Emerald

What's any cold blooded murder's motive? They all have one... even if they're not insane. It's going to vary from person to person. But I speculate that her intent was to kill her children to get rid of them as a way of starting over. It's speculated that she has OCPD... which is Obsessive Compulsive PERSONALITY Disorder. And Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is different than regular OCD. It basically has to do with a pre-occupation with maintaining a certain identity in an obsessive way. I was talking to my friend who follows the trial, and it seemed like she has some anxious and perfectionist tendencies.... and an attachment to the image of the ideal mother identity. (Perhaps where the OCPD comes in) So, it may have been that her children and her identity of motherhood didn't feel perfect enough for her... so she wanted to wipe the slate clean to get away from the children that she perceived as undermining her identity as the ideal mother. Of course, that's speculation on my part, so take that idea with a grain of salt. But regardless whether I have the motive correct or not, there are DEFINITELY other potential motives beyond pure insanity. There are plenty of mothers that kill their children who aren't experiencing psychosis or something that would make them not criminally liable for the murder.

There are instances where a parent has gone psychotic and harmed their kids without realizing that they're doing something wrong. So, I know that that exists. And "not guilty by reason of insanity" fits in those cases. But I just don't believe that about Lindsay Clancy, as I don't see strong enough evidence to support it. And don't go throwing around the ideas of "witch-burning" and "writing off women's mental health" towards others just because they don't buy her claims. Some people on here are getting into gender war bs, and that's stupid. But that doesn't mean that Lindsay Clancy didn't knowingly murder her children in cold blood. Bear in mind, I am a woman... and a mother. And I suspect that the main reason there are so many people supporting Lindsay Clancy is because she's a wealthy white woman that people might tend to project innocence onto... and women who have struggled with postpartum depression might tend to project their situation onto her situation. So, I suspect it's that combination of things that might cause people to lose sight of what I believe are her true motives.

Immoral is a silly judgment to make about it. I was doing my best to get the point across clearly. Massachusetts only = Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove she's NOT insane. All other states = Burden of proof is on the defense to prove she IS insane. Do you understand?

To me, it reads as very calculated.

Actually, in Massachusetts, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove her claim that she's not criminally responsible for her actions. In other states, the burden of proof is on the defense to prove the defendant is not criminally responsible by reason of insanity. In which case, it would be on Lindsay Clancy's legal team to prove that she IS insane. But in Massachusetts, it's the prosecution that must prove that she's NOT legally insane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart. So, the state she lives in is probably the most ideal state to get away with murder by claiming insanity.

That's not my understanding of what happened. But please do cite sources if you have them. My understanding is that she didn't voice her murder ideations to anyone in her time working with psychiatrists prior to killing her kids. And it seems like she might have voiced fears to her mom-in-law about "harm coming to the kids'. But that likely just read as a mom anxious and fearful about her kids... on par with many moms who might be fearful of negative things happening to her kids. There have been psychiatrists that have been brought in as "expert witnesses" as part of her defense who worked with her after she killed her kids. But expert witnesses will be brought in on either side of the trial... to help the defense or the prosecution. But none of the psychiatrists/psychologists that she saw prior to the murders were clued in about her murder ideations... but were aware of her anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideations. And my understanding is that none of them were made aware of these ideations.

Thank you

None of the psychiatrists that she was seeing prior to killing her children were told about her ideation to kill her kids. She just shared about anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. There are psychiatrists she started seeing after she killed her kids and during the trial that claims she had postpartum psychosis. But she wasn't seeing those psychiatrists beforehand. Ultimately, the defense is going to bring on "expert witnesses" to act in her defense and claim that she bears no criminal responsibility. But it's important not to mix-up the psychiatrists who are acting as "expert witnesses" with the psychiatrists that she was seeing prior to killing her kids.

Personally, from what I've heard about the case from a friend of mine who follows a lot of trials very closely, is that there isn't evidence that the psychiatrists would have known about her wanting to harm her kids specifically. What it reads like to me is that she actively planned to kill her kids and plead insanity... and she sent her husband to go get food so that she could have time to do it. So, it seems to me that she preemptively went to a bunch of psychiatric doctors so that she could plead insanity later on. And I was rather surprised to hear from my friend that there were so many people supporting her and shifting the narrative to "the doctors are to blame" and "It was postpartum psychosis." I think it's just that a lot of women experience postpartum depression. So, they're likely to project their own circumstances onto Lindsay Clancy. And that has worked out to here having a bunch of supporters, where they see Lindsay Clancy as the victim and totally loses sight of the fact that her children are the real victims. And then, add to that, that it's been apparently added to the culture/gender war... from what I'm reading on this post. So, it becomes a "Women bad. Men bad." thing... instead of clearly seeing the situation for what it is. And neither Lindsay Clancy nor her husband seem to have much remorse for losing their children. So, that's very telling to me. My friend that I mentioned, who has a passion for following trials and all the available evidence very closely, told me about another woman who murdered her children because of genuine religious psychosis. And she fully believed that her children's only chance to go to heaven and avoid suffering in hell for eternity was if she killed them. And when she came out of the psychosis, she was devastated. And she's been offered to be let out because she was deemed not guilty by reason of insanity... but doesn't want to be let out. That's the behavior I would expect of someone who was really struggling with the things that Lindsay Clancy is claiming as the reason she killed her children.

I see the necessity of religions in relation to Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development model... In the earlier phases of moral development, there needs to be a strong sense of authority outside of one's self that will reward if someone does "good" and punish when someone does "bad." And that enables a society with a low level of moral development operate in ways that minimize selfish and ruthless behaviors. If someone who isn't developed enough to abstain from selfish behavior for its own sake believes that they'll be rewarded for abstaining from the selfish behavior... or punished for engaging in the selfish behavior... they are less likely to do the selfish behavior. And there are many drawbacks to this way of thinking... as it increases a sense of judgment and punitiveness towards themselves and others. But it's a useful way of operating when the higher stages of moral development have yet to be reached en masse. But once individuals develop to the higher stages of moral development where morality is derived from empathy, compassion, and conscience, there is no longer a moral need for mass adherence to religion. Past that point, religion can be engaged with practically as a method of meaning-making and spiritual connection/transformation for the masses who are more geared towards pre-defined exoteric spiritual paths. (Though there are also usually more esoteric paths that are off-shoots of those exoteric religious practices that exist for people who are more interested in a deeper quest). And religion can also be used at the foundation for community... sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. Past moral needs, social preferences, and pre-defined paths of spiritual connection... religion can also be foregone for those who find their sources of meaning and existential interconnectedness elsewhere... or who want an esoteric spiritual quest that they custom-tailor for themselves.

This touches on a lot of things that I've been trying to convey to the guys on this forum about how women who are more discerning get attracted to a man. And it's specifically because they have the "before pick-up" and "after pick-up" state... and they see, "Hey, I've been more successful after pick-up. Therefore it's clear that women find me more attractive after pick-up." And it can feel like stumbling into a truism about what makes an attractive man in the eyes of most or all women... with the added psychological comfort of feeling like ambiguity and subjectivity is gone to where they can say, "Close the book. I now understand women." Then, when I communicate how those techniques make a man less attractive and that it takes me months to be attracted to a guy and the immediacy of pick-up is a turn off... they think, 'That's so silly. Of course pick-up makes a man more attractive. I have the receipts. Like all women, this lady doesn't even know what she's attracted to. She's just in denial and doesn't want to admit that she's susceptible to these strategies because it's a hard truth to face with to admit you're attracted to pick-up strategies.' And that's always been frustrating because it's like watching guys who are struggling to meet women adding the personality-equivalent of cheap cologne to themselves that a small percentage of women are attracted to the stench of... but that most women will find repellant. So, from my perspective it's a bunch of guys making themselves into less ideal potential husbands and fathers in order to attract low-discernment women. But it's as you say it... "The fact that you're still getting results doing that, makes it hard for you to see it as a faulty strategy because "Hey, these girls want me so it clearly works!" It takes a lot of reflection to realize that the women you alienated doing that were actually more mature compared to those that chased after you." And it becomes difficult when you're winning more battles to notice that you're paving your way to losing the war.

One important thing to understand about Victim's Mentality is that it's a strategy to offload power and responsibility to a scapegoated party. It's a way of saying, "As the victim, I have no control/power, so I have no responsibility over the matter. Instead, (scapegoated group) has all the power and responsibility... and it's on them to be the hero and fix it for me. And if they don't, they're the villain and deserve punishment." So, the process is to off-load accountability and to make the scapegoated group accountable and to try to control the scapegoated group through some form of punishment or disapproval. What Victim's Mentality isn't... is simply feeling disappointed or sad when things don't work out. You're allowed to feel negative feelings about the situation... as long as you don't start off-loading responsibility. And the remedy to Victim's Mentality is to internalize responsibility for what you have control/power over... and to let go of responsibility over that which you have not control/power. Right now, you're externalizing responsibility over your inputs... and making women the scapegoated responsible party when you experience rejection. And the bitterness and scapegoating, is a way of saying, "If only women were better, I wouldn't have this issue. So, women need to change for me to get what I want." And this externalizes responsibility onto women... whilst your admonition of women is an attempt to internalize power/control over women to try to make them behave better. So, it's an internalization of power over that which you don't control... and an externalization of responsibility over that which is yours to be accountable for. Internalize responsibility and power over that which you control... your inputs. And externalize responsibility and power over that which you don't control... women.

I would guess that most adult women wouldn't be interested in that kind of thing in reality. But it looks cool and romantic in theory. So, teen girls might find it romantic... or women who aren't really interested in the reality when the rubber meets the road. Like, I remember being about 14 or 15 and watching this young punky couple get married on television. And during their vows, they were suspended from hooks that attached to many piercings in their backs. And because I was into their aesthetic and quite young, I thought it was romantic and interesting to see these two attractive punky people that looked the male and female versions of one another get married that way. And I thought that I might like to get married that way, as it fit the persona that I was trying to embody... and the type of guy that I was interested in attracting. But by the time I was 16, I had grown out of that kind of thing and saw it more as a gimmick that wouldn't actually be very interesting in real life... even though I was still a fan aesthetically, as an artistic photo shoot. So, my guess is that there are a lot of young women who are thinking about it more from a "What a cool aesthetic thing to do?" or even homing in on the fact that the couple is attractive, has a similar aesthetic, and is doing something daring and interesting. in that, there can be a fantasy of being of the same kind as your partner (like the punky woman and man who had that sameness about them).

Honestly, she seems like she's in a very vulnerable state. And it could be a coping mechanism to try to tune out from the stresses of being in such a vulnerable place because she has no support system... and behaving in desperate ways because of the lack of money and social support, with no clear way to escape the precarious position that she's in. I get that, from your perspective, it's not someone you want to be with. And it's important to filter out those who are that vulnerable for that reason. But I would say that you probably hit an abandonment trigger for her when you were invested and then switched things up... as she was already abandoned by family when you met her. So, that may have repeated the rug pull of the abandonment trauma that she had gone through with family. Honestly, there's a chance she could have a personality disorder. But even without a personality disorder, that is honestly just how people behave when they're in a desperate place and lacking in financial and social support. And that may have created more of a feeling of hopelessness and pushed her into suicidal ideation. So in the future, I'd recommend setting boundaries early where you filter out women who are in a vulnerable state... instead of trying to help and building a connection and then switching up.

The heart-opening feelings are more chest-centered and emotional, while orgasm is more loins-centered and physical. So, they're two totally different feelings. So, my claim is that women will generally have a better experience of sex if the focus is more emotional and intimacy-driven... than it is to put most of the focus towards orgasms. And I was saying that most women would prefer a man who's average at sexual techniques that she feels a connection with... compared to a man who's amazing at giving women orgasms but is lacking in the connection/emotions department.

Thank you! And you're welcome! In one of my medicine journey, it was shown to me that ordinariness is the foundation of connection and belonging... both socially and existentially. So, if you cultivate acceptance towards your own ordinariness, you'll be able to connect more easily without feeling like you have to add extraordinariness to yourself to belong. The opposite of this ordinariness is the feeling of alienation... in the positive and negative direction. The feeling of alienation comes from the sense of being different in a bad way... or even different in a good way to the exclusion of similarity. And shame creates a tendency to feel like we must differentiate ourselves and become special (and reject our ordinariness) to belong... which actually increases alienation.

What is your relationship with ordinariness... and being a regular person amongst regular people? Do you have a resistance to this? Do you feel like you need to be extraordinary in some way to be acceptable? Or do you feel okay with seeing yourself or being seen as ordinary? I'm asking this because resistance to ordinariness is a common barrier to connection... as connection is born out of eye-to-eye non-hierarchical human connection.

There is that too. There's a lot of shame projected upon women's bodies and their sexuality. But even beyond the shame, there's simply a collective ignorance that's born out of a lack of genuine curiosity about the female experience and devaluation of the subjective state of being a woman. And in the blanks of the mystery created by that lack of curiosity... there's a lot of "filling in the blanks" by projecting the collectively charted territory of the male experience of sex and sexuality... onto a woman's experience of sex and sexuality. And this tends to lead to women coming to understand their sexuality in a way that would be pleasurable and fulfilling for them, if they were male. But because they're not male, they aren't fulfilled by operating that way. For example, for a man to make sex orgasm-focused, visually focused, and physicality-focused... this leads to sexual satisfaction. But for a woman to make sex orgasm-focused, visually focused, and physicality-focused to the exclusion of more emotional experiences... sex is a bit boring and 2-dimensional. And it just starts feeling like a chore and kind of draining. And it can lead women and society at large to come to the false conclusion that sex is enjoyable and meaningful for men... but not for women. And a lot of people don't even believe that women actually enjoy sex. I remember that, when I was a teenager, my stepmom would occasionally say things like, "Sex is for men." or even implying that sex is like a chore that women do for the sake of men and not something that's for women. And that's not a rare sentiment. I once had a partner who thought that way too... and I hated our intimate life because he and I both just saw sex as a chore that I'd subject myself to for his sake. This is even true... despite my sexuality always having been important to me and something frequently on my mind. But my experience has been that, if I feel deeply connected to and attuned with my partner... and my partner is someone who has shown me that he can be trusted and his presence feels good to me... and he's not seeing sex as a chore I do for him... and the oxytocin is flowing... then I can enter a deeply relaxed feeling state that is much more satisfying and eros-driven to me than the intensity and tension of a climax. Of course, the climax is nice too. But if the focus is linear and hyper-focused towards climax... I won't be able to enter that feeling state.

How do you mean? I'm a bit confused by this reaction. "Busted" is what you say when you catch someone trying to get away with something... or trying to hide something. And I've always been pretty transparent that that's my perspective on the matter. I'm not trying to hide my feelings and preferences with regard to topics that pertain to women's sexuality.

That's always been how I've felt about it. Orgasms are enjoyable. And I do want to have them occasionally... both inside and outside the context of sex with a partner. But I don't seek them much if I'm on my own because the feeling of orgasm is nowhere near as enticing as the heart-opening feelings during sex that can't even be simulated alone... nor with a partner that I don't have very strong feelings for and a deep connection with. And any very technically-focused experience of sex just brings me out of emotions-mode and into try-hard mode. Plus, sex that's too focused on orgasm makes me feel like the guy is performing (and I can sense his attention narrowing and feeling the pressure to perform for me) rather than just enjoying himself and existing in the moment, which is where the real connection and intimacy happens. It took me a long time to understand this about my own sexuality though. And until I was in my mid-20s or so, I would wonder why sex would feel so dull and boring and tepid even though I had a very strong driver towards it. And I realized that I had been taught about my sexuality through a male-focused lens, where sex is about physicality and getting to the destination of orgasm. And I was treating m female body like a male body, and wondering why there was something unsatisfying and "meh" about it... even if I did have an orgasm. And if I was really into that "get from a to b" orgasm approach, I would find masturbation a lot more interesting... especially since it's a 5x easier to have one alone. It's just not that compelling. But sex as an interactive experience and means of expression and emotional dance, is very interesting to me. So, the most enjoyable experiences are with a man who I love who loves me, is emotionally present with me, and is just operating in a very natural and instinctual way without thinking about performing. And this circumstance arises ideally after something that produces a lot of Oxytocin and relaxing calm feelings... like cuddling or waking up together. So, if the OP @Inliytened1 is looking for what's addictive to a woman... the answer is anything that produces Oxytocin and feelings of a calm nervous system. And emotion-focused sex is part of what produces those feelings.

I don't think that's true. Personally, if I had the chance to do it... I wouldn't because I'm already spoken for. And I value my relationship. But otherwise, if I think of someone like Brad Pitt in his heyday (or any model-esque Hollywood man who looks similar to him), he's too pretty for me to feel turned on by the thought of a sexual scenario with him. That said, I think Brad Pitt's like 60 now and gotten a bit more average-guy looking, so age may have changed this dynamic a bit... as he doesn't look as pretty anymore. For me, part of the polarity during sex is that I get to feel pretty in contrast to the man that I'm with. Like, I have to feel like the peacock of the relationship to really feel the charge. And I can feel that dynamic a lot more easily with a guy who's a 6 than I can with a guy who's a 10, because I'm not myself a model-esque woman. And a model-esque woman is a LOT prettier than a model-esque man. So, the polarity works there. So, to give an analogy... if the guy is the pretty one, imagine it's a bit like if a woman has a great body... but she's a lot taller and a lot stronger than you. Even if she's attractive, it's may not be a turn-on if you tend to get turned on by feeling taller and stronger than your female partner. That said, I'm sure many women would be interested in Hollywood hot guys, like Brad Pitt. But I think there's some psychology where they feel pretty by being chosen by a pretty person. I know that exists too. And maybe they are more fame driven in their attractions. But if I try to imagine having sex with a Brad Pitt type, I just can't feel anything about it.

One thing I would mention is that the thing that draws a woman to a man (and to sex more generally) isn't really about the physical sensations during sex or about his penis. As a side note and caveat... Of course, orgasms are enjoyable for women. And women will want to have them during sexual encounters. And if there's a huge orgasm gap between her and her male partner, she will likely feel the unfairness of this disparity and what it means about the guy's values. But the thing that actually makes a woman think about a man doesn't have very much to do with orgasms or the techniques he does with his penis. What actually draws a woman to a man (and to sex more generally) is the shared intimacy and the emotional experience of sex. So, if you have "Man #1" who is a master at sexual techniques and giving women orgasms... And you have "Man #2" who is just okay at sex from a technical standpoint, but he's someone that the woman wants to be close to and who is able to connect to her emotionally during sex and hits the right emotional buttons... Most women will choose "Man #2" every time. So, it's important to recognize that women generally aren't drawn to the same things as a man is during sex. Men and very visual and very orgasm-focused. And it's very much about the physical body of a woman in terms of what turns him on... and very much about the physical body (ejaculation) in terms of what makes it satisfying. And a man won't feel satisfied with the sex without these components. But being too orgasm-focused or physicality-focused actually makes sex less interesting for a woman because it's too point a to point b and too material in its focus. It can feel a little "lather, rinse, repeat" to a woman, if the deeper emotional layer isn't activated. Of course, orgasms are good and important. But they shouldn't be the primary North Star of sex, if you want it to be enjoyable for the woman. Consider this... most men feel the drive towards orgasm daily or every other day. And men masturbate frequently when they are by themselves. And women tend to masturbate a lot less than that. I looked up the statistics, and it estimated about once per week. But even that seems a bit high to me. So, there's just a lesser drive towards the physical sensations themselves for women. Instead, think of the woman like an emotional instrument... like a harp. But each string on the harp is a different feeling state. And during sex, what makes it interesting is when a guy is able to be very present and is able to operate in a way that plucks the strings skillfully. And this doesn't have much to do with sex techniques. It's really just about him being who he is in his highest integrity form. On a physical level... there's basically only 3 ways to have sex. And on a physical level, the path to orgasm is just about sensation in the right places at the right rhythm. And women aren't as motivated to sex when sex is only that. But on an emotional level, there are many facets to the sexual experience. And that's what women are usually looking for... and what makes her want to get closer to a man.

To understand women, the first and most important thing to do is to understand how humans work... and to then recognize the humanity of a woman. I'd say, men and women are 80% similar based on the core humanity. And it's something that's gotten even clearer to me working as a coach over the past 7 years. We're all going through the same core human patterns. And one major blindspot that I notice that a sizable percentage of men have is that they can tend to see women as fundamentally alien to themselves... like a totally different species. And this tends to create a lot more tension and friction to developing positive friendships and romantic relationships with women for the men who see women as alien. And it creates this worship/hate dynamic, where men with this paradigm will see woman as both above and below them... like angels and demons, instead of actual people. And the same can't be said the other way around. Most women don't see men as alien to themselves. And this tends to create an imbalance between the sexes level of understanding of one another where women understand more about men than men understand about women simply by recognizing that men are as human as they are and are going through all the regular human things. But in the 20% of qualities that are genuinely different between men and women, I would sum up the main difference that I notice like this... Think about movies where people are skillfully sneaking into a maximum security place to retrieve something. And the person is about to walk into an open room with the thing they're trying to retrieve on a table in the middle of the room. But then, someone notices that there are a bunch of faint red laser lines all over the room. And if anyone walks across one of those laser lines, then the cops will be informed and will come immediately. And then, the person retrieving the item has to duck and weave through all the red laser lines. In this metaphor, the red laser lines represent raw emotional information and vibes. And generally, women can see the red lines more easily and can see the implications of what happens relationally if those lines are crossed... for better and for worse. This creates more social awareness and a deeper connection to feeling in general... but also difficulties doing what needs doing if it means crossing a social line. And grudges can be held more easily because there's a deeper connection to the underlying lattice-work of 'laser lines world'. Red laser-lines world doesn't go away... it's very loud. Also, red-laser lines world is complex... and it takes a lot of skill to learn to read it. And if you don't learn how to read it, it will bury you in TONS of un-processable information. And generally, for Masculine men (but not usually Feminine men) they can't see the red laser lines quite as easily and have less connection to what happens if those laser lines are crossed... for better and for worse. On one hand, decisions can be made more quickly and unnecessary boundaries can be discarded more easily. And red-laser lines world in HD is A LOT of information to constantly process... so, it's easier to emotionally regulate when the laser lines are a bit fainter, as there isn't so much information that it's overpowering. But it can be easier to disassociate from red-laser lines world altogether, since the lines are a fainter and easier to ignore. And when that happens there can be a "bull in a china shop" dynamic with those red laser lines... and real social consequences can happen but not be felt. This is especially true for men who see red laser lines world as unimportant or lame.

What I think (apropos of the debates) is that there are a lot of guys on the forum who were taught (by grifters) "Don't listen to women on these matters. Don't ask a fish to catch it." Instead buy my very expensive program. And that's a comforting sentiment for men who have historically struggled with dating and socializing, as it can give the sense "All I need to do is understand and practice this finite logical list of basic principles and I will understand women better than they understand themselves, and understand the universal formula for evoking attraction in a woman." So, when women (especially very introspective women like the ones on this forum) fact-check that and says, "Actually, those things are only partially true." or "Those things only work with women who have attachment issues." or "That is outright false."... it shakes the certainty of a very comforting paradigm and the illusion of control and certainty over a historically confusing, difficult, or sometimes shame-inducing part of life. And this causes a kind of backlash and an un-teachability, where there is an immunity to wisdom beyond what they already believe they know. It's kind of like how you can't pour liquid into a cup that's already full. So, it becomes impossible or nearly impossible for me and the other female members on the forum to communicate real lived-in truths about women's actual experiences of attraction towards men without a significant amount of emotionally charged blow-back. And the conversation gets to be a one-sided because the actual female perspective doesn't really have space here to exist. This is largely why this space repels women and becomes a 98% male space. And the issue with these gaming paradigms is that women are picking up on so many teeny tiny signals about a man that come through in his words, actions, gestures, facial expressions, fashion choices, scent, and overall energy. And only like 20% of those signals can be actively changed and improved by the man in a more objective sense. That's what game and increasing attractiveness level is all about... fiddling with the 20%. The other 80% is just who the man fundamentally is as a person. And whether or not attraction happens is very particular and subjective and very specific human-centered. But women (and men) are also attracted to people who embody patterns from childhood. For example, a woman who grew up around parents that committed infidelity is more likely to be attracted to a partner who will cheat. While a women who didn't grow up around that pattern will tend to be repelled by the vibes of a cheater. For the former woman, cheater-vibes will evoke attraction. For the latter woman, cheater-vibes will evoke a passive sense of disgust that prevents attraction. I actually had quite an interesting experience of realizing this. Before I was 14 years old, I wasn't very knowledgeable yet about what I wanted in a partner. And I had just started dating a year before that. And I was just happy that I had guys who were attracted to me. Then, as I gained a bit more experience and dated guys with certain weaknesses of character (like guys who were prone to cheating and other problem behaviors), my taste started to become more discerning. And by the time I was 15 years old, I could read immediately when a guy had those specific weaknesses. And attraction just wouldn't arise. And I'd feel a passive form of disgust. But I still had issues because I have one parent who tends to get angry a lot and yell a lot. And I found myself very attracted to guys who have a tendency to yell and get angry frequently. And that pattern continued into my early 30s, when I finally resolved the underlying root of that pattern in an Ayahuasca journey. And now, having a temper has had the attractiveness neutralized from it as the pattern that created that attraction was resolved. So attraction is governed by objective qualities, subjective qualities, and familial patterns (positive and negative). And my experience has been that the vibes of someone who tries all these tactics and strategies has an unattractive vibe to me because it feels a bit immature and gives very automated mechanistic vibes. And on vibes alone, I could probably sense in 5 minutes if a guy has the pick-up mentality or not. And he doesn't even need to do anything that pertains to it. And what tends to attract me are guys with a very unique personality who have more mature vibes. And that taste has developed a lot over the years as I've gained more experience, developed better self-esteem, raised my standards, and developed a more sensitive spidey sense about who people are as a person and how well they gel with me. That said, if a man wants to attract an immature woman, the best way to do so is to be an immature man... but to be immature in a social and game-playing direction. And this is where these strategies will work the best... especially if that woman has anxious attachment. But a relationship like that will cap the man's potential and will create a hellish dynamic that doesn't really work... as it's two immature people trying to have an adult relationship. And about your point... the good new is... it's totally normal for a heterosexual man to be attracted to boobs. There's nothing dysfunctional about that. And that won't change no matter how much you mature. But similar to what you said, as maturity develops in men and more discernment develops (and he loses the sense of scarcity), the boobs don't become the determining factor of whether or not to get involved with a woman. And if the boobs are attached to a crazy or immature woman, he's not going to be very interested... and he will probably develop the ick, regardless of how the woman looks. I know plenty of very mature men that this describes. So, both mature men and mature women with relatively high self-esteem will tend to be un-interested in potential partners that are operating in immature ways. And more mature women who aren't caught up in some negative familial pattern will catch the whiff of games and gimmicks from a mile away. As a woman, I know that I can meet someone and know their deal in about 5 minutes because I'm picking on so much information about who that person is just in the tone of his voice or tiny micro-expressions on his face. And I can feel if he's a good fit or isn't. And I can feel how secure or insecure he is.