma just for the very fact of living. So, there is that. But there are certain types of trauma that, when women experience them, that can lead them to seek partners who are distant or cannot love them. A lot of them have to do with their dynamics with their parents... especially their father. So, if their parents are cold and don't show affection. Or if they're aloof and not involved with her. Or if one (or both) parents leave her. There is also the pattern of internalized misogyny, which can be picked up from both home and society. I've dealt with this one a lot, despite being raised in a matriarchal household where my mom made almost all the decisions. In my family, the saying that was joked about a lot was, "Mommy's the boss. Daddy's the breadwinner." So, I never got any messaging around women being less capable or important or anything like that. But even still, I picked it up very negative views about women and femininity from the culture at large. So, when misogyny is internalized, it can lead women towards self-destructive things and a negative attitude towards themselves. It's the worst thing for self-esteem.

Understanding towards what end? If you want understanding for pick-up purposes, ask a pick-up artist. You can find a sizable minority of the female population (probably 25%-30%) who are open to pick-ups using those methods. That's what all those fish/fisherman quotes are about. If you want understanding for the purpose of developing a strong relationship with a woman, ask her about herself. There is no guarantee that she will have the degree of self-knowledge to answer you accurately. But even still, this is the best bet for developing intimacy. If you want understanding just to understand with no agenda other than to understand, then you can ask me. You can also listen to women speak about their experiences. Teal Swan also has some really accurate articulations of the female experience.

You're correct that I am speculating about what's happening in Iraq. I have never set foot there, and I have not lived the experience of being Iraqi. Nor do I want to invalidate your perspective. But what I do KNOW is what U.S. foreign policy is and what it does in many places around the world. And what you're describing is what it does. So, I cannot help but speculate that U.S. foreign policy has a hand in that dynamic. There is also the fact that over half a million people in Iraq have been killed as a result of the Iraq War that makes me speculate this. Now, perhaps the incompatibility with the international laws around Iraq as a sovereign state is the core reason for the problem. But this opens up the question to me... why do those issues exist as the status quo? What stands in the way of that issue being resolved? Well, clearly it would appeal to people to be able to project all their woes onto some perceived "other". I see it happen here all the time. Lots of outlandish conspiracy theories too. I remember when 9/11 happened and so many of the kids in school (I was 12) were parroting their parents who were saying that we should bomb the entire Middle East because of the actions of a few. The Middle East became a "catch-all" for all their own anger. All their xenophobia got to have an excuse to come out. So, it isn't one bit surprising to me that so many people are going into that mode with regard to America. You could chalk it up to run-of-the-mill xenophobia. I'm sure that exists too. But I'm sure this is especially true because of the huge death toll in Iraq during the Iraq War. I'm sure that would turn a lot of generally non-xenophobic individuals towards a deep hatred of America. Now, xenophobia is not surprising to me because I know how people are. But of course, it's a very destructive mindset. The average citizen here has nearly as little control over U.S. foreign policy than the average person in the Middle East had during 9/11. So, it would not be right... (nor would it be effective to stopping corruption) to destroy people who had nothing to do with anything. But America as a power structure is not the good guy here. Its foreign policy is highly imperialistic and oppressive. And anything positive that does happen as a result of American intervention is only because it happens to line up with corporate interests or the interests of the American government. Yes, I agree that Iraq should abide by international laws, just as other countries do. But my question is, what is the reason why it is currently not abiding by international laws? Is there something getting in the way of that? Also, why is Iraq not functioning like a country? I ask these questions because there are often political reasons why a country might be in this position. Often times, it can have to do with the political interests of more powerful countries. Imperialist powers (like the U.S.) will often mess up things within a country (from the the government all the way down to the conditions people live in) to keep it under the thumb of said imperialist power. Also, there is nothing that gives America carte blanch to play 'world police'. American exceptionalism is a terrible scourge on so many places in the world. America has a lot of blood on its hands because of the constant regime change wars. I definitely recommend checking out Noam Chomsky's book called "Understanding Power" to learn about American imperialism and the types of propaganda America uses to justify that imperialism.

I'm specifically talking about the American regime-change wars which are is a pattern of U.S. foreign policy that gained steam during the Reagan era and continues to modern day. This is where we go in a topple foreign governments and occupy the territory for the purposes of "spreading democracy". Yet, we support so many dictators around the world. I'm not referring to WWII or the Korean War. These conflicts happened before America got into the pattern of imperialism that it's currently in today.

The word "obedient" has a much more negative connotation than the word "submissive". Submissive is an orientation within the relationship. It can refer to someone who is just being bossed around on the more negative side. But it can also just refer to taking a more receptive role in the relationship and it can draw to mind purely sexual dynamics as well. Obedient is just about obeying. So, there's a real domineering connotation to that word.

Real relationships are not based off of these stereotypical dynamics of dominant/submissive and alpha males and all that stuff. Have you had many deep long-term relationships? Sure, all that sub/dom stuff is fun to play with for sexy time. And it can be used to good effect in the attraction phase of the relationship. But when it comes to real compatibility and chemistry, these just aren't substantial enough things to genuinely bond over. You have to build a real friendship and appreciate each other for personality reasons. Also, if you notice, it's mostly men who buy into the whole "alpha male" thing. Women are usually a very person-centered when they aim to attract someone... not type-centered. So, a woman will be like, "I hope Tom likes me." She won't be like, "I hope an alpha male will like me." Or if she's on a dating app, it will be much more looks/personality/compatibility based than the whole "alpha male" stereotype. But more importantly, it just feels like you watch these videos and subscribe to these notions because they soothe you a bit. It appears that you might feel some degree of powerlessness because you put women up on a pedestal and feel like they will be the judge of your worthiness and lovability and that they have some kind of power over you (which is not the case). So, you might scratch an itch when you watch these videos because they drag women off of the pedestal you put them on. With no malice in my heart, I tell you that that's the energy that it gives off. It's the energy that you feel like you're unlovable, and so you seek to make women feel like they are less lovable to feel more worthy of female love and attention.

I watched a couple of his videos that you posted, just part the way through. And they're mostly just very "duh" messages. These are things that most girls know by the time they're 15 or 16 from just living in the world as a female human being. You usually have a handful of experiences with these types of guys that give you the lesson well before adulthood comes. It's actually really easy to tell when a man actually cares about you once you've had these experiences. And with even the slightest degree of intuition, you can weed out men who aren't into you and men who aren't mature enough to open up to love. It's very evident in a man's demeanor and behaviors. Trauma, on the other hand, can make a woman more prone to seeking out men who don't/can't love her... if her parents also modeled the same. And this is not something that can be advised away, unfortunately. It takes a lot of healing. And my biggest issue with this guy's "advice" is that it would only put lemon juice in those wounds by creating a false sense of scarcity of loving men (when there are plenty of men who are mature enough to love). The advice would be counter-productive for such a woman, as it would give her the impression that she has to settle for just anybody or it would make her outright resistant to any relationship to a man at all. Also, I noticed that the vast majority of the commenters are men who are really excited about this guys messaging, with next to no comments from women. And the comment I did see from a woman was just her saying something like "Okay. I guess I'm not going to give a fuck either. Just keep it moving." And now that woman will keep her heart closed. Now she will be always in competition to try to love the least in the relationship... perhaps in part because of this guy's messaging. So, it feels like the channel is less geared to "advice for women" and much more geared towards making men who are insecure about their prospects in dating feel more secure by hearing a man tell women how much of a disadvantage they're at in finding love and how rare men who can love are.

Listen, given that you are from Iraq (which I did not know before), despite that my circumstances are very different from yours, I can appreciate how traumatic it must be when you experience radicals and terrorists in your own homeland. I know that it is easier for me to get angry at radicals here (because they are people that I know who are around me), than I am to get angry at more abstract things like governments and corporate bureaucracies. Even if I know it's not wise, it just feels more personal. So, if I add on top of that experiencing these people doing terrible things and experiencing loss as a result, it makes sense that you would side with America over them... by polarizing yourself in the opposite direction from the radicals and allying yourself with their enemies. Basically, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." This also makes sense that you would come to idolize George W. Bush and America because they appear as the good guys in comparison to the bad guy radicals that you've experienced. But this perspective, though understandable, fails to recognize the root cause for terrorism and radicalization in Iraq... which is U.S. foreign policy and military occupation. Everything that I said about American foreign policy is true, even if that is hard to swallow. America's whole game is to divide and conquer within the territories that they occupy to keep the people from forming popular uprisings. That way, they can stay in power. This leads to atomization and hostility amongst people within said territory... as well as left wing and right wing radicalization. Both of which are quashed by the U.S... not because they're doing the right thing but simply because they don't want a challenge to their power. Doing the right thing, when it happens, only happens because it serves U.S. Power and the financial interests of the owner class. So, everything you just told me fits within the range of what America does to a country it occupies. And it appears that it has left you feeling that atomization and substituting the need for solidarity by identifying with the occupying force of America. But America is no hero in that situation. American foreign policy is (in large part) the catalyst for the terrorism and radicalization that you dislike so intensely. Edit: To be clear, I want to differentiate 'identifying the root catalyst for terrorism' from 'terrorist apologism'. I'd wager that you've experienced a lot of terrorist apologism in the context in which you live because there's bound to be lots of anger towards the U.S. So, you may believe that I'm doing the same thing. But I am not. Terrorism is not the answer to oppressive U.S. foreign policy. I'm just pointing to the primary catalyst for terrorism... which is U.S. foreign policy and the resulting atomization and oppression of the population.

It's about installing just the opposite of Democracy. The U.S. benefits if they can put a dictator in charge. It keeps the native population from uprising. But of course, they will call these dictators "moderates" and tout democracy. But that's just smoke and mirrors. The real point is to strip democracy and maintain control of the region and its labor and resources through military might.

One thing to understand is that America is an imperialist nation that uses its huge military budget for two primary benefits. Number one, it enables the military industrial complex to have unfettered access to the pot of American tax dollars under the guise of defense. Basically, the more military conflicts there are, the more weapons and fighter jets get made, the more money goes to the industry owners (like Bowing and Honeywell) AND the politicians they pay off. Basically, war is profitable for the political class and the owner class, because the middle class will let them take their tax dollars willingly if it is framed as "defense". Number two, America profits most from goods that are made by people living in third world countries... AND resources found in third world countries. So, in order to keep the populace of said third world countries desperate, they occupy the territory and suppress popular uprisings: both left wing and right wing. And America will come up with narratives that these small third world countries are a genuine threat to American freedom and democracy... despite the fact that we have the biggest military in the world and these countries are powerless to defend themselves. So, with regard to Iraq, the American government used the attacks on 9/11 (which were carried out by SAUDI ARABIAN terrorists and lead by Osama Bin Laden of AFGANISTAN) to justify the war in IRAQ. Number one, Saudi Arabia and Afganistan are NOT Iraq... so there was no reason for us to invade them. Number two, even if the terrorists had been from Iraq (which they weren't), terrorists are typically radicals and don't have anything to do with the government or the people of the place they inhabit. For example, if a bunch of KKK members decided to go fly planes into some buildings in other countries, it wouldn't be the US government's fault, nor would it be the fault of US citizens. So, we had no reason to invade Iraq other that for the US government and US business class's monetary gain... aka lots of oil in Iraq. And the US military has killed over half a million Iraqi citizens... men, women, and children. So, OF COURSE the Iraqis will be upset and angry at America. They have likely experienced the deaths of so many children, brothers, sisters, friends, grandparents, parents, etc. because of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. And even though terrorism is always to be condemned, we must understand the roots of where it comes from. When you leave a population desperate, you will have lots of hurt and anger... which may (in some cases) turn to right wing radicalization and terrorism. So, when these Iraqis are talking about bombing the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, that's obviously something to be condemned and discouraged... but the deeper root cause of that is none other than the corrupt foreign policy enacted by the U.S. Government at the behest of the owners of the Military Industrial Complex and the Fossil Fuel Industry.

I'm not comparing myself out of a sense of insecurity. (Though I do have insecurities and always have) But truly, I do like the way that I look. I think I look just fine. That's why I give myself a 5 or a 6. I had brought up my perception of my looks-number simply so I could answer the question posed by the OP about how important looks are to women and to make my original point that I tend to be attracted to men who are about my looks-match... aka average looking guys. I'm an average looking woman, and I tend to be most likely to become attracted to average looking guys. And men who fall out of my looks-range (in either direction), I am far less likely to develop an attraction to them. So, I'm just as unlikely to not develop an attraction to a 9 as I am unlikely to develop and attraction to a 2. And that's because I'm a 5 or 6. This is how looks tend to matter for me. It's like my subconscious automatically weeds out anyone who isn't in the 4-6 range as potential partners. And I'm also aware that many men are not that picky with looks. And men who are mature and looking for something substantial will seek real chemistry and compatibility. This was not my concern when I made the post.

Here's a picture of me, making my debut down the frozen foods aisle of the Citrus County Walmart after the local pub closes. HELLO WORLD!

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I suppose it's all relative to the context. If I'm hanging out with a bunch of super-models, I'm a 2 in the looks department. But if I'm at Walmart at 3am in my hometown, I'm a solid 11. But I think 5 or 6 is the most accurate in comparison to other women who are about my age. I'm pretty average or slightly above. But average is good. I can't complain.

Not really. That's not what's appealing about men from my perspective.

Aww, thank you. I appreciate that. It's not even a conscious decision though. I've always been more likely to get the Cupid's-Arrow response towards an average looking guy than I am towards a super model looking guy, though an attraction is fairly uncommon for me either way. Perhaps it's a self-esteem thing. But I think it's more like I'm looking for someone who is congruent to me... but with an ever-so-slight imbalance where I can be the peacock.

A man's looks are an important factor. But there is a range of consideration. Now, I'm an average looking woman... maybe a 5 or 6. So, if a guy is between a 4 and a 6 looks-wise, I can become attracted to him. It doesn't necessarily mean that I will be attracted to him. That has to do with a multitude of other factors. But looks-wise, that's my range of ability to develop an attraction to someone. If he is under a 4, then I am unlikely do develop an attraction to him because his looks would be underneath my range. If he is over a 6, then I am unlikely to develop and attraction to him because he probably won't be excited by me or desire me, and that's a huge turn-off. I like to be the peacock of the relationship. But when an attraction does set in for me, I really appreciate the way a guy looks because of the way I feel about him. A good-looking guy on his own doesn't do much for me. But if an attraction sets in, I just love the way the guy looks. This is always the way it has worked for me.

It's not a survival need like food is. It's a psychological and emotional need. It's not needed to survive, but it is needed to thrive.

Whether a person has had a good childhood or a bad childhood, the need for socialization still exists. And needs must be met. It would be the same as saying, "People who say they don't need food and water usually had good nourishment when growing up. In that case you can become starved and dehydrated and still be nourished. Unfortunately it is not the case for everybody." The point that I'm trying to make here is that human needs are not optional.

Well said... especially with regard to shadow socialization cropping up when the need for healthy socialization isn't acknowledged or met.

"When you are proactive about building a good life for yourself and doing spiritual work, you need other people less and less to complete you. To the extent that your life is not well put together, the loss of people in your life will lead to huge catastrophe and deep suffering -- because you use these people as emotional crutches to avoid doing serious work. If you take this work deep enough, you will not need anyone for your happiness." The reason why I bring this up to you is because of what you'd said... and the message this might send to people. This is especially true for young people who may simply take you at your word and not investigate deeper. It gives the sense that developing social connection is optional, when it is a basic human need. Sure. Certain hardcore spiritual practitioners might become ascetic and forego their human needs for connection and sex... perhaps they may even forego their needs for food and water to a certain extent. And certainly, there is still the capacity to feel happy and fulfilled if a person dedicates their entire life to mastering the ascetic way of life. But by and large, this is terrible advice to give to the average person as they may starve themselves of their own needs and face negative consequences as a result. Most people cannot be fulfilled without their basic human needs being met. So, if they decide that they don't need socialization because "God needs nothing", this just leaves them in a holding pattern in the bottom layers of Maslow's Hierarchy and keeps them from reaching towards the higher levels of self-actualization. Also, with regard to your "emotional tampon" idea... I read what you wrote as a reflection of a personal aversion to intimacy and a subsequent rationalization where you regard that avoidance of intimacy as a symptom of your own higher conscious development so as to avoid the underlying issues with intimacy. Just some food for thought...

It's not an assumption that everyone is like me. In fact, I've been quite a loner for most of my life. But it is a fact that human beings need social interaction. We are a social species. That is the nature of our species. We've evolved that way over hundreds of thousands of years to live in cooperative societies with a strong social fabric. And without that, we face the consequences of being out of our natural element. But if you're used to being out of your element or have experienced negative things in regard to social cohesion, then you may have repressed the aspect of yourself that feels that need.

We can learn to adapt to situations where our needs aren't met if we can adopt a narrative that we don't need those things. But make no mistake, if you haven't had friends for many years, it's taking its toll. Needs are needs. If you don't meet them, there are consequences. You've just adapted to them and learned to selectively focus towards the positive elements of solitude.

Just popping in to say that sex during pregnancy is totally normal and healthy... in case you were under the impression that sex during pregnancy is unsafe.

We don't need to survive. But if you want to survive, you need food and water to do so. Edit: Likewise, we don't need to have our emotional and social needs met. But if you want to thrive, you need healthy and fulfilling social relationships.