Emerald

I definitely think it's important for men to be aware of these patterns... and not kid themselves. But it's also something that women have to learn to actively sort from consideration. The main thing is that, from an inexperienced woman's perspective, men's sexuality can be very confusing and seemingly contradictory. For a woman, sex and love tend to be linked inextricably together.... as sexual options are more abundant, we have more skin in the game with pregnancy, and our gametes are more scarce and short-lived. For these reasons, women generally have more sexual firewalls up than men do, and our sexuality automatically filters out guys that we might find mildly physically attractive but are not that into. But for men... who have scarcer options, have no physical consequences for sex, and whose gametes are abundant and last their entire lives... it's fine if sex and love are separate. And while that separation can cause problems where he will have sex with women he's mildly attracted and doesn't have romantic feelings for to and potentially lead her on... it actually works well for longterm commitment. When love and sex come separately for a man, he can commit to loving his wife in a way where his sex drive takes the backseat... and it's more about supporting her and cultivating the relationship. But it's very confusing when a guy is very excited about sex but isn't motivated by love, from an inexperienced woman's perspective. It took me a long time to really understand how it worked. And it takes a bit of understanding to get, "Just because he repeatedly sleeps with me and wants to spend time with me, doesn't mean that he's interested in progressing things." So, while men do need to understand that most women who get involved in FWB situations are lying to themselves about it being casual... The main responsibility for learning that is the woman who must learn how to sort better. And that means realizing that 99 times out of 100, things never change. And then asking and answering honestly, "If nothing ever changed about this relationship dynamic, would I be able to be content longterm?" And if the answer is "No"... it's time to break it off. It's also why I recommend that women not do anything to try to "earn" his affection. Just do what feels good to her... not because she's trying to "sweeten herself up" to make herself easier and more appealing the guy. So, I'd tell women... don't ever try to deliberately woo a man. That means, don't cook for him, clean for him, please him, have sex with him, dress up for him, impress him, stroke his ego, or anything like that for the sake of wooing him. Instead, only do what's pleasing to yourself and pour into yourself... and then give him space to pour into you and earn your affections. This will sort out low-investment men who aren't looking to love her, as they will fall away. But it also gives high-investment men who are really interested the space to woo her and get the satisfaction of earning her admiration. So, yes... men are somewhat responsible here. But it's also on women to say no to low quality male attention.

I also believe it's at least some version of this list.

I'm moreso talking about one-night stands, when I was talking about that "sizable minority of women want casual sex". It's like... "It's a wild night at this concert/bar/rave/party... and I want to have sex with someone." Many women wouldn't do this. But a sizable minority of women would just to go with the excitement of the party. Probably half of women have done that at some point in their lives. But I don't think that very many women at all are actually looking for FWB or repeat casual sex or situationships. It's maybe a longterm solution to loneliness or a desire that things will become more serious over time. The issue is that that doesn't happen with men who are looking for FWB and casual sex. So, a lot of women can end up in a situation/FWB situation and hoping that he develops feelings for her and wants to commit to her. But that hardly ever happens. So, I tend to find that many men and some women can be open to casual sex on a one-night-stand. And I find that men tend to like FWB, because it gives him consistent, low-effort, easy-going access to sex and the girlfriend treatment with a woman he's friends with and is physically attracted to... but who he isn't interested in pursuing in any kind of serious romantic way. So, it meets many of his needs without requiring commitment and vulnerability from him, as he's not in love with the woman and he knows he never will be. But for women in FWB situationships, it's often, "If I like him enough to repeatedly have sex with him, I love him and want to be his partner and I want to be mutually in love." But she may lie to herself because she doesn't want to admit that the dynamic is going nowhere, and say, "FWB is what I'm really looking for. So, I'm totally cool with this." So, usually women will not repeatedly have casual sex with a man unless she just loves sex, is very lonely,... or (most often) is wanting something deeper with that particular guy and just hoping the sex means something or that he'll eventually fall for her. And this is one of the reasons why sorting is VERY important for women. There are a ton of men who would be very open to FWB... and can contently stay for years and years in that dynamic because it meets many of his needs. But there are almost no women who thrive and feel held in that kind of dynamic. So, it's important to sort out guys who "Aren't interested in putting labels on anything" or who "Aren't looking for anything serious" or any of the other indicators that he's open for FWB but not open for anything deeper.

Yes. That's my point. A lot of the things that are relevant in men's dating strategies don't apply to women. So, 2s and 3s (and probably even 1s) will have plenty of options to strike a good match, even though they're unattractive. And most romantic partners are at about the same level of attractiveness. That's why attraction isn't women's bottleneck. I'm saying that approaches on the street come with added risks. Plus, the guy is most likely doing pick-up, and his paradigm may be a liability. So, I do treat street-approaches all purely as spam attention, even if there are a few earnest ones in there. It's just unnecessary risk, when you have plenty of other more familiar options. My issue is the type of paradigm locks that guys who engage with that kind of content end up in. These pick-up paradigm locks tend to transform men into poor options as long-term partners for women. And it can end up stunting their level of maturity, as they can optimize themselves for greater approach conversions... and not towards becoming a great person. But I get that it may increase his casual sex results in the short term. And that may feel like an improvement. That's the tricky part. It's similar to how a woman might experience more male attention by coming across as cheaper in certain ways. And a woman who develops herself only in relation to what maximizes male attention and validation, is going to stunt her own growth. And she may not be very attractive for a discerning man or as a longterm partner. I call this "checkbox mentality". And it's something that men and women with an avoidant attachment style tend to do when looking for partners, to avoid actually settling on one. They come up with a list so long and so specific. And they logically assess their prospects based off of the checkboxes on the list, and they toss them out if they don't fit the checkboxes. But this is just a common strategy for avoidants. It's not actually developing the skill of sorting well. In my experience as a woman, when I'm attracted to a man... it's almost like a specific man is a combination of flavors (I sense these emotionally). And some of those flavors are pleasant (like sweetness) and others of those flavors are disgusting (like bitterness, sourness, saltiness, and spiciness). And when I'm interacting with a man, I'm sensing his unique "flavor profile"... which is always a combo of both pleasant and disgusting flavors. And as my palate has grown more refined and my selection standards have gotten more honed in, I've learned to differentiate whether the disgust signals add or detract from the quality of the "dish". So, sometimes there are clearer dealbreakers that don't require a very sophisticated palate. (Like, if the guy has a history of violence, just sort him) But in other ways, it's just taking in the "flavor profile" of people (even for friendships) on a holistic level, and asking "Does this flavor enhance my life or detract from it?" And for romantic relationships specifically... "Could I live contently with this person for a long time?" and "If I had kids with this person, would I regret that they were my children's father?" So, sorting well with high standards and high refinement isn't about a wishlist of ideal qualities. It's about refining your palate to understand holistically and intuitively who belongs in your life and who does not.

Of course, only she knows what her motive is. And there are many potentials motives that a murderous mother could have for killing her children. I just don't believe that she was legally insane when she did it. I think it was a deliberate choice made within her regular mental state.

Yeah, there's a ton of paradigms that are like this. And all of the paradigm are set up in a way where the man always wins and the woman always loses no matter what she does. And that's specifically why these paradigms are so popular amongst men, as whatever happens can always be reframed as, "Well, I'm a man. So, I am always the winner eventually." Like, "Oh yeah. Well the 25 year old hottie rejected me now. But wait until she's 30, and she'll regret having missed her chance with me." Or (in response to his own loneliness), "It's such a shame that there are all these hyper-Masculine lonely cat ladies out there. That's so sad for them. If only they were more Feminine and committed themself to a man, they'd be happier." Or (in response to his own lack of career success), "Why do women have to be so Masculine now-a-days. Don't they know it's natural that only men are meant to have careers. A woman's sole purpose is reproduction. And it's a shame that these successful career women are ruining their chances to find a good man." And it does get confusing for young and inexperienced women. Like, when I was growing up (when these paradigms were there... but just baked into the culture in more subtle ways), it took me until I was about 14-15 to start developing some discernment about guys. When I was 13-14, I was just glad to be getting interest. Then, my awareness grew as I got into my early 20s. But I also think that, in modern day, young women are usually aware of these paradigms from the jump... as the paradigms are popular among men with all the Andrew Tate stuff. So, many young women now-a-days are actively scanning for these kind of things. For example, last year, my daughter had some friends over for her 14th birthday. And one of the 14-year old girls at the party was already saying things that indicated a weariness about the boys her age being disrespectful towards girls/women. And there's also more of a lefty political identification for young women, and it would even be taboo in that group to date a guy who gives off those kinds of red flags. So, there will be peer pressure to avoid dating a guy who's dabbling in those paradigms. So, I do think that there will be enough discernment to weed it out for many young women. But the unfortunate thing is that so many young men adopt these paradigms to avoid the powerless feelings that can come up when dating. And these paradigms seem to offer a solution where he's always going to be the one in power, simply because he is male. And these guys will ends up giving off the signals that young women are scanning for to determine who not to interact with and date. So, I do see them decreasing young men's opportunities for dating in the long term.

I'm just trying to get you to understand that it is indeed the female imperative. That's the entire point of my posts is to dispel myths and projections about how women become attracted. But you should not lie about what you want in order to get laid. A sizable minority of women do want casual sex, so there's no need. And of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to have casual sex. I'm just here to say that there's a limit to how interesting casual sex is for the majority of women. So, don't think about a woman's willingness to have casual sex with a man as some indicator that the man has evoked a peak state of sexual attraction for her.

I think the logic is like, "My strongest and most obvious feelings that draw me towards women are about women's beauty. Therefore, beauty must be the determining factor for if a woman is able to attract a good partner for a satisfying relationship." Then, there's also the tendency to project the male dating strategies and men's concerns onto the female dating strategy and women's concerns, when they work quite differently. And because men are attracted to women... and have to use attraction as their primary mating strategy.... it may feel like attraction itself is the name of the game for both genders. And they may not pay much attention to selection as an effective mating strategy at all. It would be like if male birds were looking at female birds like, "Female birds aren't as colorful as us... and they don't do the mating dance as well as we do. It must negatively impact their ability to find a male bird that's willing to mate with them. So, they really need to step up their game and prove to us male birds that they can dance, otherwise they're going to be mate-less." It may not occur to the male bird that the female bird just sitting on the branch and having bland and muted colors IS the superior mating strategy for female birds... and that focusing too much on dancing and pretty colors as a mating strategy would just get in the way of her mating goals. So, while self-beautification is certainly a common part of being a woman... it should never be the primary mating strategy. It's important that a woman's beauty is for herself as something she pour into herself... and not as a bargaining chip/mating dance to prove herself worthy of male attraction. A relatively abundant amount of male attention is meant to be a given for women... not as something that needs cultivating. The abundance serves the function of enabling women to be more highly selective with mates and weeding out the "male birds with insufficient mating dances". So that the female birds can have the support of a male bird, so that she can be drab and lay on top of eggs all day.

I still have the same point of view as before. I don't think her claim of NGRI is true. I believe she lucidly killed her children with full intent... and not because she was in psychosis. But because of how Massachusetts law operates, it may be impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she wasn't legally insane when killing her kids. That's just such a hard (if not impossible) thing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Though, I think this case would be pretty open and shut if the burden of proof were on the defense to prove her NGRI.

No you absolutely wouldn't think about things that way if you were a woman. Bear in mind... if you live by the sword you die by the sword. So, if you find a partner based on being a hot young thing... you lose the same partner when you're no longer a hot young thing. And there's always more hot young things coming of age every day. It's a game that most women learn very early not to play, because it's a game where the woman always loses because it requires her to stay 18 in order to be a more ideal plaything in the eyes of icky guys... which is impossible, even if she did want to. And I'd wager you wouldn't be foolish enough to play a losing game.... where it's impossible to win. But even if you do "win", it sucks. Even now, you react like a woman does when thinking of the nature of that game. That's why you think you'd be some RadFem who hates men and posts on forums about it. (But you probably wouldn't be that either. You'd just say no to un-winnable, un-fun, and unsatisfying games and find better guys.) So, what you would learn instead is to immediately sort guys from consideration who show signs that they're only into you because of your looks or youth. And they're easy to spot. And you'd get really sick and tired of it. So, if you were a woman, you'd probably know that thinking that way would lead to awful men who will use you... unless you were naive, had really low self-esteem, or lacked critical thinking skills. The issue is that you're taking your male lens and looking at women that way. And attraction is being over-valued as a tool for female dating whilst judicious sorting is being under-valued as a tool for female dating. So, even though attractiveness may be what you value in a woman.... attractiveness is not the primary vector upon which a woman finds a loving partner who values her. And most attractive women are on high alert for men who are only looking for arm candy. There's no reason to assume that your experience would be different, if you were a woman.

First off, there's no correlation between attraction and deserving. Those are totally separate things. In fact, deserving is a figment of the human imagination and doesn't actually exist as an external reality. (So, no one "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" anything at all... attraction being least of which.) But bear in mind, I'm not talking about levels of physical attractiveness (or other superficial standards) when I'm talking about being selective. Usually, people will have partners that are equivalent in the level of physical attractiveness to their own level of physical attractiveness. So, 4s will be with 4s and 8s will be with 8s. Go out in the real world and you will see that couples tend to be on a similar level of attractiveness. So, a woman who's a 4 might be able to get a man who's a 6 (or vice versa). But that's not something I recommend selecting for. The really important form of selectiveness for a woman to exercise comes more from selectiveness about a man's character and personality qualities... and his level of investment and interest in her specifically. And women are nowhere near selective enough about these things and end up in all kinds of situationships that are going nowhere and/or terrible relationships that put a strain on the quality of her life and the lives of her children if she has babies with that man. So, it's important to NEVER compromise on those requirements for any woman of any level of attractiveness, as it will just make the woman's life a living hell... and any children if she has them. And it's not like unattractive women "deserve" to have shitty relationships low-character guys. An unattractive woman can find a man of similar attractiveness who's a great person. Plus, when women have lower standards en masse, it sends a message to men as a collective that they can be low-character individuals and still have relationships and pass on their genes. And that's exactly how things have been historically, where women were forced by societal patterns to be un-selective because marriage was the only path to survival. And one of the perks about being selective is that it scares the wrong men off, which makes room for the right men. It also encourages men to rise to the occasion and become better people, when women have high selection standards based on things like trust, character, stability, willingness to invest, and a highly developed sense of himself. That way men don't get confused and turn themselves into scoundrels to sleep with women who haven't learned how to select well enough yet.

I mean self-development in a very normal everyday kind of way, where a man becomes an asset to his community and serve his community. If a man's self-development is turning him into an antisocial pariah who's an island unto himself who's "too special" to be in community with other "more plebeian" humans... he's doing the opposite of developing himself. This is actually one of my main issues with this forum and Leo's philosophy in general as it tends to romanticize this idea of the stoic loner spiritual guy as the highest form of development. And it just puts make-up on socially avoidant behaviors and puts the men on here in a comfort zone about a problem that's important for them to solve. For example, let's take Man #1 and Man #2. Man #1 looks at his tendencies towards social avoidance honestly, and he says to himself, "I'm socially isolating myself. That's a problem that I need to solve." Man #2 comes on the Actualized forum and starts operating through the paradigm, "I'm not socially avoidant. Actually, I'm just a highly developed spiritual person who has become so exalted that he's transcended the need for community and its group think. And other people should follow my lead. (Good thing this forum isn't a community and is exempt from group think dynamics because everyone is so highly developed.)" Of course, Man #2 will feel a lot more comforted and superior... while Man #1 might feel like he's having to eat humble pie. But I tend to find the mindsets of Man #2 tend to leads to a lot of Peter Panery, rather than genuine spiritual and personal development. I often think about guys on this forum like the lost boys in certain ways. Also, it's totally normal to be nervous interacting with a woman you're attracted to. And as long as you're coming across as having a normal level of nerves (and it doesn't feel like her answer is going to make or break your world), a bit of nervousness won't be viewed negatively by many women. But I truly wish that I could communicate more clearly what makes a guy truly attractive. It's just so unique to the guy and specific to the beholder that it's hard to explain.

Certainly, you could see a woman's standards and go, "Women who have those standards aren't attractive/aligned to me." And that's a good thing, as it prevents a waste of time for both parties. A major part of finding an aligned partner is to gain self-knowledge and to simply allow yourself to be polarizing. This will repel the wrong ones and attract the right ones. (The same is true for friendship) So, I'm certainly not saying, "All men have to conform to every woman's standards." Both partners have to select. What I am saying is that, because men don't get to see the world through women's eyes, there are often blindspots in what they understand about what makes a man attractive and how that attraction feels for women when it's deep... and how attraction feels for women when it's shallower. So, because I am not moved by the feelings evoked in pick-up dynamic or in casual hook-up dynamics, I am speaking from my experience (which is likely a very common viewpoint amongst women) that that which looks like a greater level of attractiveness on paper can actually diminish attractiveness in the eyes of women who require more depth, meaning, and emotional stimulation to feel moved towards a romantic/sexual dynamic with a man.

First off, I didn't claim that hooking up is just as easy for men as it is for women. For women, we just have to lower our boundaries for a day... and we could sleep with like 50 guys a day without much effort. Just put out a sign that says "Free sex" and it's done. So, it's no where in the same caliber for men. It will definitely be more challenging. But my claim is that every guy who's social in a co-ed social circle is going to have some options. And if that same guy goes and does pick-up, he's going to probably get at least 1 yes for every 50 nos. And I don't recommend being a "nice guy" as that is very repulsive... as the niceness is usually, "I'm going to be nice to earn sex." And niceness just in't going cut it... as it isn't much of a virtue. Also, I'm all for guys learning how to minimize their social deficits. My issue is when a guy gets so influenced by pick-up mentality that he just tries to show up as whatever he think women will find attractive... and he loses the ability to just interact with women normally without the pick-up paradigm getting in the way.

It is important for a man to learn how to read social cues and escalate. But those are not the kinds of tactics that I take issue with. I'm talking more about a guy operating in inauthentic ways to try to attract women... and getting sucked into the pick-up mindset. And I don't believe there are ANY men in existence who simply can't get women. I've known tons of unattractive and socially challenged and even creepy guys who had plenty of girlfriends in my hometown. There's one guy in particular who always comes to mind who is the least attractive guy that I've ever met in EVERY single way... and he had several girlfriends in the few years that I was acquainted with him. So, if that guy can pull it off, ANY guy can pull it off. It's only social isolation that gives the illusion that some guys simply can't. Honestly, the main difference between a guy who gets girlfriends/sex and a guy who doesn't is purely his choice to be social or not. Of course, men who don't socialize aren't going to get women who are attracted to him... because no women actually know he exists. But if those same "can't get women" guys are somehow forced to socialize in co-ed groups, he will have opportunities to partner up and have sex. And that's where the illusion of scarcity breaks. Also, I didn't say that success comes from simply being one's authentic self. So, let me add some nuance. If a man hasn't worked on himself in a general personal development sense, there can be all kinds of unattractive patterns he could engage in.... like lying, being desperate, poor hygiene, not knowing how to carry on a conversation, not having anything going for himself, laziness, mooching, being socially unattuned, creepiness, etc. All of these can be where a man AUTHENTICALLY is. And they're not attractive qualities. But the solution to these issues isn't pick-up... it's general personal and career development work. And that's what ACTUALLY makes a man's vibe attractive is when he's developed himself into a deeply authentic and amazing person. And I tend to find that pick-up detours men away from developing into that exalted version of themselves.

I agree that casual sex is somewhat separate from that. But I also tend to think a man has to make himself less attractive to optimize himself for casual sex. It's kind of like a woman who optimizes her physical appearance for the purpose of getting more casual sex. She might dress in a way that looks kind of trashy and gaudy with lots of loud make-up and skin showing... not because she like it, but because it sends a clear signal to get men looking for a hook-up to approach. And when men develop 'pick-up personality', it's like putting a bunch of trashy, gaudy make-up on their personality. And it's easy to sense that on a guy. And it ultimately isn't necessary. If a man is decently socially adept, relatively normal, and talks to women frequently in social spaces... he will have opportunities for casual sex without having to change his personality or operate through weird paradigms about women. Of course, it's helpful to know tactics like the "schedule dates near your place" one. But that's not one that involves becoming someone else or adopting weird paradigms. So, it's not what I'm talking about.

I have never met a woman who was so unattractive that she didn't have any options. Maybe if she's a solid 1 out of 10, it will be difficult. But I've known plenty of 2s and 3s with a ton of options. Of course, it's with guys who (looks-wise) are equal to their level of attractiveness. But it doesn't mean those guys are bad partners. The fact of the matter is that simply being a woman will bring in options. Also, there's an assumption here that being approached 1000 times on the street makes a woman more likely to find a good partner. But those approaches are going to be mostly spam attention... like junk mail. Instead, women who have the best options tend to be women who have a well-cultivated social network. So, approaches don't really matter in term of the ability to find a great partner, as it's better for women to sort those low-investment, risky options pretty ruthlessly. You know, I heard a lot about that flip when I was in my 20s, and I was afraid of it. But I'm 37, and there hasn't really been much of a flip. Usually great guys in their 30s and 40s will tend to go for female peers... or maybe a year or two younger on average. And it seem like the guys who struggle in their 20s learn pick-up and create a growth ceiling for themselves... and they become kind of like Peter Pan. As for attractiveness in women, I certainly value it as part of my identity. Like, I want to wear pretty dresses and jewelry and make-up... and look great. But at this point, that's more of an identity thing. And those drivers have become very separate from the question, "What will men like?" The thing that's important to realize is that many inexperienced women will believe their attractiveness (and not their selectiveness) is the key to getting a great partner. But they usually learn that the attractiveness factor isn't the determining factor of how satisfying their relationship will be or how great their partner is. There are tons of plain women with amazing men. And there are tons of an attractive women with Peter Pans who will just replace them with the younger model. So, I'm not saying that attractiveness doesn't matter at all. It does turn heads. And if a man isn't attracted, he just isn't. But 'turning heads' isn't something that women tend to have scarcity with. So, attraction isn't the bottleneck. The problem is more about the majority of that attention being low-quality attention from a man who will drag down the quality of her life.

I haven't witnessed women operating this way personally. Can you give me some examples of women with choice anxiety who stay single because she has too many options and doesn't know how to choose?

See, you can't look at dating app stat as an actual indicator of how women and men get attracted to one another. And it's purely an illusion that men don't have options. Men who co-exist in mixed gender social circles eventually discover this. It's just that women are less likely to communicate their feelings. But the unfortunate thing I that many men now-a-days are not co-existing in social groups because of the nature of the internet. So, he never discovers the fact that, "Oh. I actually have plenty of options." So, I see pick-up as a way of getting results that are more obvious in the age of social media. But it doesn't actually make a man more attractive. It just makes him more likely to get quantifiable results... but he often loses quality in the process and sets himself up in a way that cuts him off from the more organic results that men tended to get in the past (before pick-up was well-known).

I can speak of how I've tended to get attracted to men over the years. I'm usually existing in a similar space with him over time and develop feelings for him. And then, I put myself in proximity to him and try to end up in situations where we can be alone without being direct about it. Then, usually things will escalate when he or I create physical contact with plausible deniability... which eventually escalates into intimacy. And it's always been the guy's core personality that was attractive to me... not gimmicky stuff where he's doing techniques and tactics. But when I was younger (like a teenager), I was a lot shyer about getting closer to a guy I was interested in. So, there were times where a guy missed his chance because I took his lack of escalation as non-interest... and I didn't want to creep him out or for him to feel violated or disturbed by my romantic/sexual interest. I always felt like I'd be perceived as some weird stalker person. Like, I was attracted to this guy in a couple of my classes in the 11th grade who was kind of nerdy and kind of shy. And after flirting with each other all semester, I told him how I felt about him in gym class one day and he confessed that he had mutual feelings towards me (around October/November). But then, Winter break happened... and we didn't exchange numbers or go on a date. And he never asked me to be his girlfriend. And things change quickly when you're 16. So, over the course of 3-4 months of not interacting with him, I lost my feelings for him and I started seeing someone else right before Valentines Day, and I assumed he moved on too and that nothing came of it. But then, he came into my class with a big bouquet of roses for me on Valentines Day literally a week after I started seeing someone else. And I felt so bad because I thought he just wasn't that interested, as he hadn't spoken to me in months and never asked me to be his girlfriend. But I realized in that moment that he probably never lost feelings for me the entire time... and he waited too long. So, I do see the importance of knowing how to pick up on signals and escalate things romantically and sexually. That takes some courage and some social skills. But a guy need not mold himself into an imitation of Mr. Cool to do that. And he doesn't need to hold onto these convoluted paradigms about female sexuality. that don't actually match the real thing. But my experience has always been... "Exist in a social space with a guy over time... develop a crush... flirt and get closer without being too direct... indirectly create opportunities and alone time for him to escalate things or for mutual escalation to happen." So, I'm not saying that it's not important to learn how to escalate. This issue is that men can learn these frameworks and try to do an imitation of the type of guy he thinks that women like. And there can be an illusion that women will always prefer that kind of guy... no matter that woman.

Learning social skills in one thing, as long as you're not masking your actual personality. Another thing entirely is to try to turn yourself into Chad... or to Chadify your personality in order to get more quantifiable results. It always seems like men tend to get into pick-up because they don't like themselves very much. And they try to hollow themselves out to become whoever they think women will be attracted to and that other men will respect. And that tends to make men who do that feel a lot blander to me. Edit: Another point I forgot to mention is that I'm specifically talking about what makes a man more attractive in my experience. And the vibes that make a man attractive don't really have anything to do with what pick-up teaches. These vibes come from his natural personality and the level of inner and outer work he's done to develop himself... not for women, but simply because it was important and meaningful to him. So, I am saying, "Stop coating an expensive dessert with cotton candy"... because I think the expensive dessert is more attractive than the cotton candy. So, my whole point is that I want men to stop making themselves less attractive with gimmicky stuff... and to put their focus on real personal development, where they can actually develop themselves into the greatest version of themselves (which is the most attractive version). And the cotton candy coating doesn't cut it, as the cotton candy technique is usually used by men who feel like they're not good enough as they are trying to get women's validation. But the tricky thing is... the most highly developed guy probably won't get as much overt female attention as a guy using pick-up tactics in the same way that fewer people will buy an expensive dessert and many people will buy cheap cotton candy from the gas station. So, it's really a matter of a man asking himself, "Would I rather become the greatest and most polarizingly attractive version of myself.. or would I rather larp as the kind of man who gives off a signal that a sizable minority of girls like enough to sleep with on a lonely or wild night?" And I tend to find that, when men answer this in the direction of "I want to be whatever women like"... he caps his potential significantly and doesn't grow into the highest, best, and most attractive version of himself.

What I'm saying is that turning your outer shell into cotton candy will get you clearer quantifiable results... but it comes at a price. And it's similar to what @Joshe said in his post... you will know deep down that the women are only attracted to the cotton candy layer and not the guy underneath it. So, as a woman who is only attracted to the guy underneath the cotton candy layer, I'm saying... Stop coating a rare and expensive complex dessert in cheap cotton candy.

No. The level of selectiveness women exercises has nothing to do with her level of attractiveness, at all. The only exception is if a woman herself is trying to select for looks. Then, she's probably going to need looks equivalent to the looks of the guy she's trying to get with. Women being selective with the quality of her male partners is actually key to her well-being and the well-being of the children she may bear... and (in a macrocosmic sense) the well-being of society. The issue is that historically, there have been many forces that have interrupted women's ability to select and select well. For example, historically women have not chosen their partners. It's been their fathers choosing their partners for them. Also, women were put in a position historically where the only access to money was to marry a man... which effectively gave her the option "Marry or die in poverty". So, these dynamics put women in a space where her sovereignty was limited. Then, there's all sorts of cultural and pop-cultural dynamics that are designed to (or just so happen to) systematically erode women's self-esteem. And this can cause woman to feel grateful for any kind of male attention... instead of actually vetting the quality of the man giving that attention. It can even lead to a polarity flip where she feels like she needs to be the one that "does to mating dance" to prove herself worthy of the guy's attraction, when that attraction is very common and un-particularized. So, it doesn't matter if a woman is beautiful or plain... Selectiveness and high standards are going to lead to a more mature and supportive partner, a better life, and more psychologically healthy children... and a better world. A lack of selectiveness and self-respect is going to lead to things like domestic violence, being cheated on, emotional abuse, emotional starvation, chronically unmet needs, unhappiness, poverty, divorce, beaten/traumatized children, and/or abandoned children who don't know their father... and a degradation of the quality of life for all people in the wider community. So, when women are selective and firm with their boundaries, they're honestly doing a great thing for themselves, their future children, and the wider community.

The funny thing is... the right average Joe with "emotional fermentation" time is WAY more intensely attractive than randomly sleeping with an attractive Chad fuck-boy type who's a natural with getting women to bed. The former type of attraction has layers and layers of deeply beautiful heart-centered erotic feelings toward the specific guy. And the latter is just one-note excitement and stimulation. And the former type of attraction is like a very complex, expensive, bitter-sweet dessert that you can only find in one very specific and very unique place (literally just that one person, and no one else). And like good wine, it has both pleasing and acquired tastes that evoke both pleasure and disgust in a very specific configuration. In contrast, the latter isn't complex... It's just pure sugar sweetness, like cotton candy. And you can find the same brand of cotton candy everywhere... as it's popular, cheap, and easier to sell to a wider array of customers. What I wish is that a man could just once experience what it feels like to be a woman and lust after and long for a very specific average Joe and to feel how amazing the feelings feel. Honestly, if you could turn that feeling into a drug... SOO many people would be addicted to it. Then, compare that hyper-intense, complexly-erotic, intoxicating feeling-state to the very lukewarm and one-note feeling states of hooking up with Chad on a whim because the exciting mood struck and it was party time. Those two levels of erotic feelings are nowhere near the same universe. And that's why many women just aren't interested in hook-ups at all. The juice honestly isn't worth the squeeze. (In this case, the juice is the feeling state that hooking up with Chad evokes) Now, a nuance here is that the Chad guy is slept with because he has a cotton-candy exterior that women who are easily pleased by "sugar" might find exciting to sleep with. But even Chad isn't made of cotton candy deep down. So, I'm not saying there are men that exist who are too naturally attractive for women to feel those complex erotic feelings towards him. What I'm saying is that the typical 'Fuck-boy Chad", 'sleep with him immediately' dynamic itself is lukewarm.