Women are attracted to relativity

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How are you quantifying "needed for survival" here? 

I think it's a false comparison. You can't really decouple men and women in terms of needs like this.

I don't think survival can be measured independently like that for each sex. 

I don't think this holds for all contexts.

Women need men to be providers. Men don't need that from women. I am not saying anything new here. Just pointing out the obvious.

That is counter-balanced by men needing women to being good mothers.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

This argument is pretty easily debunked by the simple fact that women's attractiveness has been viewed very differently throughout history. So no, male attraction to women isn't a fixed, objective thing either. It's heavily relative and shaped by culture and time. The same applies to women and who they perceive as an attractive man. The idea that you would always pick out your “type” in any environment, any culture, or any time period because it is purely objective and independent is not true.

Quote

• Prehistoric fertility figurines, such as the Venus of Willendorf, depict women with very large breasts, hips, and stomachs. Today's standards would consider her obese and unattractive.
• Cleopatra is also a good example. Most historians don't think she was exceptionally beautiful by modern standards. In fact, surviving depictions of her don't match today's beauty ideals in the slightest. What made her captivating was her charisma, confidence, political power, voice, wit, and ability to command a room. Yet she was one of the most famous seductresses and "beauties" of her time.
• During the Italian Renaissance and Baroque period, wealthy, full-figured women were considered beautiful because they signified health, fertility, and wealth. Today, many of those same body types would be labeled overweight or obese.
• In Europe for centuries, especially during the Elizabethan era, women deliberately used white lead makeup to make their skin as pale as possible. A tan suggested you worked outdoors and were poor. However, also, for decades after, a deep tan was considered incredibly attractive, and people sunbathed to achieve it. Today, there's a growing emphasis on skincare, sunscreen, and preventing sun damage, making lighter, natural skin more desirable for many people.
• In the 1920s, the fashionable ideal shifted toward the slim, almost boyish "flapper" silhouette. A lot of people now would call it too flat, masculine, and unappealing.
• In the 1950s, the ideal became the curvy hourglass figure associated with Marilyn Monroe.
• In the 1990s, fashion promoted the extremely thin anorexic-like "heroin chic" aesthetic.
• Kim Kardashian-like and cosmetic procedures like the Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL).

Many other cultures also have their own ideas of what is attractive, and people within those cultures notice and value those traits. Attraction, for both men and women, is influenced by survival and social conformity, so people tend to find the cues valued in their own culture attractive, no matter how strange they might seem to outsiders. For example:

Quote

• High foreheads: In medieval and Renaissance Europe, women sometimes plucked or shaved their hairlines to make their foreheads appear larger because a high forehead was fashionable.
• Blackened teeth: In Japan, the practice of ohaguro involved married women and some aristocrats blackening their teeth because black teeth were considered elegant and beautiful.
• Foot binding: For nearly a thousand years in China, tiny bound feet were considered one of the highest standards of feminine beauty and status, despite the severe physical consequences.
• Long necks: Among the Kayan people, brass neck rings have traditionally been used to create the appearance of an elongated neck, which is considered beautiful within that culture.
• Lip plates: Among groups such as the Mursi people, large lip plates have traditionally been viewed as attractive and culturally significant.

You have to consider that society and media heavily shape your natural instincts and influence what you respond to, and that social conformity is also deeply embedded in how you choose a partner.

A good open-mindedness exercise is to imagine genuinely living in these different cultures and naturally preferring to have sex with the type of women considered attractive there, genuinely enjoying it, and then feeling just as devastated if you were unable to have that experience as you would in your own culture with your “classic” beauty standards.

Even if you argue that there are still some overlaps and consistent traits in what people find attractive, the same applies to male attractiveness as well. It still shows that both are relative.

Edited 14 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Women need men to be providers. Men don't need that from women. I am not saying anything new here. Just pointing out the obvious.

That is counter-balanced by men needing women to being good mothers.

You can say that it is obvious - but your initial statement wasn't clear. I would say it also relies on women being able to bear children as well as raise them. I don't care if what you say is new or not.

Cheers for clarifying 🙏🏻

So, they rely on each other for survival. And each have their own part to play as providers. One cannot be "more of a provider" than the other without making effort quantifying this for each sex.

Edited 13 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Xonas Pitfall]

On 17/06/2026 at 0:09 PM, StaraX said:

In other words, her attractiveness is not DEPENDENT on the existence of less attractive, older, overweight, or less desirable women. A woman can be considered attractive on her own merits, whereas a man's attractiveness appears to depend much more on how he ranks compared to other men.

If you only had one woman, she would automatically be seen as the most attractive because there is no comparison. If a more attractive woman appears, she becomes the new reference point, and the standard of beauty shifts again. The same logic applies to strength or masculinity in men: a man seems strong until a stronger one appears, which changes how the others are perceived. I don't quite understand the difference you are trying to point out.

[ThePhil939]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Women need men to be providers. Men don't need that from women. I am not saying anything new here. Just pointing out the obvious.

That is counter-balanced by men needing women to being good mothers.

This argument flies out of the window when looking at the current situation where women overtake men in survival, at least when looking at academic accomplishments, while simultaneously don't wanting kids anymore. This culminates in the instagram feminists proclaiming they would not need men anymore. Is the solution to become even better at survival as a men or do we need another form of relating to each other, that is maybe more based on an energetic polarity and not so much on status.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

So, they rely on each other for survival. And each have their own part to play as providers. One cannot be "more of a provider" than the other

In the context of this thread, men are the providers, which is why women are judged on their beauty and not on their ability to provide.

No man rejects a woman because she can't provide materially.

Women are not called to be "providers", men are. If a man fails to do it, "something is wrong with him". If a woman fails to do it, nothing is wrong with her.

Let's not act like this standard doesn't exist.

This explains why women date up. It screens out those who can't provide. It is easier to provide when one is near the social top. That's why women are attracted to men near the top.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Leo Gura gotcha, and yeah this is why I asked because context can change meaning.

Not sure why you are commenting on pretending things don't exist. 

[Xonas Pitfall]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In the context of this thread, men are the providers, which is why women are judged on their beauty and not on their ability to provide.

No man rejects a woman because she can't provide materially.

Women are not called to be "providers", men are. If a man fails to do it, "something is wrong with him". If a woman fails to do it, nothing is wrong with her.

Let's not act like this standard doesn't exist.

This explains why women date up. It screens out those who can't provide. It is easier to provide when one is near the social top. That's why women are attracted to men near the top.

I just don't quite understand how this relates to the post, though. The original poster was claiming that men's preferences are definitive and objective, while women's preferences are somehow more relative and comparative. But that makes very little sense to me, because what people find beautiful has changed heavily over time, even just in the last few years due to social media. Likewise, what is seen as masculine can vary by environment; a woman in a rough neighborhood may value toughness and protection, while one in a tech hub may see a crypto millionaire or SaaS founder as more masculine. All of these things are heavily relative, so I don't see how one is any more objective than the other.

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

In the context of this thread, men are the providers, which is why women are judged on their beauty and not on their ability to provide.

No man rejects a woman because she can't provide materially.

Women are not called to be "providers", men are. If a man fails to do it, "something is wrong with him". If a woman fails to do it, nothing is wrong with her.

Let's not act like this standard doesn't exist.

This explains why women date up. It screens out those who can't provide. It is easier to provide when one is near the social top. That's why women are attracted to men near the top.

No phallus can take any form.

Respectively the hole too; women are not necessarily judged more on beauty than men and the more time passes, the truer this becomes.

I've already trolled you about this; you claim to be particularly advanced but your sober ego is still essentially orange.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Schizophonia

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

No phallus can take any form.

Respectively the hole too; women are not necessarily judged more on beauty than men and the more time passes, the truer this becomes.

I've already trolled you about this; you claim to be particularly advanced but your sober ego is still essentially orange.

 

10 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

This argument is pretty easily debunked by the simple fact that women's attractiveness has been viewed very differently throughout history. So no, male attraction to women isn't a fixed, objective thing either. It's heavily relative and shaped by culture and time. The same applies to women and who they perceive as an attractive man. The idea that you would always pick out your “type” in any environment, any culture, or any time period because it is purely objective and independent is not true.

Many other cultures also have their own ideas of what is attractive, and people within those cultures notice and value those traits. Attraction, for both men and women, is influenced by survival and social conformity, so people tend to find the cues valued in their own culture attractive, no matter how strange they might seem to outsiders. For example:

You have to consider that society and media heavily shape your natural instincts and influence what you respond to, and that social conformity is also deeply embedded in how you choose a partner.

A good open-mindedness exercise is to imagine genuinely living in these different cultures and naturally preferring to have sex with the type of women considered attractive there, genuinely enjoying it, and then feeling just as devastated if you were unable to have that experience as you would in your own culture with your “classic” beauty standards.

Even if you argue that there are still some overlaps and consistent traits in what people find attractive, the same applies to male attractiveness as well. It still shows that both are relative.

@Schizophonia I think you're correct that the duality around this is slowly collapsing like if you look good as a guy you're more likely to get into a strict nightclub than not but it's mostly in terms of status markers. A woman is valued more for pure beauty by a wider margin of society.

@Xonas Pitfall Appreciate you introducing that nuance—it really highlights how flexible attraction can be.

To tie this back to @StaraX's original point about relativity: a lot of those historical examples (like lead makeup or foot binding) were exclusive to the nobility. Those elite women weren't necessarily optimizing for raw biological sex appeal; they were optimizing for status demarcation to separate themselves from lowborn women.

This heavily conditioned what noble men prioritized. Because basic signs of fertility were abundant among the peasant class, elite men looked for traits that elevated their family's social standing.

It shows that while female attractiveness is generally based on immediate looks, a man's conditioning, his environment, and the specific status-games he is trying to win can heavily warp his baseline preferences. So StaraX's point holds up structurally: even when male attraction shifts relatively, it is usually because it's being high-jacked by a social status game.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

while women's preferences are somehow more relative and comparative.

My post directly answered the question of this thread.

Women's preferences are more relative because position in a social hierarchy is needed for their survival, and position in a social hierarchy is relative.

That's why women are attracted to social proof and men are attracted to tits. Social proof is more relative than nice tits.

If everyone in the world thinks I'm a celebrity, I will get laid a lot more just cause of that. Whether people see me as a celebrity is very relative. Social things are much more fluid and malleable than tits are, although these days even tits are malleable, haha.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

18 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Schizophonia I think you're correct that the duality around this is slowly collapsing like if you look good as a guy you're more likely to get into a strict nightclub than not but it's mostly in terms of status markers. A woman is valued more for pure beauty by a wider margin of society.

I wouldn’t date a women that doesn’t please me physically but intelligence and kindness are still above as criterias for me.

Edited 3 hours ago by Schizophonia

[LordFall]

12 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I wouldn’t date a women that doesn’t please me physically but intelligence and kindness are still above as criterias for me.

100% I'm a big believer in not settling and going for everything you want but you also have to put a lot of effort into your dating life then and not take it for granted. How is it going with the girl you went on a date with last week? 

[Schizophonia]

10 minutes ago, LordFall said:

100% I'm a big believer in not settling and going for everything you want but you also have to put a lot of effort into your dating life then and not take it for granted.
 

Yes the more effort you put in, the more you reduce stress and increase your chances.

10 minutes ago, LordFall said:

How is it going with the girl you went on a date with last week? 

It is strange; she seems particularly interested in her messages and it’s her who came to me at the beginning btw, but at the same time she takes an infinite amount of time to reply, more than 24 hours each time.  I don't know what she does.

We'll see

[Hojo]

4 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I just don't quite understand how this relates to the post, though. The original poster was claiming that men's preferences are definitive and objective, while women's preferences are somehow more relative and comparative. But that makes very little sense to me, because what people find beautiful has changed heavily over time, even just in the last few years due to social media. Likewise, what is seen as masculine can vary by environment; a woman in a rough neighborhood may value toughness and protection, while one in a tech hub may see a crypto millionaire or SaaS founder as more masculine. All of these things are heavily relative, so I don't see how one is any more objective than the other.

If they were starving the woman will have to go with man who will give her food. Other men can take her food and do whatever they want to her.

So she will go with a person that will protect her. 

The tech scenarios is just a distraction because she has food. If there was none she would find the one with toughness and protection better everytime.

One holds more objectivity because the second one only exists because the 1st one is taken care of temporarily.

The second one is an illusion over the 1st one.

The second one is not real if the 1st one isnt there and its only there because of this society that has never existed ever in the history of animal species.

 

If you are in a city and the city has a qualiative aspect to it compared to being in the wilderness. That is an illusion. Yours still in the wilderness its just paved and with buildings. Its a fake protective field over your conciousness. This is why man is special they are able to manipulate the qualia of the field of conciousness to make it feel different instead of wilderness.

 

You can really notice it in small towns as you are in the wilderness then you enter the town and qualia of the field you are in changes to being protected. Then you leave the town again shortly and it goes away. If you enter the town and feel like you are in the wilderness you are witnessing the original field. This is what man can do for itself it can change the qualia of the field of conciousness.

 

The fiction of not needing toughness and protection allows the woman to be able to go after the tech billionaire.

Its made up by having the qualiatative field changing by the illusions that man creates. Once that goes the tech billionaire and his money is completely BS.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes the more effort you put in, the more you reduce stress and increase your chances.

It is strange; she seems particularly interested in her messages and it’s her who came to me at the beginning btw, but at the same time she takes an infinite amount of time to reply, more than 24 hours each time.  I don't know what she does.

We'll see

Strange indeed. You've had a date in person right? How did that go 

@Hojo I don't really think tech billionaires are a good example of what women go for these days but guys that offer status, fun and protection against the dullness of life are the new top of the male pyramid I would say. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Hojo]

@LordFall Yes the dullness is the illusion as you are never safe. The safety is a fiction we have created. The woman wont get dull if she is surviving.

We are playing right now so the woman can get bored and she can go out and seek new opportunities and all this stuff can happen like wealth status fame.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Hojo

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Strange indeed. You've had a date in person right? How did that go 

You never really know with women, lol - you know what I mean - but it seems likely. Normally, when a girl isn't interested, she gradually becomes more distant in her messages, but that's not the case here. So maybe she's being honest about not having time, or maybe she just prefers to reply less often, I don't know.

You asked me so I responded but I should keep this to myself; I find that a bit ridiculous lol. I'm going to focus on other things.

[LordFall]

14 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You never really know with women, lol - you know what I mean - but it seems likely. Normally, when a girl isn't interested, she gradually becomes more distant in her messages, but that's not the case here. So maybe she's being honest about not having time, or maybe she just prefers to reply less often, I don't know.

You asked me so I responded but I should keep this to myself; I find that a bit ridiculous lol. I'm going to focus on other things.

Fair enough bro. Just remember the conversation we had on the other thread where you decided to sacrifice your abundance for the sake of talking to this one girl who is now not giving you much attention. This is a very common pattern. In my experience the best course of option is to develop more abundance. Both with other women but with your life as a whole.

No shame in this, notice how a lot of people on this forum are coping in their lack of abundance by inventing rules why this common principle doesn't apply to them. Obtaining abundance is very hard by definition, inventing reasons why you're above the process is much easier. 

"I'm not doing well financially but it's not because I suck at business it's because Trump is a corrupt piece of shit!"

"I don't get hot women but it's not because I don't have much value to offer them it's because they're shallow!"

 

Edited 42 minutes ago by LordFall

[Schizophonia]

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Fair enough bro. Just remember the conversation we had on the other thread where you decided to sacrifice your abundance for the sake of talking to this one girl who is now not giving you much attention.

Yes; she btw appeared like magic when I entered a frequency of abundance with my project to create a Hinge account with cool photos etc.

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

This is a very common pattern.

Always the same loop yes 

 

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

In my experience the best course of option is to develop more abundance. Both with other women but with your life as a whole.

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

No shame in this, notice how a lot of people on this forum are coping in their lack of abundance by inventing rules why this common principle doesn't apply to them. Obtaining abundance is very hard by definition, inventing reasons why you're above the process is much easier. 

 

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

"I'm not doing well financially but it's not because I suck at business it's because Trump is a corrupt piece of shit!"

"I don't get hot women but it's not because I don't have much value to offer them it's because they're shallow!"

 

Yes