Women are attracted to relativity

[BlessedLion]

On 6/21/2026 at 9:19 PM, LordFall said:

It's true. I like mature women and milfs a lot but a lot of popular culture seems to be against older women. 

I actually totally resonate with this, i feel like there is something really sexy about WOMEN, the maturity, grace, poise, and actual development into a more refined femininity, whereas the typical "20 year old hotties that all men are competing over" are wildly immature, too energetic, have huge egos, low attention spans and very little life experience so they can't talk about deep and nuanced things. I find them boring and childish. Whereas older women, especially single mothers, man something so sexy about that.

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, LordFall said:

Of course. Women love women so it'll be really fun type of relationship to be in. Fair enough, I would try to at least experiment and get out of your comfort zone before settling though! 

One of each colour 😏

I don't think most women would want to be shared

It also looks difficult to manage.

It also steals other men's potential girlfriends, and that bothers me; unless you're willing to share your own girlfriends lol, but I'm not interested by that.

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, Yimpa said:

*Mow

 

 

Plot twist it’s you on ketamine 

[StaraX]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

I don't think most women are hypergamous. Most women are mostly reasonable. They just want a man who's not a liability. It's really not much to ask for.

But you're right. I don't want most women. I don't want the average materialistic woman.

My ideal preference is a spiritual woman who's also self-sufficient and at a similar level as me and who loves me for who I am. I had a few relationships like that. I fucked up in the first two and learned. And the last one fucked me up lol, but it was totally worth it.

There's little to no difference between conscious and unconscious women when it comes to dating. All women want a guy who's above them.

Like I said earlier in this thread, mating is central to our survival, and therefore analyzing women's behavior from a postmodernist or pluralistic perspective produces horribly misleading conclusions. 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 minutes ago, StaraX said:

There's little to no difference between conscious and unconscious women when it comes to dating. 

Explain to us your logic here and how you came to this conclusion?

[Miguel1]

9 hours ago, Jirh said:

Most women just want a self-sufficient man who's confident and capable. Nothing more.

To me, a woman that embodies hypergamy is a low-quality woman. I would run miles away from women like that.

Well said. I am happy to see the maturity you express.

Dating a woman that is stuck in hypergamy is exhausting and a short-term game. What happens when a ”higher value” than you comes along? And there will be plenty of them. Wasted energy and time.

Edited 5 hours ago by Miguel1

[integral]

10 hours ago, LordFall said:

Well communism relies on the premise that human beings will willingly flatten all competitive hierarchies and distribute resources perfectly equally, removing the drive for individual status.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/4005748402891291

Communists only want to abolish private property: tenants should own their homes, workers should own the factory.

They are not coming for your personal stuff.

Capitalists are the ones actually taking your personal property, through subscriptions and rentals: phones you finance, movies you stream but don't own, housing turned into rentals.

The goal of that trend: you own nothing, they own everything.

Communists want to guarantee your ownership, not take it away.

What a business looks like in communism:

If you need to hire workers Instead of you owning the company and paying wages to employees who own nothing, the standard communist answer is a worker cooperative, the people who work there are also the owners. They share profits and have a say in decisions. So you'd start the business, but as it grows, the workers become co-owners rather than just employees.

Holacracy. 

This system probably doesn't work for a lot of organizations because the visionary is the most important thing and some people are better at that than others, So there would be a special role just for the visionary, be compensated accordingly, but at no point would he owed 100% of the company.

Resources should be pulled into a company pool and then distributor accordingly to everyone in the company.

The idea that one person should get 100 times or 1000 times the pay as someone else in the company is dumb.

Communism at the government level is a whole another animal, we're talking about it in terms of policies of how a system should operate. It should still be a democracy at the government level

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[LordFall]

8 hours ago, Jirh said:

Yes, exactly. A healthy woman is mostly self-sufficient on her own too. Why would anyone want a liability?

And on the flipside, hypergamy could also signal unsafety and instability. Because there's always someone richer or higher status than me, and she will not waste the chance once presented. So, I cannot experience safety in a long-term relationship with a woman like that. Very transactional in nature. I'm always one step away from being replaced.

It's the same red-pill mindset projected onto women. Always flip plates. Always look for more. Always look for better. Never settle. Never be content. It's mostly unsafe to be with people like that for long-term. Because everyone is so cheap and easily replaceable. I cannot imagine anyone with proper self-respect and self-esteem to want to live in such a dynamic.

And they come up with all kinds of crazy rationalizations for why that is the normal way of life. As if we're still living in caves. Or worse, as if we're barbaric savage animals.

Can we develop?

It's sad.

In my experience those women tend to be very loyal and appreciative of the quality men they find because they are disappointed by what most men have to offer. 

@integral There are plenty of co-op businesses, most of them fail and are not competitive against corporations because it's not an efficient way to produce value in reality. Capitalists are not taking your property, they are making it. You don't make phones, they do. There are plenty of products without subscriptions, usually they suck. 

Resources should not be pulled together in a business that's a terrible way of doing things. Employees always think CEOs are useless. That's delusion, technically everyone is a CEO. Everyone should start their own business and see how hard it is. When you run your own business you dictate how much you get paid. You can pay yourself $1,000,000 tomorrow, just go sell a $1M product or service to someone. 

I've went to many communist events. A bunch of smart people with a lot of good knowledge that are very delusional and lack critical thinking skill. If you have time to be part of a communist organization and meet each week to read communist theory together here is an idea, start a business around it and make it very profitable and since you like giving money away give it all away! Most of them don't get to step one let alone being an actually skilled business person or executive. 

@Schizophonia I see it the other way, first of all there are always an abundance of women for any man who actually works on himself and puts the work in. For the men that don't though I would be saving women of having to date a low value male so all parties win. 

@Miguel1 No I disagree, there shouldn't be really any other man higher value than you at your own game if you're systemizing it well. In the plan that I proposed you where you are self sufficient entrepreneur with a homestead that's well developed and a fascinating human being to be around there are very few men on earth if any that can offer a superior experience to the women that cater to that. Any random billionaire will just be a random nerd that doesn't process emotions well. Any athlete will be a dude that can't really offer her the same experiences you can. If you check the right boxes value is quite hard to replicate. 

Also there becomes sunk cost where if a dude can offer the same thing then there is the risk of branch swinging in and of itself where by betraying you she doesn't guarantee his commitment. Even if she does get it she doesn't have the shared bond that you have. When women ditch their partners for hypergamous reasons the difference in value tends to be quite severe and they've tried to make it work for a while but their partner refuses to improve. 

Case and point with this post where she tried to make it work and communicate her issues and fix them and her bf was gaslighting her that he's a great communicator and she must be the problem.

 

[Jirh]

🤦‍♂️

[Miguel1]

@LordFall The problem is that life is too hard to maintain frame all the time. If you date a superficial girl, you cannot offer her perfect life and perfect frame 24/7.

A mature girl understands this, and she will appreciate the human in you. Immature ones will only like you for your surface.

[LordFall]

13 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

@LordFall The problem is that life is too hard to maintain frame all the time. If you date a superficial girl, you cannot offer her perfect life and perfect frame 24/7.

A mature girl understands this, and she will appreciate the human in you. Immature ones will only like you for your surface.

Totally. I think there are a few ways to look at it but when you provide genuine value women will be a lot more forgiving of your shortcomings. If you are creating a cool lifestyle for the both of you and you get stressed and burnout then your girl will cuddle you and make you feel better and you'll be energized to conquer the world for her. If you're stuck in complacency and slowly let yourself slide over years then she will start to resent and ultimately be disgusted by you. Of course the maturity of the woman matters here but what you are building as a man will be the core of it for sure. 

That's why I have problems with the just being frame in terms of dating philosophy. Just be yourself and confident and women will love you! Cool bro aren't you God if you believe in non-duality? Where is this great life you're building? If people use their identity as a shield from competence and real world results then actually that does speak very clearly as to who they are. This is what I call spiritual bypassing. 

This works best in terms of social circle game I find. That's when you can really actualize stage yellow into your dating life. For example when I throw photoshoots with models I usually get exhausted in the middle of them since I'm an INTP. It's a lot of effort to plan and coordinate and on the day of make sure people are there on time and happy and everything is running smoothly. When it passes a certain critical point though I tend to just go outside on the patio, smoke some weed relax and basically ignore the event. Usually some girls come and talk to me and smoke with me. The friction starts to work in my favour whereas if you don't have a system and are a random burnt out guy then well nothing happens you're just sad.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[StaraX]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Explain to us your logic here and how you came to this conclusion?

Again, when something is so essential to our survival, the level of consciousness matters very little. All women want a guy who's above them and leads them. This should be obvious if you've followed Leo's work and dating advice.

 

[Valach]

2 minutes ago, StaraX said:

Again, when something is so essential to our survival, the level of consciousness matters very little. All women want a guy who's above them and leads them. This should be obvious if you've followed Leo's work and dating advice.

 

Fundamentally wrong on both levels. Definitely met plenty of woman who were not in such relationships. I was also not leader in some of my relationships. People evolve. You consume pickup theory and then go back into the real world with closed mind, you will only see the examples that verify your assumptions.

And yes, as people mature and become more conscious, while obviously not transcending survival needs, they can become less important for them - thus seeking different relationships than those which PUA/redpill etc. claim.

[Joseph Maynor]

What does maintaining frame mean?

[Valach]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

What does maintaining frame mean?

It comes from pickup. It is essentially about emotional investment. The less you care, the better you are at "maintaing frame". While it has some truth to it, it is deeply problematic.

[StaraX]

2 minutes ago, Valach said:

Fundamentally wrong on both levels. Definitely met plenty of woman who were not in such relationships. I was also not leader in some of my relationships. People evolve. You consume pickup theory and then go back into the real world with closed mind, you will only see the examples that verify your assumptions.

And yes, as people mature and become more conscious, while obviously not transcending survival needs, they can become less important for them - thus seeking different relationships than those which PUA/redpill etc. claim.

Cool! Then why does Leo, one of the most advanced individuals on the planet, still pursue women who are 8s, 9s, and even 10s?

[Raze]

10 minutes ago, StaraX said:

Again, when something is so essential to our survival, the level of consciousness matters very little. All women want a guy who's above them and leads them. This should be obvious if you've followed Leo's work and dating advice.

 

No because the way it presents can be different.

Just like how a guy in one culture can find a different body shape of women attractive than a guy from another culture.

Even if both women are attracted to power, a upper class woman in university will be drawn to a professor or frat leader, a poor woman in a ghetto some gang leader. 

[LordFall]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What does maintaining frame mean?

 

6 minutes ago, Valach said:

It comes from pickup. It is essentially about emotional investment. The less you care, the better you are at "maintaing frame". While it has some truth to it, it is deeply problematic.

That's a limited explanation of frame. Your frame is your view of the world, the framing in which you operate and interact with others. If you don't care you can hack frame because you're not invested in what people say or do but obviously that will lead to some roadblocks in your life. 

Frame control is when you dictate the interaction in that it operates inside your view of the world and not that of another person's. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Valach]

15 minutes ago, LordFall said:

 

That's a limited explanation of frame. Your frame is your view of the world, the framing in which you operate and interact with others. If you don't care you can hack frame because you're not invested in what people say or do but obviously that will lead to some roadblocks in your life. 

Frame control is when you dictate the interaction in that it operates inside your view of the world and not that of another person's. 

I agree that "frame" is broader than just emotional investment.

Where I disagree is with the emphasis on frame control.

To me, there is a difference between having a grounded worldview and trying to control the interaction so it stays within your frame.

The former comes from security. The latter often comes from fear of losing approval, status or attraction.

Someone with healthy self-esteem doesn't need to constantly think about maintaining or controlling the frame. They can be vulnerable, change their mind, admit they're wrong or let the other person influence them without feeling like they've "lost."

Ironically, I think genuine confidence is the ability to let go of control, not to become better at exercising it.

[Valach]

19 minutes ago, StaraX said:

Cool! Then why does Leo, one of the most advanced individuals on the planet, still pursue women who are 8s, 9s, and even 10s?

Idk why he does that, you have to ask him.