Challenging Leo on women

[Spiral]

4 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Who are you popular with? There are different crowds in which you could have high status like being popular in your pokemon card trading community. 

If there are also girls in your group, have you tried hitting on them and asking them out? From the outside it looks like popularity has women throwing themselves at you and sending you nudes 24/7 but often it's mostly them being open to your advances. 

Being a bad boy is a trope, not a dating strategy. 

I mean (usually drunk) girls at night clubs, often they approach me. They are not exactly hoping to play badminton. Not the hottest girl you can imagine, no but certainly good looking enough to date.

I don’t really try to be a bad boy, that’s unintentional. 

[LordFall]

So why do no girls want to date you? You're bad at escalation and leading the interaction? 

[Emerald]

On 9/1/2026 at 2:15 AM, AION said:

But one thing I noticed with these women is that they all adapt this I will be more selective in my selection of men thinking them being more judgemental towards men will also make them more valuable on the dating market. 

Only hot women can get away with this approach. For most women this approach is disastrous. Because most men will feel it in their bones that they have to pay a premium for the bad guys she did in her past.

No. The level of selectiveness women exercises has nothing to do with her level of attractiveness, at all.

The only exception is if a woman herself is trying to select for looks. Then, she's probably going to need looks equivalent to the looks of the guy she's trying to get with.

Women being selective with the quality of her male partners is actually key to her well-being and the well-being of the children she may bear... and (in a macrocosmic sense) the well-being of society.

The issue is that historically, there have been many forces that have interrupted women's ability to select and select well.

For example, historically women have not chosen their partners. It's been their fathers choosing their partners for them.

Also, women were put in a position historically where the only access to money was to marry a man... which effectively gave her the option "Marry or die in poverty".

So, these dynamics put women in a space where her sovereignty was limited.

Then, there's all sorts of cultural and pop-cultural dynamics that are designed to (or just so happen to) systematically erode women's self-esteem. And this can cause woman to feel grateful for any kind of male attention... instead of actually vetting the quality of the man giving that attention.

It can even lead to a polarity flip where she feels like she needs to be the one that "does to mating dance" to prove herself worthy of the guy's attraction, when that attraction is very common and un-particularized.

So, it doesn't matter if a woman is beautiful or plain...

Selectiveness and high standards are going to lead to a more mature and supportive partner, a better life, and more psychologically healthy children... and a better world.

A lack of selectiveness and self-respect is going to lead to things like domestic violence, being cheated on, emotional abuse, emotional starvation, chronically unmet needs, unhappiness, poverty, divorce, beaten/traumatized children, and/or abandoned children who don't know their father... and a degradation of the quality of life for all people in the wider community.

So, when women are selective and firm with their boundaries, they're honestly doing a great thing for themselves, their future children, and the wider community.

[Alexop]

@Emerald I don't sense women are not selective enough. I see a lot of them not selecting at all, just staying single. If they are attractive, they have tones of guys competing for their attention. And the women get choice anxiety, they don't know what to choose. Like when you open netflix and you have so many options that you just freeze and choose nothing instead.

[eos_nyxia]

My perspective comes from someone who was classically gifted as a child, who is also married to someone who was classically gifted as a child. Our backgrounds were very different, but we have a lot of shared perspective as a result of this commonality. Like my husband, I have no concept or experience of having had an intrinsically insufficient intellect (and creative capacity, to a somewhat lesser degree) to do anything during my formative years. Everything came super easily.

Points in No Particular Order:

• Giftedness is very poorly understood amongst the general population (and honestly pretty much any demographic, including general intellectual ones). An example: a lot of gifted people have inborn and developed early-life emotional traits which are often clocked as masculine if female or feminine if male. A lot of these traits are treated as “problems” growing up, and this often lingers as baggage in adulthood. Just a few examples, by no means extensive:
  • If female: too logical/ left-brain orientated, know-it-all, too blunt and asks too many questions in a way that gets under people’s skin (even when you’re trying to be as polite as humanly possible and mindful of people’s boundaries), unusually high learning and problem-solving drive 
  • If male: too sensitive and feels too deeply is the big one. Also cripplingly self-conscious in an emotionally self-aware from a young age. Combined with having a child's brain, this is not very enjoyable. 
• Likewise, the last time I felt self-conscious about how the opposite sex viewed my intellect was middle-school aged, where it became pretty clear that boys in general don’t like know-it-alls. I mean this super literally, as just knowing things that they do not and being willing to point it out. But after that point, it’s never been a real deterrent for whenever I wore my interests and way of thinking on my sleeve. If I was not very secure about my intellect (because for me going out of my way to clock as intelligent for its own sake is a joke), I’m sure I would have had a different experience.

I think the biggest factor for me is having a certain kind security in your intellect and not tying this to your intrinsic masculinity (which highly gifted men either tend to not do at all, or they have paralyzing amounts of it as if their idolatry of intellectualism was an armour that could save them from the stupid in this world). This is where I tend to clash the most with men who have... at some point in their lives (let’s just say as a teen and onward), chose to identify themselves as The Intellectual. I've found it to be tryhard.

Like if you NEED to be the smart one in the relationship or negate the experience I went through because that’s the only way you can feel man enough, that is not cute. You are probably not secure in your intellectualism in the way that self-appointed intellectuals often are not, and that itself is ok. But it is just better to be able to assess yourself realistically and then aspire to do better, which is what we ALL should aspire to do. And there are easily a ton of things you could potentially be better at than me, and that itself, especially with curiosity and passion, is very attractive. 

I find that a certain kind of combativeness is brought to interactions and they’re not always aware of it. It's the energy of needing to prove themselves. It's not a zero sum game lol.  A relationship is not for competition, unless somehow you can make it a healthy one and you want to for some reason. Keep it playful and light though, I think!

But more than anything, there is a huge gap to bridge in our ways of relating to the world and the way our identities were formed, I think. For this reason especially, the unwillingness to put himself in my shoes is a deal breaker, because that is what I try to do for him!

Edited 9 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[AION]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

No. The level of selectiveness women exercises has nothing to do with her level of attractiveness, at all.

The only exception is if a woman herself is trying to select for looks. Then, she's probably going to need looks equivalent to the looks of the guy she's trying to get with.

Women being selective with the quality of her male partners is actually key to her well-being and the well-being of the children she may bear... and (in a macrocosmic sense) the well-being of society.

The issue is that historically, there have been many forces that have interrupted women's ability to select and select well.

For example, historically women have not chosen their partners. It's been their fathers choosing their partners for them.

Also, women were put in a position historically where the only access to money was to marry a man... which effectively gave her the option "Marry or die in poverty".

So, these dynamics put women in a space where her sovereignty was limited.

Then, there's all sorts of cultural and pop-cultural dynamics that are designed to (or just so happen to) systematically erode women's self-esteem. And this can cause woman to feel grateful for any kind of male attention... instead of actually vetting the quality of the man giving that attention.

It can even lead to a polarity flip where she feels like she needs to be the one that "does to mating dance" to prove herself worthy of the guy's attraction, when that attraction is very common and un-particularized.

So, it doesn't matter if a woman is beautiful or plain...

Selectiveness and high standards are going to lead to a more mature and supportive partner, a better life, and more psychologically healthy children... and a better world.

A lack of selectiveness and self-respect is going to lead to things like domestic violence, being cheated on, emotional abuse, emotional starvation, chronically unmet needs, unhappiness, poverty, divorce, beaten/traumatized children, and/or abandoned children who don't know their father... and a degradation of the quality of life for all people in the wider community.

So, when women are selective and firm with their boundaries, they're honestly doing a great thing for themselves, their future children, and the wider community.

But I mean if a girl is a 4/10 and she starts becoming more selective. That doesn't mean she now deserves guys that is a 6/10. But a lot of women believe that. And that is why there are so many single women out there.

And thus 40% of women will be childless by 2040. I don't think that is a good thing though. People are pricing themselves out of the dating market. Because they all think they deserve the best. And although I wish that for them too, it is not realistic.

Making a deal is also about compromise and I'm not reading that back in your message. 

Usually I skip women that are too selective. Because it only tells me she has been around the block. And I have to carry the emotional baggage of her past mistakes. But if a girl is hot she can get away with it because she has such a big dating pool, she can just work the field to find a sucker.

If a girl is hot and she is can get away with basically everything, I was dating this hot girl and she made me work for it. At the end I was just irritated because I knew she was a club girl and other guys smashed it on the first encounter and I had to go through 5 dates with her. At the end I didn't respect her. Because I had to pay 5x the price the other guys had to pay.

Edited 10 hours ago by AION

[BlessedLion]

On 9/1/2026 at 1:29 AM, Emerald said:

I don't think women are selective enough, because it takes a lot of self-knowledge and knowledge about how relationships work to learn how to select well.

Plus, the way that most women learn how to strike a good match from the culture is like, "Be as attractive and pleasing as you possibly can."

So, a lot of inexperienced women end up trying to be as attractive as possible to attract a partner... but don't realize that attraction is a less effective tool for her desired ends compared to developing high levels of discernment.

And you can see that there are often attractive women with low self-esteem and terrible partners that treat them terribly... because they over-relied on the tool attraction and didn't develop their discernment.

Contrast that with instances where a woman is unattractive or plain but highly discerning... these women often end up with great husbands.

Of course, an attractive woman can also end up with a great husband if she's highly discerning. And an unattractive woman can end up with a terrible partner if her self-esteem and level of discernment is low.

But my main point is that level of attractiveness for women has very little to do with her ability to have a great relationship with a great man. (which is what women tend to want)

So, it's honestly safer and better for women to be very vigilant about red flags and ick factors, as women who are sensitive to these things will ends up with a better partner and her life will improve when she's in a relationship with that partner.

Think about it like developing sensitivity... like in The Princess and the Pea.

The true princess is so sensitive and discerning that she can sense the pea underneath 9 mattresses.

And that's analogous to a woman being so sensitive and aware of what she likes and doesn't like, that she doesn't entertain people, places, and things that have "the pea" underneath their facades.

The trick is to become the kind of guy that doesn't have too many peas (fewer red flags and fewer icks).

But unfortunately, the systems that men often use to become "more attractive" will increase their number of peas in the eyes of the discerning woman... but increase their attractiveness to women who haven't built that level of discernment.  

So, there-in lies the problem. 

Edit: It reminds me a bit of this video that I watched the other day where a woman created 4 fake dating profiles and gathered data on what kinds of guys were interested. The results are in the last 40% of the video.

 

That's actually really fascinating, thanks for sharing. 

I'll check out that video too.

 

I do find though that a lot of my female friends have become so picky or have such a long check list of standards that they just end up not being in relationships or having intimacy. They also get approached fairly regularly, they have plenty of options. I can think of a few women i know who have been celibate for a year plus. Nothing wrong with it, but these are women in their prime years of being attractive and just aren't engaging because so many guys give them the "ick".

Is it the guys fault too? Probably, it's probably a combination of things but I don't know how fair it is to just write guys off so quickly because of a percieved ick or red flag. How do they know they are actually sensing a pea under the mattress versus their minds tricking them? I mean if they can genuinely and truthfully find the pea , more power to them, but i think that's a tricky thing to do, so yeah i would agree that is an important skill or sensitivtiy to develop if it's in earnest. Personally, i can't stand guys leading women on just for sex only to ghost them later or something, they are ruining it for everyone in the dating market.

 

I would agree with you as well about women being able to discern being related to having a good partner, women seem to really easily fall under spells and games played by fuckboys or guys who can be "Hot" but then lead on, lie, cheat with those women. But i think if a woman has too many of those expereinces she swings the pendellum too far and if a guy is maybe a bit anxious, or inconsistent or just not perfect in whatever ways she is scanning for she writes him off. I think there needs to be space for human flaws and also self deception or the possibility of misreading things

[BlessedLion]

@Emerald 

The video is interesting but kinda hard to keep up with it, it's def made for a tik tok Gen Z audience, shifting frames and themes every 5 seconds. 

Also, i wanted to add, as the original discussion was around feminine energy and attraction- regardless of their discerning abilities, attraction is extremely important for women no matter what. Without attraction, there is nobody to chose from, and out of desperation women will have to chose lower quality options. My attractive female friends here in Bali get approached literally 2/3 times per day, and the less attractive ones, hardly ever, they still get approached but it's like once a week and usually lower caliber guys. 

 

over a year thats around 1,000 men vs 52, which one has a higher likelihood of having a quality guy in there? 

Men who have truly developed themselves, built their financial freedom, carved out a powerful authentic life, mastered their emotions, and (If they are at the time in their lives where they are ready to commit) are actually going to be the picky ones. Unattractive women will be filtered out immediately and not even given a shot. That's why feminine energy is important if you want a masculine partner. 

 

Men care about quantity and will lower their bar when it comes to sex only, but once they are serious about comitment and a life partner (which is what women want), they actually finally get to be the super picky ones (if they have a lot of options, resources, etc) as they should be if they have spent their lives developing themselves. 

 

The table flips a bit, in their 20's women are highly sought after and weild a lot of power in the sexual marketplace, but right around 30-35 the tables turn, men in their 20s who struggled a lot to get sex or serious attention from women (because women don't value youth and looks like men do, they value status, resources and emotional maturity) hit their 30's and if they took their life seriously and built wealth, status, competency, social skills then they actually have the power. If they didn't do any of those things, they are worse off than before. 

 

There is a reason beyond "beauty standard brainwashing and fat shaminig" that the cosmetic industry is in the billions. Survival and evolution doesn't fuck around, and there are universal patterns for what is seen as attractive or beautiful in women, from tribes living in the Amazon to a London Board Room (youth, waist/hip ratio, facial symetry, hair health, shiny eyes- all basically signs of youth/fertility) . And the women who end up with the men that have the most status and wealth, are...you guessed it- the young, feminine and beautiful ones, across the world and across time. Is status and wealth the most important factors in chosing a husband? Absolutely not, but it is what women tend to find attractive (many studies on this) and I think that men with status or wealth usually have other desirable traits, like intelligence, confidence, emotional mastery, leadership abilities, etc- I think they tend to correlate. 

 

So as a woman, I think it's still very important to be attractive and have men pursue you, since the standard in most places and across species is for men/males to approach. 

Not disagreeing with anything you said about discernment, that is very valid and important. But women still need to understand attraction, which i'm assuming they don't actually fully grasp when they are in their early 20s at their peak of attraction and when they can utilize it most. 

[BlessedLion]

Honestly the more i think about it, the more sense monogamy and marriage makes. We are wired for that, and any trying to get around it tends to not work and blow up. And I think it would be wise for women, especially when they are 22-28 to capitalize on their sexual marketplace value to secure the highest quality option IF they are wanting comitmment, marriage, etc. But they all seem to have to go through the fuckboy/ bad boy phase which wastes their prime years imo. 

But finding a good potential husband also requires discernment, and men in the dating market are rife with trickery and deception- shit some even study it, it's called Pick Up!  And maybe they need to learn the hard way (fuck boys, pick up douches, liars, etc) before being able to discern which men are quality and which are bullshiters. But if i was a woman i would do my best to figure that out and screen men out at a young age, then probably marry a solid dude who was a bit older than me. That's kinda shitty though, so i get why women think it's bullshit, it kinda is.  

 

But then again maybe i wouldn't do any of this because as a man that sounds horrible. I would def be one of those women who fight that system and do my own thing. I'd probably be on that Reddit group (singlewomenbychoice) but i think i have that opinion bc i am a man....maybe. Or maybe most women feel that way.

To get married young and be under the leadership of some fucking dude sounds like hell. But maybe if i was a woman i would think differently and want that, if i did want that, i would capitalize on my youth....because that's when i'd have to most Sexual marketplace power.

[BlessedLion]

Now that i am seeing this from a female persepctive the whole idea of sleeping with women for casual sex, studying pick-up, or leading women on seems more and more disgusting and unethical, even if there is a strong male desire to have sexual success, novelty and quantity. I think deep down hardly any women truly want casual sex that will lead to nothing long term

[BlessedLion]

I just finished the video, I think it's pretty fascinating. Would be better with more data though, also we have to factor in the creators bias but she seems pretty level headed and aware. Personally, I would've gone for the Vamp girl, I think women who are into philosophy and feel free to be edgy and a bit outside the box and embrace their dark side are hot af. The girlie girl would be a maybe because it's super stage orange and materialistic but they can also be cool and hot. Fuck no on the conversvative religious girl. And a major fuck no on the tomboy.

I think the tomboy winning is telling because it just proves how many low maintenance low effort guys are out there and how they actually are afraid of interacting with feminine women because there is less of a threat. So she got the most engagement, imo. They see it as a girl they can play video games with and have low investment casual sex with. That's probably why the conservative girl got last, because those girls are high investment for sex, getting into a christian rural girls pants is difficult. That's also probably why girly girl was 3rd, they also are high maintenance and difficult to sleep with. This also proves why Vamp was 2nd, she seems more open sexually and finally why tomboy won , she seems the lowest difficult, most easy to have casual sex with. 

 

My theory from this video is therefore that it proves that men mostly care about sex, not commitment (until they are ready), that was their prime focus in the swipes

[BlessedLion]

Actually it's super fascinating, because it's the same woman in every profile, and even in the tomboy one she shows clevage, so we can rule out attraction. The men were choosing based on who was the most likely to sleep with them with the lowest amount of effort or investment based on those personality types. Crazy 

 

I also think of all the guys, Vamp attracted the highest quality ones. They had style and vibe, TomBoy mostly attracted immature horny 20 year old gamer guys, Conservative girl got the absolute worst - red neck conservative guys, girly girl got guys basically just throwing money at her and gym bros (a reflection of the male version of stage orange) and I would say Vamp was the most "sophisticated woman" of them all. 

Edited 3 hours ago by BlessedLion