Women are attracted to relativity

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Ulax said:

I dont think that is true. Many men rank poorly compared to Brad Pitt but still get laid. So accessibility is something to be accounted for.

Women can only choose from the guys who are around, available, and approach. So her options are limited. She is not choosing from a hypothetical pool of the world's top men. She is going to choose the first decent guy who comes around.

Edited Friday at 06:22 PM by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

15 hours ago, StaraX said:

@Natasha Tori Maru A lion has two meal options. The first option is a zebra. The second option is broccoli. Which option will the lion choose? If you think the first option is correct, how did you come to that thought? Based on what exactly?

I know how I logically arrive at conclusions. 

I want YOU to answer. How did you arrive at the originally stated conclusion? A rhetorical question doesn't tell me that. 

I can see you are very, very much avoiding answering by issuing rhetoric in both posts addressing me. If you can't answer, that's fine too. Did you arrive at the conclusion, or did you just take Leo's word as truth without any critical thinking? Since you appealed to Leo's ideas and not your own in one answer, it would be fair to infer you adopted a belief.

Edited yesterday at 02:19 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[StaraX]

22 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I know how I logically arrive at conclusions. 

I want YOU to answer. How did you arrive at the originally stated conclusion? A rhetorical question doesn't tell me that. 

I can see you are very, very much avoiding answering by issuing rhetoric in both posts addressing me. If you can't answer, that's fine too. Did you arrive at the conclusion, or did you just take Leo's word as truth without any critical thinking? Since you appealed to Leo's ideas and not your own in one answer, it would be fair to infer you adopted a belief.

@Natasha Tori Maru When it comes to female psychology and the way women select mates, my analysis comes from my own experiences as well as the theories of attracting women that I deeply studied before I started doing pick up and dating women. 

 Leo's analysis of female behavior in the dating market is pretty damn accurate and it aligns with my experience in pickup and game, which is why I repeat his analysis a lot. 

Did I anwser your question? 

 

. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@StaraX not really, but that's all good. 

Meta thinking is sometimes else entirely 

[Jirh]

@Natasha Tori Maru I waited for something of substance to come up but nevermind, I'll answer for him because I think I know the framework he's using without knowing that he is and because I wanna hear your thoughts.

I think "being above" frames the relationship as a strict hierarchy, where one partner holds the dominant leadership position and the other is expected to be the compliant follower. In that context, the premise rests on the assumption that all women are inherently submissive and that their primary role in a romantic relationship is to fulfill that dynamic.

The logic suggests that a woman's admiration for a man is the mechanism that triggers her submission, and by turn deep attraction, therefore unlocking traits like obedience, loyalty, and deference.

It's the same red-pill nonsense that keeps appearing everywhere nowadays that misses the point entirely about confidence and independence (objective traits) being universally attractive, while dominance and leadership are more relational context specific positions rather than strictly fixed roles let alone objective traits.

Also, dominance and submission are not a binary or a one-way street. Someone can be dominant in one area and completely submissive in another.

I wish that people could think more independently. That would be a lot more attractive.

Edited 13 hours ago by Jirh

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jirh You summed up my feelings on the matter.

I was hoping my line of enquiry might reveal some more nuance in the bland and overly reductive initial statement.

Reductionism is applied way to broadly when it comes to the sexes. The topic is complex, involving many different systems - and it's often impossible to untether them to get to any sort of 'ultimate truth of women/men'. If we aren't comfortable with a level of ambiguity we will constantly fall into traps of reductionism.

When someone cannot sufficiently explain their ideas, opinions or claims it suggests an adopted belief (although this can also be because one can lack the ability to express themselves, but good questioning usually resolves this). And all too often these days, without critical analysis (and the proliferation of misinformation affecting us also), people fall victim to the repetition and certainty served up to them from whatever section of the internet they are immersed in.

Quote

I wish that people could think more independently. That would be a lot more attractive.

Absolutely - and not to be afraid of hashing things out in dyadic conversation! We don't always have to come from a position of authority and knowing. Sometimes walking through ideas with someone else can be a great way to sharpen critical thinking. The tough part about this forum - and the internet at large - is when someone is being uncharitable or not having an open, good faith approach. 

Ces't La Vie when we are dealing with egos!

[Jirh]

@Natasha Tori Maru 🤝🏻💯

[LordFall]

I mean it's a well documented phenomenon that women tend to seek out men that outearn them. It's true in even the most egalitarian societies on earth like Norway.

It's not an absolute fact but the even new modern studies point towards being high earning man facilitates the formation of relationships as well as financial issues are one of the top factors predicting a divorce. 

 

[Jirh]

Yeah, everyone would choose the higher-paying job if they had the choice, man or woman. But we aren't talking about work here.

We are talking about attraction, the raw desire to have intimacy with someone.

We are talking about the involuntary reflexes that tick the right boxes deep inside, not the calculated pragmatic choices that someone makes for a transactional arrangement.

Those are two entirely different registers. And citing socioeconomic statistics and using them to prove a biological claim about desire will not work.

Edited 11 hours ago by Jirh

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-06-24 at 9:23 PM, LordFall said:

Well a lot of low consciousness people are just slaves to public consensus so if you have a lot of status you basically override their herd opinions anyway so I think being powerful, abundant and high consciousness helps a lot in that area. 

It’s good qualities regardless yes 

[integral]

8 hours ago, Jirh said:

@Natasha Tori Maru I waited for something of substance to come up but nevermind, I'll answer for him because I think I know the framework he's using without knowing that he is and because I wanna hear your thoughts.

I think "being above" frames the relationship as a strict hierarchy, where one partner holds the dominant leadership position and the other is expected to be the compliant follower. In that context, the premise rests on the assumption that all women are inherently submissive and that their primary role in a romantic relationship is to fulfill that dynamic.

The logic suggests that a woman's admiration for a man is the mechanism that triggers her submission, and by turn deep attraction, therefore unlocking traits like obedience, loyalty, and deference.

It's the same red-pill nonsense that keeps appearing everywhere nowadays that misses the point entirely about confidence and independence (objective traits) being universally attractive, while dominance and leadership are more relational context specific positions rather than strictly fixed roles let alone objective traits.

Also, dominance and submission are not a binary or a one-way street. Someone can be dominant in one area and completely submissive in another.

I wish that people could think more independently. That would be a lot more attractive.

@Natasha Tori Maru The "being above" the healthy way is to acknowledge people have different roles and jobs they accell in and its better for the health of the relationship for the man to be in a role that suits his skills.

Our society forces everyone to be masculine to function in a corporate job word, alot of people who are built to be feminine have to adapt to the masculine role. They can do it but it comes at a cost of overhead burden that naturals dont have. When someone is constantly adapting to a role that doesn't fit them they burn out much faster and take on unhealthy traits like overthinking, micro-managing, chronic stress.

A healthy relationship is best when everyone is in there natural roles and on average the men should be "above" leadership for the relationship to be healthy. 

The worst situation one of the partners can be in is in a contracted micro managing state and that happens so often that red pill made a "being above" rule to solve it.

In all my relationships 9 or so all the woman i was with became this way over time and i wasn't even living with them. They had to work jobs and they took that masculine survive mindset home with them and they couldnt switch out from it.

The healthy masculine on average can do practical survival things with out thinking or stress or the need for perfection. Its done with some degree of emotional acceptance. A person adapting to be masculine cant hold this frame with out cost.

There are alot of varibles this is just one slice of the pie.

Most people in general are emotional wrecks both men and woman, and business men tend to behave like children half of the time.

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@integral no, thank you

[integral]

37 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@integral no, thank you

I understand your not interesting in engaging, ill just say each thing is a slice of the same pie, the critique that most of these red pill ideas all fall into the trap of reductionism is true but thats not a complete view here. Red pill has truth to it, its one way of looking at the same elephant but when you think that one way is the entire elephant you get a nonsense world view.

We live in a world that demands one mode from everyone: competitive, always-on, high-survival. People whose temperament doesn't fit that mode, of either sex, pay a cost, and that cost shows up in relationships as contraction, I did not say its a totalizing frame work that defines men and woman, that its one slice of the pie. 

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[StaraX]

15 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@StaraX not really, but that's all good. 

Meta thinking is sometimes else entirely 

@Natasha Tori Maru What is it that you want? You asked me how I came to my conclusions, and I gave you the answers. My answers come from my pickup journey (direct experience) and studying attraction as well as female psychology for literally hundreds of hours.

 

Before my pickup journey, I had similar pluralistic views to the ones you have right now. But then the harsh realities of mating hit me so hard that I had to become hyper-realistic about how dating works. I had no room for that sort of postmodernist thinking if I wanted to achieve my dating goals.

I'm gonna ask you again: what the hell is it that you want? 

[LordFall]

8 hours ago, Jirh said:

Yeah, everyone would choose the higher-paying job if they had the choice, man or woman. But we aren't talking about work here.

We are talking about attraction, the raw desire to have intimacy with someone.

We are talking about the involuntary reflexes that tick the right boxes deep inside, not the calculated pragmatic choices that someone makes for a transactional arrangement.

Those are two entirely different registers. And citing socioeconomic statistics and using them to prove a biological claim about desire will not work.

I would say women usually take longer to really get attracted specifically because they are screening for long term characteristics. Which is why building a social circle with women works so well for dating because they get to experience you over time and the guys that fake the high status characteristics for a quick lay are weeded out. If you look good and are charismatic a lot of women are gonna like you right away but that's shallow attraction compared to really getting to know your over months and seeing that you are the man in different types of circumstances. 

[Valach]

9 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I would say women usually take longer to really get attracted specifically because they are screening for long term characteristics. Which is why building a social circle with women works so well for dating because they get to experience you over time and the guys that fake the high status characteristics for a quick lay are weeded out. If you look good and are charismatic a lot of women are gonna like you right away but that's shallow attraction compared to really getting to know your over months and seeing that you are the man in different types of circumstances. 

Woman are just as bad about screening characteristics suitable for long term relationships as guys are.

[LordFall]

Sure but the point is not to figure out how great they are at it, that's for themselves to introspect on when looking at the quality of their relationships. The point is that most relationships still start out from social circles today, even with how prevalent online dating is.

The most surefire way to date hot women is to be in social circles with many of them and display value over time. The guys that are narcissistic, weak willed, inconsistent, etc will weed themselves out and usually if you're a solid man with even a respectable amount of game the single women of the group will gravitate towards you. It's also the most fun way to date because your social circle should ideally be a reflection of your interests and goals if you cater it well over time. 

 

[Valach]

19 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Sure but the point is not to figure out how great they are at it, that's for themselves to introspect on when looking at the quality of their relationships. The point is that most relationships still start out from social circles today, even with how prevalent online dating is.

The most surefire way to date hot women is to be in social circles with many of them and display value over time. The guys that are narcissistic, weak willed, inconsistent, etc will weed themselves out and usually if you're a solid man with even a respectable amount of game the single women of the group will gravitate towards you. It's also the most fun way to date because your social circle should ideally be a reflection of your interests and goals if you cater it well over time. 

 

Yes, that is asuming the social circle game is aligned with your interests and values. While it might be good for you, that is not feasible enough for most people simply due to most hobbies/interest/value/circles not attracting enough attractive woman.  And it still has to be something you naturally want, which is not everyone. I would even dare to say it is not most people.

 

Btw. The study you linked is refering to students. Obviously they meet via school. But I think on here we are more ambitious than that.

Edited 2 hours ago by Valach

[LordFall]

I don't agree basically any hobby has gained some type of mainstream appeal due to mostly the cross-pollination that social media allows us. Video games, trading card games and anime, for example,  were seen as super loser hobby that only men liked 10 years ago and now there are e-girls everywhere and you could get laid building out your own Yugioh card group 100%.

It's also up to you to also have a top of the funnel side of it where you find a way to get attractive women into your circles or be able to join groups that they are a part of. A high quality dating and social life are not a given, you have to put in a lot of effort to cultivate it. If you do it right there are not many more rewarding things in life though. 

[Valach]

6 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I don't agree basically any hobby has gained some type of mainstream appeal due to mostly the cross-pollination that social media allows us. Video games, trading card games and anime, for example,  were seen as super loser hobby that only men liked 10 years ago and now there are e-girls everywhere and you could get laid building out your own Yugioh card group 100%.

It's also up to you to also have a top of the funnel side of it where you find a way to get attractive women into your circles or be able to join groups that they are a part of. A high quality dating and social life are not a given, you have to put in a lot of effort to cultivate it. If you do it right there are not many more rewarding things in life though. 

Sure, but why would I put so much effort into building a social circle I am not that interested in building in the first place when I can just go out and approach a woman on the street and take her on date/start relationship, whatever.

It kind of depends on the city you live in but european cities are amazing for this since they are so walkable. I think I saw at least 3-4 hot woman on my way to grocery shop yesterday (and it is like 5 minutes away from my place). 

Edited 2 hours ago by Valach