Why Women Prefer Betas

[Miguel1]

6 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It's a very fine line for men. 

On the one hand, the key to the women is making her feel safe. Which would be the energy you need to project toward her. 

But she will also need to see a display of strength - that is to say - you are NOT safe... 

To others. 

But she remains safe with you 🧩 protecc 

There's a lot of confusion around this. Lots of men think they need to be assholes to attract women. It's not about that, it's about safety and strength.

In game, this is called balancing attraction & rapport.

The asshole idiots are people who went from blue pill extreme to red pill extreme.

They need to eventually grow up and deal with their inner shit and face reality.

Asshole behaviour does get them more results that nice-guy behavior tho.

But the ultimate way is to transcend the two extremes.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, BlessedLion said:

I always thought “Surely, most women will be attracted to discipline, consciousness and development” But it seems (in the main stream at least) that is a threat 

Of course most women aren't attracted to that... because most women (and people in general) can't relate to that. It's just not compatible with them.

Very few people are into discipline, consciousness, and development.

These are very niche interests, that only very specific women with the same niche interests will be attracted to.

It's really about asking yourself how you want to market yourself... and even what's in the cards for you.

Think of it as mass marketing versus niche marketing.

Most men and women try to figure out how to mass market themselves... like Coca Cola or Walmart to cast the net as wide as possible. 

And the trick with mass marketing is to develop the lowest common denominator of attractive qualities that will be attractive to the largest number of people.

And mass marketing means that you have to remove a lot of personality qualities and be pretty bland... where no one prefers you in a strong way. But most will consider you attractive.

And you can't be too conscious or developed or it won't appeal to the masses.

Think of how most people like Coca Cola in a medium way... but few are crazy about it. And if Coca Cola tried to give off more sophisticated vibes, it would lose its mass appeal.

And mass marketing is good for hooking up with people you don't have much connection with. But it's really ineffective for deeper relationships or more passionate erotic flings.

You also have to be relatively conventionally attractive to pull this off as well. 

Other men and women might niche market themselves... like through different subcultures or niche interests and leaning into what makes them different. 

And with niche marketing, you get a narrower cross-section of the world that's interested in you... because you're polarizing. You'll drive away 95% of people... and 5% of people will be extremely magnetized to you and will prefer you above all others.

So, the people who are into you, are REALLY into you.

Think of it as like some cult classic movies like Rocky Horror Picture Show and the rabid fanbase of something like that.

About 15 years ago, there used to be a dollar theatre in Saint Augustine, where I live. And they'd play Rocky Horror a couple times a month. And people went out and got dressed up as the characters EVERY SINGLE TIME the movie showed.

This is what happens when you niche market yourself.

This is also a great setting for a meeting of minds and a deeper, more intimate, and more erotic sexual experiences... or a deepening relationship.

Edited June 11 by Emerald

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

Yes, with a guy she finds attractive.

Yes, definitely. That has to be a factor.

But the attraction itself is also more emotional.

[aurum]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You can share your perspective with me if you'd like.

But if not, that's okay too.

I have shared some of it, but I'll be more specific.

To whatever extent women prefer "alpha" or "beta" men, that is still a survival strategy.

Hyper-particularization is a survival strategy.

So is community, disconnection, connection, collaboration, cooperation, competition, loneliness, coldness, warmth, bonding, settling, not-settling, preferences, disliking survival, caring about social degeneration, monogamy, polyamory, physical appearance, and just about anything else you can think of that humans do.

We're just talking about different strategies.

And strategies are always extremely context-dependent. There really is no "one answer" for how to do survival, because your constraints, advantages, disadvantages and environment always different. Survival is highly, highly relative.

Strategies are also unconscious because making them conscious ruins the "realness" of them. People are generally not at a level of ego development where they can handle the paradox of both having a survival strategy and recognizing it as a strategy.

This is a long way of saying everything is maximizing survival. Every tree, every bacteria, every animal, every human. 

[Leo Gura]

46 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Eroticism is more heart-centered than it is genitalia-centered.

And women are more motivated by eroticism than they are towards fucking.

My statement was far more profound than genitals.

[AION]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This is like saying the dick responds most to who it has chemistry with.

Your jokes have finally reached tier 2 jokery. 

[Jacob Morres]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

That's the entire point I've been making.

Women respond the most to who they have chemistry with... which is usually with regular average guys that they encounter in their daily lives.

Honestly, if there isn't a significant amount of human-to-human chemistry, I wouldn't feel compelled towards anything sexual. And I think most women are the exact same way.. 

I agree. But in my experience human connection alone doesnt get you far. You will get a near 0 connections on dating apps (💀) and girls won't look at you

It's almost impossible just to rely on human connection alone. I think red pill has a lot of truth as well, maxing that stuff really does give you way more opportunity 

Edited June 11 by Jacob Morres

[AION]

Seriously like 1/3th of this forum is about the occult mysteries of the vagina. 

Edited June 11 by AION

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, AION said:

Your jokes have finally reached tier 2 jokery. 

Wasn't a joke.

[Emerald]

32 minutes ago, aurum said:

I have shared some of it, but I'll be more specific.

To whatever extent women prefer "alpha" or "beta" men, that is still a survival strategy.

Hyper-particularization is a survival strategy.

So is community, disconnection, connection, collaboration, cooperation, competition, loneliness, coldness, warmth, bonding, settling, not-settling, preferences, disliking survival, caring about social degeneration, monogamy, polyamory, physical appearance, and just about anything else you can think of that humans do.

We're just talking about different strategies.

And strategies are always extremely context-dependent. There really is no "one answer" for how to do survival, because your constraints, advantages, disadvantages and environment always different. Survival is highly, highly relative.

Strategies are also unconscious because making them conscious ruins the "realness" of them. People are generally not at a level of ego development where they can handle the paradox of both having a survival strategy and recognizing it as a strategy.

This is a long way of saying everything is maximizing survival. Every tree, every bacteria, every animal, every human. 

The survival element is just one perspective to look at human sexuality through. And it's an important perspective, but it is by no means the end all be all.

The issue with Social Darwinism, is that it's reductive to the point of distortion to boil everything down to pure survival as the sole reductive mono-perspective through which to view human sexual and romantic preferences.

And this is why Social Darwinism tends to be recognized as pseudoscience in the consensus of the scientific community.

That's the real issue with why men misunderstand female sexuality so much and end up with such skewed perspectives on female sexuality... as it tries to "utilitize" human drivers towards beauty and eroticism and strip them of all meaning.

It's like trying to reduce a human driver towards the appreciation of art... or nature... or a beautiful sunset by framing it as cold transactional utilitarianism and Darwinism.

And that's what happens when people get polarized into Yang/Masculinity to the exclusion of Yin/Femininity... as it seeks to find neat little categories to tuck human instincts into.

There's just a desire to pretend that the Yin perspective is inferior or more deluded than the Yang perspective... whilst swimming in tons of delusion due to looking at human sexual dynamics through such a reductive lens.

But even from the survival angle, most women are geared towards long-term rather than short-term partnering... which is likely why we're wired to respond to stability and fatherliness.

And even from a survival angle, that is why women tend to prefer average guys that they happen to make the acquaintance of as they live their life.

[Emerald]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My statement was far more profound than genitals.

It was very straight-forward and obvious what you were saying.

You were saying that a dick doesn't respond to greater levels of chemistry with a woman. And that's very true for men.

A penis will respond to any body that it finds physically attractive. It's very straightforward with male sexuality as it's just visual.

But women and men are not the same... so while men can be attracted to a woman he haas no chemistry with, most women cannot be attracted to a guy she has no chemistry with.

For most women, if the heart isn't activated, the loins are asleep.

For most men, if there's an attractive body there, he'll get hard. Doesn't matter that much how he feels about the owner of the body.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that women are just small men. We are different in this way.

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The survival element is just one perspective to look at human sexuality through. And it's an important perspective, but it is by no means the end all be all.

What other lens would you propose?

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It was very straight-forward and obvious what you were saying.

You were saying that a dick doesn't respond to greater levels of chemistry with a woman.

That's not at all what I was saying.

I was saying that a woman only feels chemistry for a man precisely when it serves her survival agenda.

Women only feel chemistry for men of reproductive value.

Which is why women don't feel chemistry for a baboon.

A woman's feelings are extremely self-serving.

Edited June 11 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

What other lens would you propose?

I already mentioned in my previous reply. 

You can look from the perspectives of beauty, eroticism, and the sublime... which are fundamentally the opposite polar perspective of brass tacks utilitarianism and survivalism.

Think of beauty as being the opposite polarity to utilitarianism... and it's the distinction between living and surviving.

And those who are polarized into utilitarianism will automatically negate the existence and validity of more erotic perspectives and will close themselves off to more deeper erotic experiences... and will strip the art from their life.

Similarly if someone conducted their life as purely survival whilst trying to get away from other perspectives, that person would sap the colors from their lives... while being deluded enough to think they live more aligned to what's true.

Like a person who reads a bunch of books about music, but never really listens to it.

And the issue with most people on this thread is that, with the desire to reduce human dynamics down to pure transactional utilitarianism, there is a distorted perspective on how humans operate that's presenting itself as the "one real truth" of human motivation.

And it's causing them to get bitter and to repel the Feminine from themselves because deep-down they want to be valued in the way women actually do value them. They just don't believe it's true or possible.

And you can't tell them anything because their cup is too full with the bitter juice of Social Darwinism and fundamental utilitarianism as the sole driver of all human action.

That's the problem with paradigm lock.

[AION]

Women react to frames above anything else. You can be her best option objectively speaking but if you can’t keep frame aka confidence it doesn’t matter. So in that sense, frame is most the influential aspect. That is why there are so many good guys who can’t get a girl and scum who have nothing going but can hold frame do get it. What Emerald means with chemistry is frame. But in womanize it is called chemistry. 

Edited June 11 by AION

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not at all what I was saying.

I was saying that a woman only feels chemistry for a man precisely when it serves her survival agenda.

Women only feel chemistry for men of reproductive value.

Which is why women don't feel chemistry for a baboon.

A woman's feelings are extremely self-serving.

Yes, that's true.

And that's why women tend to prefer guys who are a mixture of hard and soft qualities and who come across as better longterm partners.

[Emerald]

Just now, AION said:

Women react to frames above anything else. You can be her best option objectively speaking but if you can’t keep frame aka confidence it doesn’t matter. So in that sense, frame is most the influential aspect. That is why there are so good guys who can’t get a girl and scum who have nothing going but can hold frame do get it. What Emerald means with chemistry is frame. But in womanize it is called chemistry. 

That's too utilitarian.

It's not about a guy's frame.

It's about his personality, gestures, and mannerisms... and the way it makes you feel as a woman. (aka chemistry)

And I find it to be a turn off if a man is trying to be attractive or Masculine. 

I need him as he is... not as he tries to be.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Jacob Morres said:

I agree. But in my experience human connection alone doesnt get you far. You will get a near 0 connections on dating apps (💀) and girls won't look at you

It's almost impossible just to rely on human connection alone. I think red pill has a lot of truth as well, maxing that stuff really does give you way more opportunity 

Men may be in that situation now because of how atomized society is.

But if you were social and interacting with women on a consistent basis in everyday platonic ways, human connection alone would work amazingly.

So, you may need to develop the courage to initiate social interactions and create community around yourself.

But you don't need to do anything else other than to become the best version of yourself.

[AION]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's too utilitarian.

It's not about a guy's frame.

It's about his personality, gestures, and mannerisms... and the way it makes you feel as a woman. (aka chemistry)

And I find it to be a turn off if a man is trying to be attractive or Masculine. 

I need him as he is... not as he tries to be.

Frame is just not about masculinity but about how certain his world view is and that trickles down to his personality, charisma, mannerism, success in life and confidence. Women respond to this and they call it chemistry.

But women never want to look further than that; they want the sausage but they don’t want to see how it is made. It is all frame. I see ugly as broke guys get cute girls all the time and it doesn’t make sense at first sight. 

Edited June 11 by AION

[LordFall]

4 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yea it's a fantasy, a kind of pornographic film for women, except that there's only one book and maybe a few similar books for millions of pornographic videos, which concentrates the sales.
I've known plenty of very pretty, kind, etc girls who are desperate and even think about guys who aren't great.

The guy wants to see what suits him, and directly arrange his life to be able to project his childhood fears, it's always the same story.

Well of course plenty of not great guys get laid and reproduce, that was never the point of the conversation. It’s about what works best and what to aim towards. Plenty of guys date obese women get partners doesn’t mean that you should tell one that you know to not worry about weight and attractiveness just find a connection. 

Emeralds point is not wrong it’s just not the whole point and not really practical. Of course you should seek to heal your trauma and be able to be vulnerable and authentic with the women you meet. As well as making yourself physically as attractive as you can and having a lot of money and a wide social circle, etc. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible to date without these things just makes it harder to date attractive women with their shit together or have a lot of casual sex. 

Also worth talking about the codependence, independence and interdependence model. If all you want is a basic codependent relationship that’s not too hard to get into lol but a high quality relationship where you support eachother in achieving a meaningful life purpose is hard to achieve and is built through a lot of self development and reducing it to being open to connection seems a bit silly to me.

Also self awareness is key in knowing what you lack. The loving part was not my issue I was mostly the needy BF without his shit together. A dude in private equity that’s overly ruthless from work will have different issues than me and other types of men. General conversations aren’t really that helpful. 

Edited June 11 by LordFall