Emerald

Is that a picture of you in 10th grade? To be honest, my goth times were more fun than dark. It was a very whimsical time.

I tend to be the most interested in guys who are the male equivalent to my looks in attractiveness. But women are more physically beautiful than their male counterparts generally. And I think women are generally looking to be the peacock of the relationship... but only by a slight margin. Like, if I'm a 6... I'm not going to be attracted to a guy who's a 4 and below. But I may go for a guy who's a 5 in looks who's my age... or a 6 or 7 in looks who's 5-10 years older. That way, I can still be attracted to him... but I'm the peacock. And guys who are above a 7 and below a 4 probably won't be attractive to me.... as the upper range prevents me from being the peacock and the lower range blocks me from being attracted to them. It's because women are the selective sex. And women are usually attracted to men around their own age and who are in a similar phase of life to them. Also, women always lose in shallow pairing matters... as money appreciates and beauty depreciates. So, it's a losing game for women. And because women have an abundance of options, most women learn not to play. So, women will tend not to prefer a transactional dynamic where beauty is traded for money. They want to be loved for who they are with a man who is their male counterpart. And transactions like beauty for money don't feel good and don't function as a safe and comfortable platform upon which to get married and start a family. Because the woman in second video is very uncommon looking... and most men would not be attracted to her, she may struggle a bit to attract men. Yet again, I'm not sure about that. I just don't know anyone who looks like her. So, I don't know if it prevents her from getting male attention or not. But if a woman is a normal kind of unattractive, she's not going to have any issues attracting male attention. And while quite a lot of that attention will be low quality (as is the case for any woman), she will probably have a higher ratio of guys who are actually interested in her within that attention. As for the woman in the first video, she's going to get a TON of attention. But only a small fraction of that attention will be worth her time. So, she's going to have to be very intuitive and very ruthless in her sorting... and have very strong boundaries over her time, attention, and energy to avoid ending up with a guy who just wants to use her for clout, validation, and sexual gratification. So, I don't know about the uncommon-looking woman in the second video. But if we take a regular plain or unattractive woman... she might get 100 guys barking up her tree, with 5 of those being good options. And she's still going to have to sort well to avoid ending up with terrible guys. And if we take the woman in the first video who is an attractive modelesque woman... she's going to have the majority of heterosexual men in the world interested in having something sexual to do with her. And probably less than .05% of the guys would be a good fit for her and benefit her life. There are just SO many ulterior motives for a man to want to get involved with a woman who looks like that. And the majority of them are probably thinking selfishly about what kind of value they can extract from her. So, being a beautiful woman is similar to being a rich man, in this way. Being a rich man... a lot of the attention you'll get will come from gold diggers who just want to use you for your money. Being a beautiful woman... it will attract in a lot of beauty diggers who just want to use you for sex, validation, and status. And there are A LOT more beauty diggers than there are gold diggers, because beauty digging isn't as much of a social taboo. So, the raw number of good quality partners that Giselle might have is higher than the average woman. But the fraction of good options in her pool of total options is MUCH lower than the fraction of good options in an average or below average looking woman's pool of options. That's why beautiful women have to focus MOSTLY on sorting. The beauty diggers are always around... and women wear their beauty "bank accounts" on their face and body. It would be like if every rich man were required to wear a giant sign that had his net worth on it. Imagine how much low quality female attention he'd be getting. And he'd be wise to be very suspicious of ANY female attention at all. That's what beautiful women have to deal with.

My view on the death penalty is that death shouldn't ever be used as a punishment... because death is a phase of life. And if the justice institution starts framing death as a punishment, it's projecting something onto death that just adds to the average person's fear of death and dying. And we already have a poor relationship with death and the changing of the seasons in life. So, we don't need extra negative projections onto those processes. Plus, the death penalty doesn't actually seem to deter crime. It's not like places with the death penalty have fewer crimes committed than places without it. Also, I see the death penalty as a litmus test for how developed or un-developed a given society's justice system is. Ultimately, the purpose of the justice system is to keep society safe and healthy. And anything added to the justice system beyond that goal is going to be quite corrupt... as it will mission drift into purposes like punishment for its own sake, revenge, and brutality. So, it's important that the justice system keeps its eye on the prize and do precisely what keeps society safe... no more and no less.

Totally agree

That's not what @Joshe was saying. He was saying that the skill you need to learn is how to get women in general to like you as a friend. He wasn't saying that you need to make friends with the woman to have sex with her. And he's right. Men who have female friends and who platonically socialize with women on a regular basis are a lot more attractive than guys who don't have female friends and who don't platonically socialize with women on a regular basis. But if OP wants to get laid by the end of the week, I'd recommend a party ideally... or a club or some other fun social environment where you can interact with both men and women in a group.

First off, I think incest taboo is very normal. And we already don't imprison people who engage in consensual incest in the USA, at least. But the reality is that the social acceptance of incest would lead to some really negative genetic results that cause lifelong suffering to the children of incest. Honestly, look at how much suffering historical royals experienced because of incest, and you'll understand why incest is a taboo. And that is why close incest (like between siblings) is nearly universally considered icky across most cultures. It actually causes major harm. And in most places even more distant incest between cousins is frowned upon. But to compare incest taboos to exploiting and killing animals for pleasure is apples and oranges. One is a taboo that involves social judgement and disapproval to discourage sexual acts that harm the offspring that arise from those sexual acts. So, the taboo makes perfect sense. The other is pure exploitation, based on killing (or paying for killing) for momentary sensual pleasure... and having to build out a harmful paradigm to normalize and avoid looking at the reality that the exploiters actions don't match the exploiters identity and values. And the ripple effects of those paradigms is... mental gymnastics to rationalize away and quell cognitive dissonance, a contraction of consciousness to maintain blindspots to harm and suffering, and a necessary disconnect from the rest of nature via the projection of imaginary hierarchies. So, having a social taboo against incest isn't the same as exploitation and the collective consequences of the paradigms necessary to justify it. One is purely practical for protecting society and avoiding lifelong suffering. The other is a usually choice to betray one's own code of ethics for pleasure and creature comforts... and then to convince themselves that they have not betrayed their own code of ethics by twisting their consciousness into pretzels to continuing seeing themselves as good. Side note: Taboos are actually a very important thing, and they serve a crucial social function to discourage harmful acts that compromise the health and safety of society... even if there are some taboos that are outmoded and arbitrary to our modern era and need dismantling. But incest taboo isn't one that will ever be dismantled, as there isn't an adaptation that exists where the harm inherent in normalized incest ever goes away.

Power and responsibility must match... or corruption ensues. The fox has no power to stop eating rabbits... as it needs to eat rabbits to survive and it presumably does not have the capacity for conceptualizing ethics. And because the fox has no power in these matters, it also has no responsibility. Likewise, most humans 100+ years ago, while they had capacity for conceptualizing ethics, they had no power to refrain from consuming meat and other animal products as they had to simply consume what was available to them. (Side note: meat consumption was a treat for most, not an everyday staple) So, humans 100+ years ago had no power to stop consuming animals... therefore they had no responsibility to stop consuming animals. But most contemporary humans in the Global North have access to grocery stores that carry a variety plant-based foods... like grains, beans, legumes, tubers, fruits, and vegetables. And the only supplement needed is B-12, which all major grocery stores carry. Therefore contemporary humans in the Global North who have access to grocery stores and who aren't dealing with food scarcity have the power to refrain from consuming animal products. Therefore they have the responsibility to refrain from it. Otherwise, they're just exploiting animals for pleasure... which is corrupt because we have all the power to refrain from contributing to the suffering of animals, and yet we're not being responsible.

I've seen that so many times. Being an attractive woman doesn't guarantee that she's going to have great sorting skills. And an attractive woman will need excellent sorting skills. Beauty has no correlation with the quality of the character of the man you end up with. I know that everything you said seems logical to you, as you're very tuned into women's beauty... and men are very interested in female beauty as the thing that activates the desire for sex. So, because of that, you're like, "I am interested in women for their appearance. So, that must be what lands a woman a high quality man." But beauty is not the right tool for striking a great match. It's the tool for turning heads... and the character of the men those heads belong to vary significantly. And that is why sorting is the superior tool.... and many very beautiful women know this especially, because they have to. And once you start thinking your appearance is what will get you a good relationship, that's when you start ending up with losers. Honestly, go look around at the best couples out there with the best marriages.... and you will find a wide array of different levels of attractiveness. But the partners will be about the same level of physical attractiveness as one another. So, you can find 2s in a great marriage... and you can find 2s in a bad marriage. And you can find 10s in a great marriage... and you can find 10s in a bad marriage. --- Also, I'm from Florida. And there's a huge issue in retirement homes where STDs spread like wildfire because everyone is having sex. So, if some widowed 70-year old lady is without options, it's probably because she's not socializing. She may even believe, "I'm not a beautiful young woman anymore. So, no one will be interested." But then, 80-year-old Delores has Old Joe and Old Bob fighting over her in the retirement community. ---- So, it's important to put your assumptions aside and actually look at the dating/relationship/sexual behaviors of real human people. The reality is that uggos are coupling up all the time. And those are just as likely to be high quality marriages as a relationship between hotties. Edit: I was also just thinking that the things that I (and most women) find satisfying in a marriage/relationship may register as boring to you... as they're not very glamorous or exciting. I sense that your focus is more on extraordinariness where everyone's hot and sexy and having youthful party experiences or something like that. And hot women will get a TON of attention in those settings. And the more attractive a woman is, the more attention she will get. But for me, the dynamic that interests me romantically is very ordinary. And that's what most women are keyed into when choosing a husband and potential father for their children.

It's an interesting idea. But I'd say it doesn't need to be true literally to be true practically. What I would say is that, in order for a human to kill and/or eat an animal for reasons beyond sustaining life in times of food scarcity... there are certain hierarchical justifications that are often made in order to justify the needless exploitation. And many of the hierarichical justifications that human beings make to exploit animals for pleasurable flavors and textures are quite similar to the types of hierarchical justifications that human beings make when exploiting other humans. So, when we create these hierarchical paradigms to justify exploitation and murder of other types of sentient beings... we will also do it to each other. And most of the paradigms that justify exploiting animals for culinary pleasure, require human beings to see ourselves as separate from and above the rest of nature... and as being hierarchically above all other life-forms on the planet. And instead of seeing ourselves as ordinary animals... we see ourselves as extraordinary animals that are outside of nature. And when we see nature as an other... we can also harm nature itself. Contrast this with the hunting and farming practices happening 100+ years ago. Back then, the justification was the actual sustenance of human life in the face of food scarcity... and adding hierarchy to the equation was unnecessary, though still sometimes added. But now that there are grocery stores with plenty of options where humans can thrive without consuming any animal products... there has to be some pretty intense mental gymnastics to justify the exploitation. So, humans (especially "animal lovers" who consume animal products for pleasure) will create all kinds of paradigms to make those choices okay... when the choices contradict their own values. And those paradigms open the door to exploiting and oppressing other humans, and being able to justify it to quell cognitive dissonance.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You do realize that Natasha and I are female, right?

The 90-year old grandma is going to have a higher ratio of high quality attention, even if her raw numbers are lower. What you have to understand is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants a hot women. And many of them just want higher status among male peers or to feel validated by having an attractive woman attracted to them. So, we're talking about a young model having 1000 men who are interested in something with her... and 25 of them are genuinely interested in her. But the grandma has 100 men interested in her... and probably 20 are genuinely interested in her as a person. There just aren't as many ulterior motive for wanting to court a granny. So, if Old Joe is bringing Old Betsy flowers, he's probably really interested in her. But if there's a very attractive 25-year old model... she's going to have a bunch of guy chasing her around for all kinds of ulterior motives, like sex, status among other men, trying to redeem his self-esteem in his own eyes. There's no way that the ratio is the same. That's why beauty is a liability that must be compensated for with extremely ruthless sorting, as beauty is like an email inbox of a wealthy person with no spam filter.

(Read this in Daria's voice) Oh nooo....

I think the main issue comes from the fact that you're not seeing women as average fellow human beings. You're seeing them either as a drug that you're addicted to... or as an all-powerful existential judge that has the capacity to validate or invalidate your existence. And both of those project WAY too much power onto women, that women don't actually possess. If you just saw women as regular human beings with their own agendas and human flaws, there would still be a sexual draw towards them, of course... but it would remove all the excess psychological projection that intensifies your feelings of lack and the longing for validation. Basically, start seeing women as whole people and decenter your self-concept from what they think about you... so that you can separate your basic emotional and biological drivers towards romantic/sexual relationship from your sense of existential validity. If women are believed to be the arbiters of your existential validity, there will be a strong desperation for women's validation. And any tiny piece of female attention will feel like a drug to an addict in withdrawal. So, women are not a drug that you're powerless to. And women are not all-powerful existential judges of male worth that you're powerless to. They're just people, making their way through life like you are.

I sincerely doubt that people will stop aging or will become immortal through technology. But it would be a nightmare if that did happen. Life is meant to have seasons... and an end-point. And too many people try to hold onto eternal springtime... and it corrupts the spirit. But I will say... there's no such thing as a true Incel. The term Incel is borne from victim's mentality and the sense that, "I'm just not capable" as a means of avoiding fixing the real bottlenecks to their dating/relationship success. I've known some really yucky guys (personality-wise and looks-wise and socially) who were hooking up and getting women. And it's important not to buy the Incel thing, as it just enables those guys to stay in victim's mentality and keep blaming the world for their own responsibilities.

First off, women can get a lot of sexual validation by dressing skimpy. But none of that confers any benefit to the woman's goals, as that is low-quality male attention. The guy who "will fuck anything" will confer negative value to the woman's life. So, women have the same amount of quality options as men do. It's just that women aren't as obvious when they're interested. A quote that I heard is, "Men's challenge is finding water in the desert. Women's challenge is finding drinkable water in a swamp." So, the level of scarcity for men and women is the same. Secondly... what were men doing before pick-up became so mainstream? I'm old enough to answer that. They were just frequently socializing with women... and they'd get a girlfriend that way. Or they'd go out to a club/bar/party and dance up on a girl... and sometimes they'd make out or hook up. They didn't need to learn all these weird paradigms... and a bunch of strategies. They were just being social. And the outcome of socializing is that women will sometimes be interested in you. Of course, you have to be moderately socially clued in. But you didn't need to be a social genius.

And this is exactly why I stress that women's main task is to get better at sorting.

When I was younger (like 13-14), I was really anxious about looking attractive... as I didn't know that it's not the right strategy for finding a good mate yet. My perception when I was that age (which was heavily influenced by the culture and media... as society is obsessed with female beauty) was that, if I wasn't 100 lbs and looking perfectly that I wouldn't find a guy who was really interested in me beyond the bare-bones of the kind of attention that I was getting. And there had always been worries in varying degrees that, "If I don't look ideal, what if I'm not lovable." That is, until I figured out that men like women't looks... but they don't fall in love with them. So, a lot of women (especially women who have self-esteem issues and a minimal understanding about men's romantic/sexual motivations) will put all her effort into trying to impress men with her looks. But she sets herself for failure because there's always a more beautiful woman... and women who attract a partner based on their looks are fungible and easily replaceable with a younger or more attractive model. Like I said, if you live by the sword... you die by the sword. And if you're a very beautiful woman, and 99% of the attention you get is just guys wanting to have a hot girl attached to them... that's a liability. And that very beautiful woman is going to have to sort ruthlessly to find a great guy who's really into her specifically. Like, all women are having to find needles in haystacks to get a good partner. And the more beautiful the woman is, the bigger the haystack is that she has to sort through. But as far as looks giving access to higher quality options... that depends on how quality is defined. If a woman defines quality as the guy is good-looking or wealthy or high status or other superficial qualities.... Looks will be more likely to turn those guys' heads. But a lot of those guys will tend to treat women as fungible objects or as an extension of his own identity. (So, those are often low-quality options, as they're unsatisfying for what actually make a woman feel good in a relationship) But if a woman defines quality based on how deep the connection is, how good the chemistry is, how compatible he is, his level of investment, and how much she admires him as a whole person... that doesn't require anything of her looks-wise. (And usually, women will like guys who are quite similar to their own level of physical appearance.) And this is what actually feels satisfying in a relationship. Bear in mind, the goal is to find ONE really great and compatible male partner who has an equal (or slightly greater) desire to make a life together. And specifically maximizing for looks will give women access to opportunities to be ogled and to be seen as arm candy for "high status" guys. But it doesn't confer any relationship benefit... beyond getting a more physically attractive partner, which is just a "nice to have". That said, I still like to look pretty. But that's more of an identity thing, as I want to look powerful. And beauty is power in many facets of life. But beauty has ZERO power to assist women in finding a great relationship. It can even be a liability if the beautiful women isn't sharp as a tack with her ability to sort wheat from chaff.

Are you saying there's a dynamic with reframing a woman's issues with codependency as something that's the fault of "bad guys"? Well, there's definitely dynamics that need to be worked on for both parties. For a codependent woman, it's important to grow some self-esteem and get better at sorting so that she doesn't end up in unsatisfying dynamics with the "bad guys". And it's also important to understand the difference between how women and men operate when they're wanting a serious relationship. She also needs to learn how to be honest with herself about WHAT she wants instead of settling for whatever because of WHO she wants. And she has to avoid the idea that a support for women's sexual autonomy means the same as 'being able to have sex without getting invested the way men can.' So, there's a lot of learning and un-learning the woman must do to avoid these situations. And it's fully within her power and responsibility to do so. And no amount of telling guys they shouldn't is going to prevent a woman from experiencing this, if she doesn't learn to sort these kinds of guys from consideration. But it's definitely important for men to not kid themselves if the woman they're regularly sleeping with is clearly lying to herself about being okay with being FWB. He also must take responsibility and cut things off if he senses that kind of power imbalance in the dynamic. So, while I'm definitely not saying "The power and responsibility all sit with the men who kid themselves and take advantage." They still have the responsibility to do right by the woman and not to delude themselves into taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that are built into women's sexuality and pair bonding drives... which may run counter to the stories that women tell themselves about how they should or shouldn't feel.

I'm not describing pedestalizing women or submitting to her in some way. That's also not good. It's more like, during the dating phase, a dynamic where a man is taking the initiative to add to her life and is showing that he values her and is serious about pursuing a relationship with her. But he's not worshipping her... or disrespecting himself to do it, and he has self-respect and boundaries also. He's just consistently showing her that he's invested and doing the legwork to bring the relationship to a deeper and more committed level. And men tend to develop deeper feelings when they are investing in the woman. So, if he's serious about the woman, he's setting most of the dates, and he's the one spear-heading the direction of the relationship. And if he's not being proactive like that... it's purely because he doesn't want to. And no amount of wooing, chasing, and cajoling will get him to want to.

It's definitely codependency. But how did you mean that the people on the thread are turning it into a hero complex? That's the part that I didn't understand.

Can you explain what you mean?

Yes, exactly. What's interesting is that, back in the 90s, people were apparently rooting for the relationship between Carrie and Big to work out. And there were a lot of tropes about a woman winning over a man who's hard to get... probably because that's a common fantasy for women with low self-esteem. And I think that the lack of understand of male/female relationships in the general populace... and a romanticization of "winning over the avoidant" led to a lot of women selling themselves short. But people watching in the 2020s are a bit more savvy, and don't tend to romanticize their relationship... and see it for what it is. Here's an interesting reflection from a therapist about how a couples therapy session might go between them.

I don't recommend a woman ever chase a man... or try to woo him. Men really don't respond well to being woo'd even if they find it pleasing. Chasing a man and wooing him tends to lead to women ending up in situationships with low-investment men. Also, I'm not saying "never do anything for a man". Longterm relationships and marriages should be a place for mutual love and support. What I'm saying is, "Never do anything for the purpose of wooing him." But at the outset of a relationships especially (during the dating phase), a woman should give a lot of space for the man to show that he's invested... and not be so easily won over by him. And that's not meant to be a logical tactic of playing hard to get. It's actually about developing higher standards for what kinds of relationship dynamics you're willing to entertain... and which ones you're not available for. And it comes from loving and respecting yourself deeply... and being willing to choose yourself over the relationship, if the relationship is impacting your quality of life negatively. And this creates a dynamic where you will not be very easily impressed and will take some consistent evidence over time that a man is invested and will be a good partner, in order to be willing to decide to jump into a longterm relationship with him with both feet. Contrast that with a woman who gets involved with a man who's not that into her and is very sure that he's the one she wants... and she feels like she has to chase and woo him to win him over. And she never once asks, "Am I okay with the way this relationship is?" Instead she only asks, "How do I earn his love?" When she chases him, she basically polarity-flips the dynamic so that she's taking on the Lover role... and putting the man in the role of her Beloved and giving him the princess treatment to woo him. But women tend to only feel loved in the Beloved role... and feel anxious in the Lover role. And men only tend to fall in love in the Lover role... and feel pleased but indifferent and uninterested in the Beloved role.

100% And it usually takes women a while to learn to sort these guys out. And it's a hard lesson. Most women do eventually learn. But there are some women who end up in these patterns again and again. And it's a shame. It makes me think of Carrie from the show Sex and the City. If you're familiar, she had this on-again-off-again situationship with this guy she calls Big. And Big is very avoidant and just not that into her... but he strings her along for the entire run-time of the show. And she just keeps ending up in this cycle of taking the breadcrumbs and fantasizing about him finally choosing her, only for him to abandon her and reject her (even at the altar). That's the problem with falling in love with the fantasy of how things could be... instead of realizing that things will almost always end in the exact same way they start. So, it's important that a woman not fill in the blanks of the confusion/mystery of how men operate with how she operates and how she want things to turn out. It's also important for women to develop a very high sense of self-worth so that she doesn't feel like love is something that she has to earn by impressing the guy... or having sex with him... or being hotter for him... or cooking for him... or cleaning for him... etc. That can lead to a dynamic where the woman is trying to woo the man instead of allowing him space to woo her.