Why Women Prefer Betas

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

Sure, and you can call that out if you see it. I do it quite a bit. Guys bring all sorts of beliefs to the forum I don't agree with.

But I don't think it's social degeneration to point out that everyone is maximizing their survival value. Or that a small percentage of men tend to have the most success with dating. Dating is competitive, and winners rise to the top.

I find this highly illuminating.

I think your real concern is that this will feed into male misogyny / victim complex / hyper-competitiveness. That is a risk. So there is a responsibility to explain these things to minimize that.  

I guess it depends on how you define success. 

Perhaps one could argue that (evolutionarily) a guy who has children with 5 different women and 10 women on the side is the most successful with women.

It could be argued from an evolutionary perspective because he's sewing his seed the most widely and passing on his genes more than other men.

But that's a very myopic way of thinking about dating success.

And these kinds of guys aren't exactly catches. They're usually pretty grody, tbh.

Or you could define success as a guy who has a moderate amount of women interested in him and doesn't feel any scarcity with regard to female interest and who has the occasional hook-up, but who is actually capable of a real human connection with a woman and wants to add to the social fabric.

That's how I define an attractive and successful man... even if he's not swimming in pussy like the grody guy.

And that's the issue of framing human relationship as a purely transactional survival game without regard to the our softer communal nature as a species.

Plus, most of these men (including Leo) will just use the evolutionary biology perspective to continue to be reductive about human relationships and to think of things ONLY as a survival game... and strip even more meaning from human connection... and lead them further into disconnection, loneliness, shame, and coldness.

[samijiben]

I have a new take on what women are ACTUALLY ATTRACTED TO!

Women are attracted to an empty man who knows nothing. Women are attracted to a man so devoid of ambition that he has nothing to lose. Women are attracted to anything but you. You are in the way. Your beliefs and personality traits ARE FUCKING DISGUSTING, mate. It is possible to understand how to attract the hottest chick, seriously

It's called INSTANT ENLIGHTENMENT, lol

I should drag my efforts over to the spirituality forum lol

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

And the way you're giving advice is not very practical at all. At least Leo is mainly focusing on the practical part, while you keep debating the principles endlessly. And if you were just honest you'd admit that there are not many real solutions to these problems anyway, if any. Instead of just wanting to be right all the time

I don't argue these things for my health.

Leo's advice in these matters is like trying to cure Malaria with Tylenol because it misdiagnoses the actual problem. 

And the paradigms he believes relative to relationships and sexuality (other than, "just approach") will dig you all further into the internet propaganda hole you're already stuck down in.

That's the problem when you confuse the antidote for the poison... and the poison for the antidote.

My perspective is the antidote because I am telling you an actual real female perspective on what it's like to be attracted to a man in the most thorough and articulate way I can muster, so as to dispel the misconceptions that are causing you so much grief.

But you see my perspective as the poison because you don't recognize the practicality of seeing how a real woman thinks and feels.... and you've been brainwashed to believe that only men can tell you valuable things about women.

All these internet man-cult perspectives are the poison, but you see them as the antidote because they give you all sorts of "knowledge" about women and relationships... and their narratives give you the illusion of more control.

But it just ensnares you into a delusional dating paradigm like a fly caught in a spider's web.

And my advice is very practical if you can actually drop resistance to it, understand it, and internalize it... as it is only the truth that will set you free.

It's just frustrating because you guys are on the struggle bus with this topic (Leo included)... yet you are so confidently wrong. And with these distorted reductive paradigms, you're making yourselves utterly un-coupleable and not suited towards long-term pair-bonding because you can't even hear or see a woman. 

And that's what's so frustrating about it.

But I just need to stop trying to help you and let life teach you its lessons.

[Emerald]

30 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You are way too reductionary with this, when there are nuances and higher values that come into play with higher consciousness states. 

Love can override fucking. Love will make you into Eunuch mode, if the calling is strong enough.

I perceive you as constantly communicating:  'I will dump any woman for anything better that comes along'

Yeah, I agree on all counts.

I just don't get the impression that many of the guys on the forum (including Leo) are capable of understanding perspectives beyond this one reductive mono-perspective on dating and relationships.

They're really in a state of paradigm lock with it, but are under the impression that they're only locked on it because it is "the one truth" about dating and relationships. 

I think they fear that letting go of that one reductive perspective where they "know everything" will diminish their power... when it would actually do the very opposite. It would actually open them up to a state of not-knowing where they could have a real connection with another human being as opposed to projecting all these reductive narratives onto women.

Like, maybe that works if the guy doesn't have any social anxieties... and the only goal that they'll ever have in their lives is to try to have sex with as many women as possible.

But otherwise, they're really crippling themselves with these points of view.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Yeah, I agree on all counts.

I just don't get the impression that many of the guys on the forum (including Leo) are capable of understanding perspectives beyond this one reductive mono-perspective on dating and relationships.

They're really in a state of paradigm lock with it, but are under the impression that they're only locked on it because it is "the one truth" about dating and relationships. 

I think they fear that letting go of that one reductive perspective where they "know everything" will diminish their power... when it would actually do the very opposite. It would actually open them up to a state of not-knowing where they could have a real connection with another human being as opposed to projecting all these reductive narratives onto women.

Like, maybe that works if the guy doesn't have any social anxieties... and the only goal that they'll ever have in their lives is to try to have sex with as many women as possible.

But otherwise, they're really crippling themselves with these points of view.

It breaks my heart to read what the men here write.

All their current values - when time has ravaged them to a husk of themselves - will be erased. 

Age my friends, age. It will get you, and it will change you.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I guess it depends on how you define success. 

Perhaps one could argue that (evolutionarily) a guy who has children with 5 different women and 10 women on the side is the most successful with women.

It could be argued from an evolutionary perspective because he's sewing his seed the most widely and passing on his genes more than other men.

But that's a very myopic way of thinking about dating success.

And these kinds of guys aren't exactly catches. They're usually pretty grody, tbh.

Or you could define success as a guy who has a moderate amount of women interested in him and doesn't feel any scarcity with regard to female interest and who has the occasional hook-up, but who is actually capable of a real human connection with a woman and wants to add to the social fabric.

That's how I define an attractive and successful man... even if he's not swimming in pussy like the grody guy.

And that's the issue of framing human relationship as a purely transactional survival game without regard to the our softer communal nature as a species.

Plus, most of these men (including Leo) will just use the evolutionary biology perspective to continue to be reductive about human relationships and to think of things ONLY as a survival game... and strip even more meaning from human connection... and lead them further into disconnection, loneliness, shame, and coldness.

Do you want to know the truth?

Be honest with me.

Edited June 10 by aurum

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I don't argue these things for my health.

Leo's advice in these matters is like trying to cure Malaria with Tylenol because it misdiagnoses the actual problem. 

And the paradigms he believes relative to relationships and sexuality (other than, "just approach") will dig you all further into the internet propaganda hole you're already stuck down in.

That's the problem when you confuse the antidote for the poison... and the poison for the antidote.

My perspective is the antidote because I am telling you an actual real female perspective on what it's like to be attracted to a man in the most thorough and articulate way I can muster, so as to dispel the misconceptions that are causing you so much grief.

But you see my perspective as the poison because you don't recognize the practicality of seeing how a real woman thinks and feels.... and you've been brainwashed to believe that only men can tell you valuable things about women.

All these internet man-cult perspectives are the poison, but you see them as the antidote because they give you all sorts of "knowledge" about women and relationships... and their narratives give you the illusion of more control.

But it just ensnares you into a delusional dating paradigm like a fly caught in a spider's web.

And my advice is very practical if you can actually drop resistance to it, understand it, and internalize it... as it is only the truth that will set you free.

It's just frustrating because you guys are on the struggle bus with this topic (Leo included)... yet you are so confidently wrong. And with these distorted reductive paradigms, you're making yourselves utterly un-coupleable and not suited towards long-term pair-bonding because you can't even hear or see a woman. 

And that's what's so frustrating about it.

But I just need to stop trying to help you and let life teach you its lessons.

Riiiight. You're the Messiah and have all the answers. You hold the keys to heaven or whatever. Got it. I'd love to see that practical, actionable advice you supposedly have so much of

[meta_male]

The other day I saw a guy on a bicycle, helmet on, reflective vest on, kid on the back. His woman rode in front, leading the way. He looked like he was following orders in a war he didn’t sign up for.

Women don’t need men to be jacked or stoic machines. Men who get ripped at the gym aren't even using their fucking bodies for anything useful except for show. And women know they won't last a second in the trenches.

But they sure as hell aren’t drawn to men who’ve let themselves be house-trained either. They’ll keep one like that around, but they’ll crave the man who keeps his fire.

[Alex4]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

The ways you guys try to solve your dating problems just make you lonelier and more disconnected.

If you could really internalize what I'm telling you, then you would actually feel better and be able to connect with a romantic partner... rather than just engaging in this weird hierarchical transactional game.

Propaganda is one hell of a drug.

Leo's How to Get Laid tutorial actually teaches the opposite of what you are pretending to show it is Leo's opinion. Basically he forces you to massive exposure and socialization. It made me realize that being a weird, lone wolf was seriously hurting me. If it wasn't for him, I’d probably be a blackpilled angry man.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

45 minutes ago, Alex4 said:

Leo's How to Get Laid tutorial actually teaches the opposite of what you are pretending to show it is Leo's opinion. Basically he forces you to massive exposure and socialization. It made me realize that being a weird, lone wolf was seriously hurting me. If it wasn't for him, I’d probably be a blackpilled angry man.

She has so much clever stuff to say about these topics, but whenever she tried to give a resemblance of actionable advice, it was always just the most mainstream, common sense advice. Such as, "take a girls number at the club", and stuff like that. LMAO well thank you so much for such an enlightening advice. Trully wouldn't be able to come up with that on my own (women will obviously give away their number to anyone, it's not something valuable)

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Father a daughter Leo. You will be exposed to more truth than any substance or contemplation can ever get you. 

There is Love you have not realized, a state you have never reached. No human survival mechanism can taint. A love you cannot conceptualize. Cannot intellectually dissect. A love no substance or thought can show you.

There is More.

 

 

[Raze]

I don’t want to keep piling on Emerald, but I think the disconnect between her perception and the perception of the guys arguing with her is mainly two things

1) The mainstream advice is closer to what she’s saying, and the ultra masculine cult stuff emerges because guys become bitter after the mainstream advice, which is more just be kind / be a regular guy / chase women fails to work for them, rather than what she seems to lean towards as the inverse, that guys start with the masculine cult stuff and refuse to try the other way. So we are naturally skeptical to what she’s saying because we feel we’ve been there and it doesn’t match our experience.

2) I strongly suspect there is a perception bias. What she refers to as a regular guy or guy in touch with their femininity, is what most guys here are referring to as a top 20% masculinity guy on a spectrum of masculinity. And when we discuss a top 20% masculinity guy, she’s thinking of what we would see as the guy on the top 1% of a masculinity scale, which yes is way too much masculinity than what most women prefer. 

Edited June 10 by Raze

[Miguel1]

Whenever we discuss this topic, I like to sober you guys up with this key difference:

The people who have actually gone out there to try and meet women romantically in great quantity and effort, and the people who haven’t.

From my experience, Leo is correct here.

I know its not nice to see reality in such transactional way. But what runs humans guys? Survival.

Everyone is out there trying to maximize their survival, of course it must be so,

[Miguel1]

Take me for example, I know my sexual market value. And it only increases as I keep developing myself.

I will never have an average girl in looks or below as a girlfriend, no matter how great of a personality they are - because I know I can get an above average gf with green values.

Is that dissociation with reality?

Or is that aligned with reality?

[LordFall]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

Yeah, I agree on all counts.

I just don't get the impression that many of the guys on the forum (including Leo) are capable of understanding perspectives beyond this one reductive mono-perspective on dating and relationships.

They're really in a state of paradigm lock with it, but are under the impression that they're only locked on it because it is "the one truth" about dating and relationships. 

I think they fear that letting go of that one reductive perspective where they "know everything" will diminish their power... when it would actually do the very opposite. It would actually open them up to a state of not-knowing where they could have a real connection with another human being as opposed to projecting all these reductive narratives onto women.

Like, maybe that works if the guy doesn't have any social anxieties... and the only goal that they'll ever have in their lives is to try to have sex with as many women as possible.

But otherwise, they're really crippling themselves with these points of view.

I think you’re right in some aspects but you’re also deeply failing to empathize with the male perspective. 

You keep talking about connection, that means drastically different things for men and women. You’re projecting your wants unto our wants. From what I understand about your point you see it as men failing to let go of their process of self improvement to just be able to be themselves and find a woman to accept them for who they are. 
 

To be fair each man is different but I’ll speak about myself on this one. I am an ambitious intellectual who wants to explore the world and build a strong community across it that withstands the pressure of the world. I’ve spent my 20s working on this and throughout it I’ve connected with plenty of women along that time but since I was not who I am meant to be yet there was fundamentally not much for me to offer them beyond temporary companionship and for me to entertain them with interesting ideas that haven’t materialized yet. 

I’ve also met a lot of women that live in their feminine and want to flow in life and not be constrained by the drudgery of our system and it’s something I can offer them but not in my current form. 

I also don’t think you understand the concept of transactionality in relationships. In its lowest form it’s about people using eachother shallowly but in its evolved form it’s about people being able to share their deepest gifts and existence with eachother. 

Being an alpha man is partly about being sexually attractive but it’s mostly about finding freedom and purpose for yourself and that is not an easy process. To link it back to the Aubrey Marcus thread the reason those women are into him is not so much because he’s a stud physically but because he’s built a life of freedom, adventure and purpose for himself and is not like 99% of men who clock in clock out go home to enjoy the few hours of freedom they buy for themselves each week. 

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

No human survival mechanism can taint.

Love between father and daughter is pure survival, don't kid yourself.

And the urge to deny this is exactly that survival in action.

"No, but you don't understand, because you don't have a daughter! This love is different!"

Yes, that's exactly your survival speaking.

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

A love no substance or thought can show you.

There is More.

There's nothing a human can show you that you will not have already seen in God

[Miguel1]

If I’m to ever have a daughter, I wouldn’t want her to fuck and be with a repulsive chump.

I would encourage her to be with the most attractive man, that she can have and keep. That means NOT the top top guys, nor anything goes ”because of connection”.

This is the most realistic approach to this dilemma.

[Princess Arabia]

@EmeraldI'm sure you're not but don't pay those naysayers any mind. Some cannot handle when a women steps in and represent. Stay in your place please and let us men lead and show you the way. It's so obvious. If a particular point of yours was being challenged or pointed out and disagreed with respectfully, it would show a completely different type of energy, but when you're being attacked for everything you've said and nasty words thrown at you it's so obviously just a general attempt to put you down or silence you. People don't realize that energy has a voice and sometimes is not what you say but how you say it and the energy you carry across the board at all times. It wears on your internet face. No matter what you say and how you say it some men will always have objections simply because you're a woman and no other reason.

[RendHeaven]

@Miguel1 If I ever had a daughter (I won't, but fun hypothetical), as far as her dating life goes - I would root for her to experience serial monogamy with players-types who have empathy. This avoids the trap of falling in love with a psychopath as well as the dry pussy trap as well as the lie of "no other partner exists for me." Through serial monogamy (rather than having rosters or being part of a roster), she has more bargaining power and sense of specialness (a necessary illusion for the flourishing of her feminine gifts).

She will pull this off effortlessly because she will grow up hot (genetics + whole foods diet without fucking canola oil and corn syrup) + she will mirror her mother. It will never occur to her to change herself for men, because from her POV, dreamy guys will spontaneously pop into her life and she will think she "manifested it" accidentally (without realizing that I stacked all the chips in her favor lol)

[Miguel1]

10 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

players-types who have empathy.

Stop right there!

Otherwise, I agree, my daughter would be the hottest girl possible due to genes and upbringng as well