Why Women Prefer Betas

[aurum]

28 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

You're still looking at survival through an SD Green perspective.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

In game, this is called balancing attraction & rapport.

Never knew this - good interpretation of survival mechanisms translated into what I assume to be actionable steps

2 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

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

I can believe this. In terms of attraction and wanting access to a body for a physical transaction, yep.

Perhaps 2 mechanisms at play: push pull energy from a man leveraging a woman's approval seeking behaviour - which would attract someone with a pathological issue. Additionally this could also act to attract someone who is addicted to adrenaline, and also has a pathology around misinterpreting limerence/emotional charge with love. The asshole behaviour is most likely going to work because - lets face it, most people in widespread society have some pathology around attachment and the opposite sex. Its very rare to find someone who was raised with a great nurturing representation of love and connection. 

Attraction and rapport would be the emotional leverage needed to possibly attract a women with whom you could experience a more conscious relationship and physical connection.

Junk food vs the chef's degustation menu

 

Edited June 11 by Natasha Tori Maru

[TheEnigma]

1 hour 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.

But isn't it the same thing for men? Men also only feel chemistry for a woman precisely when it serves his survival agenda too.

[BlessedLion]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

Again, women are not "settling" of the "betas". They prefer them. That's what's difficult for average men to realize.

Average men can't fathom of what's attractive about themselves. That's why they feel like they have to become someone else for women to prefer them. And that's why all these guys are running away from themselves at 100 miles per hour.

And intelligence doesn't tend to be an "alpha" trait that women seek out for short term partnership, in my view.

I tend to be most attracted to very intelligent introverted guys who are more mature and down to Earth who have psychological and spiritual interests... and who have a mixture of hard and soft qualities.

And I also need him to be a little bit strange to keep in interesting.

To me, that is the sexiest kind of guy.... no settling involved. They're my PREFERENCE. 

And for me personally (and I'd imagine most women), I'm not motivated by short term sexual encounters. 

They're pretty boring because of the lack of emotional stimulation.

 Women get the most emotional stimulation through intimacy and deeper levels of eroticism.

And those types of "alpha" guys are just about impossible to have a real deep connection with. And you can't surrender to them, so you can't really feel those deeper subtle erotic feelings in their presence.

I always appreciate your input and insight, I can tell you put deep thought into it. This makes total sense

 

But I don’t think we should call these Men “Betas” it’s more like “cool” that’s the best word I can fit to describe them. Not cool like popular cool kid, but just like cool with people and themselves and women. Not striving to be something they aren’t, but also if a man a has a genuine desire to get ripped, be disciplined, etc I don’t see why that’s unattractive or seen as running away from oneself 

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, TheEnigma said:

But isn't it the same thing for men? Men also only feel chemistry for a woman precisely when it serves his survival agenda too.

Yes.

But women here like to portray themselves and their feelings as above that.

Edited June 12 by Leo Gura

[BlessedLion]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

Yes. Exactly. 
 

This was a huge fear actually for me in the dating market- trading my authenticity to be considered attractive by most women. Yet nowadays when I meet women who see my interests, perspectives, etc and think it’s cool they really love it. So that makes it worth the rejections of the other women who find it strange or whatever. 
 

I’ve also learned to filter out and find the women who will likely be into my style or “niche” - yoga studios, travel hostels, parks, ecstatic dance. 
 

If a see a girl journaling by the creek, doing yoga at the park, or tatted up with new age clothing it’s like a huge bleeping sign on my radar and usually goes well 

 

I can see how over the top hyper alpha guys might be like Coca Cola or something but there’s not much depth there 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But women here like to portray themselves and their feelings as above that.

I think this is the reframe as an attempt to push for higher consciousness within the realms of relationship. 

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

You're still looking at survival through an SD Green perspective.

What is it about beauty and eroticism that's characteristic of Stage Green? I honestly don't see the connection.

But this response is just reflective of paradigm lock in the scientific reductionism that's characteristic of Stage Orange because you can't see beyond this mono-perspectival reductive point of view, where you keep trying to boil everything down to "the one ultimate scientific truth to describe all human behavior."

And that is the bias of Stage Orange as it tries to reduce things down to fundamental scientific truths. 

That's what happens when one polarizes into the Yang perspective and rejects the Yin perspective entirely... and sees the Yin perspective as more false.

It's similar to how someone in Stage Orange scientific reductionism paradigm lock might have a tendency to dismiss things like love between family members or lover or friends as being merely a mixture of different hormones and biological processes... and to negate the validity of the actual relationships as 'those are just the illusions created by hormones flying around in the body.'

And perhaps that is your point of view. But if it is, you should know that you're not being holistic in your way of thinking... as scientific reductionism is the opposite of being multi-perspectival.

Survival is only one angle to look at it as it comes to human relationships and sexuality. And yes, it's a valid perspective.

But it isn't the end all be all of perspectives. And if you treat it as though it is, you're going to strip the meaning from your life... and you'll be a bland lover and a bland liver.

Edited June 12 by Emerald

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes.

But women here like to portray themselves and their feelings as above that.

That's a mistake that you're thinking my reasoning for sharing these perspectives is to go... "Ooh! Look at us women. We're so much more conscious than you guys. And look how beyond survival we are."

But I'm not trying to compete with you or other men for whose sexuality is better. Nor am I trying to say that survival has nothing to do with my sexuality.

I'm trying to make it clearer to you what the reality of being female is like and how it feels to be attracted to and care about a particular man, because you're way off base... as are most of the guys on this forum.

And it's impacting your (and their) ability to relate to women in a functional way because of these skewed hyper-rational paradigms.

And the reason I communicate about his often is because I want you guys to get out of paradigm lock around this reductive transactional view of human relationships so that you can actually let go of your insecurities, enjoy yourself more, and be more attractive to women who will like you for who you are.

And that's honestly what most of these guys are so upset about in the first place. They feel objectified because they believe that they'll never be loved or preferred... just settled for because women couldn't land the supposedly hotter guy. And that's because of their reductive paradigms, which you also reinforce by boiling everything down to a transactional Social Darwinian survival game.

Of course, a lot of men feel this way about women where they just settle for a woman out of scarcity until someone hotter comes along, as they themselves are disconnected with all paradigms except the utilitarian paradigm. So, they tend to project their own objectifying tendencies onto women as well, which makes them feel less guilty about these tendencies because "Women are doing it to us too." 

So, they have their own reasons to keep these victim narratives around.

But it doesn't help when other men keep reinforcing their distortions and projections.

The paradigms you and a lot of the guys on here operate through are pretty boring and repellant. And it's going to impact their ability to connect with women. And it will get worse and worse as they age.

It's like watching you guys confidently and unnecessarily driving off a cliff.

And I'm like, "Hey, there's a cliff up ahead!" And I keep trying to find new and creative ways to communicate it, such that you might hear it.

Then, you guys are like, "Don't ask a fish how to catch it!" while your car is a scant few inches away from careening off the cliff.

[Puer Aeternus]

This, should be framed and hung on many forum users walls.

29 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Survival is only one angle to look at it as it comes to human relationships and sexuality. And yes, it's a valid perspective.

But it isn't the end all be all of perspectives. And if you treat it as though it is, you're going to strip the meaning from your life... and you'll be a bland lover and a bland liver.

 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

I always appreciate your input and insight, I can tell you put deep thought into it. This makes total sense

But I don’t think we should call these Men “Betas” it’s more like “cool” that’s the best word I can fit to describe them. Not cool like popular cool kid, but just like cool with people and themselves and women. Not striving to be something they aren’t, but also if a man a has a genuine desire to get ripped, be disciplined, etc I don’t see why that’s unattractive or seen as running away from oneself 

Thank you!

I'm only using the word "beta" because that's the term Dr. K is using in the video.

What I mean by beta is really just a regular guy who's somewhat Masculine but isn't hyper-Masculine.

And the driver towards personal development isn't inherently about running away from one's self.

Like, it's really attractive if a guy is doing personal development and going to the gym to enrich his experience of life and his joie de vivre.

What I mean by "running away from themselves", is men who feel like they are inadequate in the eyes of women. And they feel like they have to be some hyper-Masculine alpha guy to get women.

So, they either try to become that guy and succeed (like some RSD coach pick-up guy who has sex with hundreds of women).... or try to become that guy and convince themselves they've succeeded when they've actually failed (like a lot of Redpill guys)... or try to become that guy and fail and wallow in the failure (like Incels).

And even though the expressions are different, all three of these outcomes arises from insecurity and a neediness for female validation.

It's just a spectrum of responses to the same insecurity around men feeling "not man enough" to be respected by men and desired by women.

And it just knocks them right off the center of their own sovereignty, power, and authenticity... which is what's really necessary for a man to become a truly admirable man.

And it's also what men need in order to stop making women the authority figure they run their lives at the behest of.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

That's a mistake that you're thinking my reasoning for sharing these perspectives is to go... "Ooh! Look at us women. We're so much more conscious than you guys. And look how beyond survival we are."

But I'm not trying to compete with you or other men for whose sexuality is better. Nor am I trying to say that survival has nothing to do with my sexuality.

I'm trying to make it clearer to you what the reality of being female is like and how it feels to be attracted to and care about a particular man, because you're way off base... as are most of the guys on this forum.

And it's impacting your (and their) ability to relate to women in a functional way because of these skewed hyper-rational paradigms.

And the reason I communicate about his often is because I want you guys to get out of paradigm lock around this reductive transactional view of human relationships so that you can actually let go of your insecurities, enjoy yourself more, and be more attractive to women who will like you for who you are.

And that's honestly what most of these guys are so upset about in the first place. They feel objectified because they believe that they'll never be loved or preferred... just settled for because women couldn't land the supposedly hotter guy. And that's because of their reductive paradigms, which you also reinforce by boiling everything down to a transactional Social Darwinian survival game.

Of course, a lot of men feel this way about women where they just settle for a woman out of scarcity until someone hotter comes along, as they themselves are disconnected with all paradigms except the utilitarian paradigm. So, they tend to project their own objectifying tendencies onto women as well, which makes them feel less guilty about these tendencies because "Women are doing it to us too." 

So, they have their own reasons to keep these victim narratives around.

But it doesn't help when other men keep reinforcing their distortions and projections.

The paradigms you and a lot of the guys on here operate through are pretty boring and repellant. And it's going to impact their ability to connect with women. And it will get worse and worse as they age.

It's like watching you guys confidently and unnecessarily driving off a cliff.

And I'm like, "Hey, there's a cliff up ahead!" And I keep trying to find new and creative ways to communicate it, such that you might hear it.

Then, you guys are like, "Don't ask a fish how to catch it!" while your car is a scant few inches away from careening off the cliff.

Refused to believe in Love between a man and a women.

The cure is the reconciliation between the ultimate force of creation, channelled in the masculine/feminine union, and Love as a concept (and force) of God. Why is this separate in so many minds? Because of a steadfast refusal to believe this can be achieved through a man's and a woman's body & consciousness.

Why else are we so irrevocably drawn to each other? Survival is a the explanation to fall back to because WE DARE NOT HOPE LOVE IN SUCH A WAY CAN EXIST.

But if we believe we are each channelled consciousness, of course this can be achieved.

Cognitive dissonance.

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Puer Aeternus said:

This, should be framed and hung on many forum users walls.

100%

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Refused to believe in Love between a man and a women.

The cure is the reconciliation between the ultimate force of creation, channelled in the masculine/feminine union, and Love as a concept (and force) of God. Why is this separate in so many minds? Because of a steadfast refusal to believe this can be achieved through a man's and a woman's body & consciousness.

Why else are we so irrevocably drawn to each other? Survival is a the explanation to fall back to because WE DARE NOT HOPE LOVE IN SUCH A WAY CAN EXIST.

But if we believe we are each channelled consciousness, of course this can be achieved.

Cognitive dissonance.

Yes, exactly. 

There is a desire to divorce human to human love and connection from spirituality entirely... and to view the laws of nature as the only root of these drivers.

And it seems to me to be reflective of a fear of real connection and intimacy... and a fear of the Feminine more generally.

One thing that I experienced in one of my medicine journeys was that God (which I experienced as the Divine Masculine), was showing me the burdens of infinite love by letting me embody its perspective. And it was showing me the pain of grieving infinite griefs and suffering infinite sufferings.

And it was showing me how human men are also burdened with love as they are like a little Earthly microcosm of the Divine Masculine. And this burden causes them to disconnect from the Feminine... and to go into a state of disconnection in general.

I think that's why men have such a resistance to connecting to the Lover Archetype, despite it being a Masculine Archetype. 

And I think that framing love as survival is a way of keeping all of that Lover potential and the burden of it repressed... and as a means of trying to also suppress and control and marginalize the Feminine in themselves by disconnecting from and blocking out Feminine perspectives. 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Yes. Exactly. 

This was a huge fear actually for me in the dating market- trading my authenticity to be considered attractive by most women. Yet nowadays when I meet women who see my interests, perspectives, etc and think it’s cool they really love it. So that makes it worth the rejections of the other women who find it strange or whatever. 

I’ve also learned to filter out and find the women who will likely be into my style or “niche” - yoga studios, travel hostels, parks, ecstatic dance. 

If a see a girl journaling by the creek, doing yoga at the park, or tatted up with new age clothing it’s like a huge bleeping sign on my radar and usually goes well 

I can see how over the top hyper alpha guys might be like Coca Cola or something but there’s not much depth there 

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean by niche marketing.

And I feel like most of the men on this forum would be doing so much better across the board (dating-wise and personal development wise) if they really leaned into the niche angle.

It seems like most of the guys on this forum hit a bottle neck with their personal development path because they keep trying to be coca-cola and appeal to the lowest common denominator of attractiveness to women.

But you can't develop yourself and still be Coca-Cola.

It's really scarcity thinking though. It's like, "I need the most mass appeal to attract women."

But just like if you're in business, unless you're LITERALLY Coca Cola or Walmart, you're going to have to niche yourself down. And that will attract far more customers than if you tried to be really general with what you provide.

Specificity sells. And that dating market is no different.

So, the paradox is that if you try to market yourself to a general audience of women, you will get fewer women who are interested in you compared to if you narrow the scope of the audience you're trying to appeal to.

It's also what's really nifty about having hobbies to engage in and subcultures to belong to.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Yes, exactly. 

There is a desire to divorce human to human love and connection from spirituality entirely... and to view the laws of nature as the only root of these drivers.

And it seems to me to be reflective of a fear of real connection and intimacy... and a fear of the Feminine more generally.

One thing that I experienced in one of my medicine journeys was that God (which I experienced as the Divine Masculine), was showing me the burdens of infinite love by letting me embody its perspective. And it was showing me the pain of grieving infinite griefs and suffering infinite sufferings.

And it was showing me how human men are also burdened with love as they are like a little Earthly microcosm of the Divine Masculine. And this burden causes them to disconnect from the Feminine... and to go into a state of disconnection in general.

I think that's why men have such a resistance to connecting to the Lover Archetype, despite it being a Masculine Archetype. 

And I think that framing love as survival is a way of keeping all of that Lover potential and the burden of it repressed... and as a means of trying to also suppress and control and marginalize the Feminine in themselves by disconnecting from and blocking out Feminine perspectives. 

Yes exactly.

Arguing from the material domain: It's only survival!

But also - material world doesn't exist!!! So does the game of survival truly exist?

Or are the stakes much higher - that Love is the aim of the game.

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yes exactly.

Arguing from the material domain: It's only survival!

But also - material world doesn't exist!!! So does the game of survival truly exist?

Or are the stakes much higher - that Love is the aim of the game.

Amen!! Whatever that word means. I say it means FANTASTICO/A. Masculine/feminine union.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yes exactly.

Arguing from the material domain: It's only survival!

But also - material world doesn't exist!!! So does the game of survival truly exist?

Or are the stakes much higher - that Love is the aim of the game.

Yes, it's a convenient thing to do to relegate male/female relationships solely to the material. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Emerald said:

Yes, it's a convenient thing to do to relegate male/female relationships solely to the material. 

Which is the card being played constantly.

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Which is the card being played constantly.

100%