Emerald

I'm trying to communicate to you something about what women are attracted to about men. It isn't about settling for the "beta" guy. It's about PREFERRING the "beta" guy. This is where the disconnect comes from because men tend to find super ripped guys more attractive but women tend to find moderately strong guys more attractive that have a more fatherly appearance.

In my experience, I've always preferred men that other men would call "betas" and never had much interest in the super ripped hyper-Masculine kind of guys. It's about the energy of a guy who has both hard and soft qualities... and their body type is more attractive to me. But "beta" guys can also treat you badly. So, it's not such a rigid dichotomy as that. I'm sure there are total sweethearts that look like Arnold Swartzenegger... and terrible guys that look like Adam Sandler. But I've always been far more likely to be attracted to a guy who looks more like the latter.

Women do tend to develop attractions towards men who are their match looks-wise. But very attractive women also don't tend to go for super ripped guys, as they don't respond as well to it compared to moderately strong guys. Like, the guy in that picture is WAY more attractive before his transformation, imo. And I'm sure that very attractive women would say the same things. And they've done surveys of women (including attractive women) where they rated the male body types they liked, and very few women chose the ripped/jacked guys. So "ripped-ness" is not something that most women (regardless of attractiveness level) prefer. Men tend to have a really strong positive reaction to really jacked guys... as it is something that men respect and admire. And it has a lot of currency in male dominance hierarchies. But women don't value what male dominance hierarchies value... and are less likely to go for a jacked guy compared to a guy who's strong and has a normal or fit body type... or even a bit of a dad bod. Women in general tend to be drawn to men who look more fatherly with a mixture of hard and soft qualities. Men in general tend to appreciate the appearance of men who look physically intimidating and hyper-Masculine... and almost machinelike in their level of hardness and stoicism.

Weren't you just criticizing Vegans for disrespecting and undermining traditional culture?

Men are more attractive in motion, that's for sure. And men are attractive when they're doing something that shows their strength and physical capabilities. Plus, gym girls will tend to be interested in gym guys because of the shared interests. But that is beside the point of this video. The point is that men tend to value hyper-Masculinity in men and believe that women are also attracted to it. But women tend to be more attracted to men who are more average in their level of Masculinity and prefer a guy who has his Masculinity mixed in with traits that aren't typically considered Masculine. I keep trying to communicate this a lot of different ways on this forum because I see lots of men on here who are under the impression that they have to compete in some kind of male dominance hierarchy and be the top alpha male to be preferred by women. Women's preferences are a lot more geared towards the average guy than they are towards some gigachad of a guy.

Like I said, this dynamic is subtle and is one that men and women tend to naturally fall into in a long-term relationship. It's more akin to a husband fixing the sink to help his wife and her appreciating his efforts than it is anything super extreme. The best partnerships are quite eye-to-eye. But the Masculine/Feminine polarity is there when the man is more of the doer/leader and she is more of receiver/appreciator of his doing. So, that's what I mean by the woman being the prize and the man being the leader. It's just the Lover and Beloved archetype playing out in subtle ways in a relationship. But don't imagine anything too crazy or extreme. This has to happen in the context of a relatively equal partnership for it work out well or it won't work out. But for women in particular, it's really important to avoid pedestalizing the guy... and to not stick around in a relationship where the guy isn't as invested as you are. Things should either be equal or the guy should invest a bit more that you. Never stick around with a guy who feels lukewarm about you.

I'm sure your tastes will change and evolve as you age. It would be quite uncommon for a man in his mid-twenties to be attracted to a much older woman. Even most women don't find much older men attractive. So, it's normal that you don't find many women over the age of 30 attractive. As you age, you may still be attracted to younger women. But your upper range will probably continue to be a few years older than you, if it's already that now. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

*Shows picture of myself*

That actually describes you investing more because you'd be presumably contributing the lion's share of the finances to the home. So, that's a lot of investing in her. And that means that you're going to be working towards your mission with her as the beneficiary of the fruits of your labors... and that means that you'd have to value her enough to do so. And that's what I mean by the "prize". To take it out of a romantic context... when I make money from my business, it's meaningful because I get to invest in my children who are my "prize". And that's a big part of what makes my efforts worthwhile because I love them and value them just because they exist. They're my little precious gems. And I will work hard to make sure that they are given the best life I can afford. And I'm sure that a man who wants to be the primary bread-winner would need to love and value his wife (and children) as the "prize" so that his work and the fruits of his labors become more meaningful because of his mission to create a stable space for his family. Like, if I suddenly didn't have children or a husband and they just disappeared from existence... and it was just me, I wouldn't find the financial element of my business as meaningful because I derive a lot of meaning from being a breadwinner for my family. And that's a wonderful Masculine-principled quality to have as it is an embodiment of the Lover archetype. But you must value those you are breadwinning for on the level of being. This is a dynamic that tends to naturally arise when a man loves his partner.

This is not what I mean by the woman being the prize. That's just describing a man being needy and attached to the woman, which are two different things. Of course, if a man is desperate and pedestalizing the woman... she's not going to like that. So, it's not about what happens in the first few months of a relationship before her feelings for him are established. That's where the miscommunication is coming from because the guys on this forum tend to be thinking of the initial attraction phase of dating. This is what works best after the woman has already established feelings and desire to be in a relationship with the guy and there is already a sexual relationship that's been established. So, it's a longer-running dynamic than that and doesn't have very much to do with the initial attraction phase. And this is a subtle dynamic that you can see in many couples, as it tends to be a common pattern that men and women fall into.

Because that was the framing of the initial question. But it's also not a terrible framing for understanding these polarity dynamics either. A man who is really in love with a woman will see her as someone he values like a prize. And he will be very invested in her and will try to do things to win her over and progress the relationship... or just to add something to her life. This is how men tend to behave when they really love you and value the relationship. So my observation is that the most successful framing for longterm relationships is even on the level of love itself... but in terms of investment, the man invests slightly more and takes a leadership role in the relationship. Otherwise, the relationship tends to stay a situationship where the woman is head over heels for the guy and the guy just likes her enough to stick around for sex and easygoing female companionship. And a woman who sees the man as the prize doesn't give him space to invest in her.

These are some great points. It seems like our generation experienced a lot of formative social experiences with dating from an early age. And it seems like the internet and the pill-cultures have fed into young boys' insecurities in such a way that it holds boys back from having these formative experiences with female peers. So, the combination of a lack of communal social systems for dating in the early teens (because of how much is done online) AND the pill cultures themselves create a dynamic where the boys stew in the insecurities around approaching girls without the social support and peer pressure to encourage them to move past those insecurities. It's a lot easier to join a pill movement that validates and vindicates you in your non-action than it is to approach a girl you find attractive.

Women are all different kinds of ways, and they have different motivations for doing things. Like when I was 20 years old, I had a handful of one-night stands and brief flings. And none of this was based on deep feelings for the particular guy but came more from a mixture of loneliness and a desire for the experience of hooking up... as I had just gotten out of a 4 year long relationship. So, I was kind of making up for sexual exploration that I felt held back from in that relationship (which I thought would be life-long). So, I spent like 4 years repressing my desire for sexual exploration and not even letting myself admit to myself that I wanted to be single and date around because I was so attached to that relationship... and all of those repressed desires sprang back with a vengeance when that relationship ended. And for that, you just need a guy who's attractive enough to you at first blush. So, you have to find his looks and his mannerisms to meet the minimum standard for attraction. And these experiences can be wild and exciting for those who are looking to have a wild time. But the feelings are more situational and not about the person themselves. But these experiences won't yield very deep emotional results as it's more of a mutual masturbation situation... which doesn't really supply the feelings that women are really looking for in sexual interaction with a male partner as the experience is emotionally lacking. It's like having sex with a guy who's still in the neutral zone. So, the physical element is there without the emotional attraction... which is fairly high risk, low reward for the woman. So, it's not like those deeper feelings arise rapidly. It's more of a lowering the standards for emotional attraction because of a desire for the physical experience.

Thank you. Yes, I totally agree. This dynamic is not about creating something super exciting and passionate. That's often a byproduct of insecure attachment and the intermittent reinforcement of hot and cold. It's more about the deeper kind of bonding that's very stable and gratifying... and makes for a good foundation for a family (whether the partners want children or not). And the investment by the man winning over the woman is not frenzied or desperate on either partner's side. It's literally, just small things... like a husband fixing the leak in the sink and the wife appreciating him for doing it. Or a husband buying his wife flowers because he sees her as the prize and her expressing gratitude and showing him affection. I think the issue is that people who don't have a lot of relationship experience imagine something a lot more extreme when I say that the woman should be the prize and the man should be the leader. These are just subtle dynamics that naturally arise between men and women in a relationship.

That's not what hypergamy actually means in practice. It's not about seeking the best guy out of all the guys. That's too logical. And women are not logical about their attractions. Hypergamy is about a preference that tends towards wanting a guy who's older than her, taller than her, stronger than her, and maybe more financially abundant than her. So, hypergamy is relative to the woman herself... and not to the whole of men as a group. I can be very hypergamously attracted to a guy who's a few years older than me, a few inches taller than me, and a little bit stronger than me. And a middle class guy who makes a little bit more money than me could also be something appealing, though I am less financially hypergamous than I am with age, strength, and height. But I'm 5'2". So, it's not hard to find a guy who's taller than me. And I'm not more attracted to a guy who's 6'3" compared to a guy who's 5'10". They're all giants to me. For most women, hypergamous attraction is subtle. And it just hits those subtle Masculine/Feminine polarity notes where you can notice the difference within the similarity. To understand female attraction and hypergamy, you must understand this.

Just from the internal subjective experience of being a woman, I wouldn't say "pussy" is a good word to describe the subjective experience of delighting in a particular man in the way it actually is. That's more of an external male-centric way of describing the experience... and focuses more on the purely physical erogenous zones that are getting direct stimulation. And men are highly physically motivated towards sex in terms of the direct stimulation. But the desire is very emotional for the woman... rather than physical. So, I would probably use the word womb instead, as that's what wakes up when the heart wakes up. And it's much more emotional. The longing doesn't originate from the pussy. It awakens the heart, which then awakens the womb, which then creates the desire for the physical. And when you have strong heart-based erotic feelings towards a particular man that radiate from the center of the chest... and something he does or says pushes a particular chemical button, the womb contracts in anticipation of sucking semen deeper into the body and conceiving a child. And there are feelings of longing for closeness. So, it's far more about the womb than it is about the pussy... but all of that is downstream of the heart. In contrast, if you're masturbating... that's just pussy. It's all about getting the right stimulation... and following the path from A to B to orgasm.

I do think that's where the miscommunication is coming from. And there's a lot of assumptions that I mean a desperate chasing the woman or supplication of one's self to the woman. A man must have self-respect and boundaries as well or that will be repulsive. And he cannot make the woman the center of his life as he has to have other things that he's got going on. And a man should still be detached from her even as he sees her as the prize, and willing to do the right thing for all parties involved even if it means losing her. So, cherishing a woman as the prize doesn't mean making his entire life about her. In fact, it's the opposite. It's in him knowing there is no scarcity of "prizes". And being fully willing to let the prize go if that's the right thing. Non-attachment is key. And what the guys are talking about on the thread is also looking at this on too short of a timeline. And it's not surprising because I get the sense that none of these men have been married or had a really longterm live-in relationship. So, they're calibrating themselves to the first few months or year of a relationship... of which it's important to go slowly and not jump the gun. And there should be a mutual element of push and pull. But what I'm referring to is a slight imbalance in a long-term relationship where the guy is highly invested in the particular woman and there is a continued space of tension and pursuit where the woman loves him deeply but isn't 100% impressed or won over by him, where her admiration is conditioned upon his actions and his character. And that gives space for the man to show up in his life and for her and to be appreciated and earn her respect through either achieving something relative to his individualistic goals or by investing in her, because it gives him something to do and be appreciated for. For example, a man who is invested in his wife or longterm partner may put in efforts to show up for her and help her because he values her and sees her as the prize. And men who really care about the women they're with just tend to naturally do this as lots of men show people that they care about them through acts of service. But if the woman sees him as the prize, there is no space for her to appreciate his doing and his Masculinity. Instead, she will see him as her precious gem just for existing and appreciating him on the level of his Feminine. And lots of men have this fantasy... especially the ones that feel a sense of scarcity or feel unworthy of love. But in reality, they don't enjoy being treated like a woman's precious gem. And for a man, it will be like a game that's too easy to win, and it will lose its meaning. And men don't like that, as men want to "win her over" and be appreciated and respected for their investments and legwork. And you can't win over a woman who sees you as the prize because she is already won over. And the value of her admiration goes down because it's like getting applause when you haven't done anything challenging or special to earn it. But women tend to do best when they're valued as the prize on the level of being for who she is... rather than things that she does. In contrast, men tend to do best when they are loved on the level of being as a baseline.... but are valued, respected, and appreciated for what they do. And that's why it's not a good idea for the man to be the prize.

Can you define in detail what it is that you mean by pussy so that we aren't miscommunicating on the semantics? I thought you literally meant vagina. But explain what you really mean.

I think you're just projecting the way you feel about unattractive women onto women... and assuming they are responding the same way to men that they don't find attractive.

It's a projection. Men who feel disgust towards unattractive women, will project that women are feeling disgust towards them when a woman doesn't find them attractive. But women see men as neutral regardless of their level of attractiveness.. until one really strikes her fancy.

Why do you have to frame male-female relationships in such an ugly way? You're here chewing on these toxic philosophies, while there are men and women out there right now having real intimacy with one another. You just have to let go of all these weird narratives that so many men are indoctrinated into now-a-days.

That's such a silly conjecture. I can explain to you how it works. When I interact with most men, they are neutral to me. And I can recognize when guys are more or less attractive, but it doesn't hold any meaning to me. But when an attraction organically arises (usually after a few months of interacting with a guy) it comes on randomly. And then, it's like I can suddenly see and feel everything that's attractive about him and these intense feelings arise. But until this happens, every man is neutral to me. It's not negative. Nor are my thoughts about him framed in terms of how I perceive his level of attractiveness. He's just as neutral to me as an old woman, until things flip around... if they do end up flipping around.

First off, I wasn't advocating for women to lead the relationship. I was saying that women should be the prize in the relationship. You can be the leader or you can be the prize... you can't be both. And if the woman is the leader and the man is the prize, that's not going to lead to a healthy relationship. And I was saying that, when women lead the relationship and tries to woo the man and makes him the prize, she goes into her Masculine and starts putting the man up on a pedestal and trying to do all these things to make the relationship happen. And this puts a man into the Feminine beloved role while she takes on the Masculine lover role. And men only pair-bond through going into the Masculine lover role, where he's leading and investing in a woman he sees as the prize. Also, I see that you disagree with monogamy, and you're adding all this immature "beta male" idea that so many men are hung up on. But I quite like a monogamous relationship and so do most women. So, you're just going to have to deal with it being a widespread preference for the majority of men and the VAST majority of women.

@Leo Gura This is what I was trying to communicate in my previous post. I'll speak crudely to put it in the same language to make it clearer. It's not about what the pussy needs, it's about what the heart needs. And the pussy is just a very primal conduit through which to receive the heart needs. Like sex without the heart connection is only 30% interesting. It still feels good, but it's not very emotionally stimulating. But with the heart connection, it's the most intoxicating feeling that exists shy of a drug.

Yes, most women need/want a male partner... unless they're a lesbian or asexual. But I wouldn't boil it down to pure physical sexuality as that's just that one component of what women want/need from a man. Of course, that an obvious one. But there's more to it than that.