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 12 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 13 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 5 hours ago by BlessedLion

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, Alexop said:

@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.

I haven't witnessed women operating this way personally.

Can you give me some examples of women with choice anxiety who stay single because she has too many options and doesn't know how to choose?

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

@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. 

I have never met a woman who was so unattractive that she didn't have any options.

Maybe if she's a solid 1 out of 10, it will be difficult.

But I've known plenty of 2s and 3s with a ton of options. Of course, it's with guys who (looks-wise) are equal to their level of attractiveness. But it doesn't mean those guys are bad partners.

The fact of the matter is that simply being a woman will bring in options.

Also, there's an assumption here that being approached 1000 times on the street makes a woman more likely to find a good partner. 

But those approaches are going to be mostly spam attention... like junk mail.

Instead, women who have the best options tend to be women who have a well-cultivated social network. 

So, approaches don't really matter in term of the ability to find a great partner, as it's better for women to sort those low-investment, risky options pretty ruthlessly.

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

@Emerald 

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. 

You know, I heard a lot about that flip when I was in my 20s, and I was afraid of it.

But I'm 37, and there hasn't really been much of a flip.

Usually great guys in their 30s and 40s will tend to go for female peers... or maybe a year or two younger on average.

And it seem like the guys who struggle in their 20s learn pick-up and create a growth ceiling for themselves... and they become kind of like Peter Pan.

As for attractiveness in women, I certainly value it as part of my identity. Like, I want to wear pretty dresses and jewelry and make-up... and look great.

But at this point, that's more of an identity thing. And those drivers have become very separate from the question, "What will men like?"

The thing that's important to realize is that many inexperienced women will believe their attractiveness (and not their selectiveness) is the key to getting a great partner. But they usually learn that the attractiveness factor isn't the determining factor of how satisfying their relationship will be or how great their partner is.

There are tons of plain women with amazing men.

And there are tons of an attractive women with Peter Pans who will just replace them with the younger model.

So, I'm not saying that attractiveness doesn't matter at all. It does turn heads. And if a man isn't attracted, he just isn't.

But 'turning heads' isn't something that women tend to have scarcity with. So, attraction isn't the bottleneck.

The problem is more about the majority of that attention being low-quality attention from a man who will drag down the quality of her life.

[Xonas Pitfall]

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

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.

Yup, exactly. The whole reason this can get so protracted is that the ego is a tricky thing. It can rationalize and justify almost anything by adopting whatever framing, including biological or gender-based framing, makes the conclusion work. And it becomes especially effective when that framing allows someone to collectively convince themselves that they are right.

Basically, according to the men/red-pill/pickup worldview, you have a girl whose highest “market value” is supposedly between 18 and 25.

• Put yourself in her shoes for a second. Think about how young, dumb, and inexperienced we all are at that age. This is the period when you are only just beginning to develop a real sense of identity, independent thought, and some understanding of who you actually are. You’re going to college, maybe getting your first real taste of adulthood, and even by 22-25, you’re still figuring a lot of things out.
• She is considered more desirable if she isn’t too analytical or “heavy-thinking,” because being too rational, independent, or challenging can supposedly make her too masculine. She might become too cold, too logical, too emotionally detached, or otherwise insufficiently feminine.
• On top of that, she is expected to focus heavily on beauty and femininity. A lot of her time is supposed to go toward her appearance, makeup, dancing, traditionally feminine activities, and cultivating an innocent, sweet, feminine image. She should be highly agreeable, innocent, naive, and soft-hearted. She shouldn’t have too many strong interests or ambitions of her own, because the ideal is apparently for her to be molded and led by the man once he gets her.
• She is also supposed to genuinely believe in love, want a deep romantic connection, and be willing to love, serve, submit, and devote herself to her man.

Do you see the profile of the girl we’re actually talking about here?

You’re describing a very young girl who has very little experience. She has no real concept of strategy or manipulation.

Now ask yourself: if that girl encounters a manipulative man who knows how to present himself, promises her love, tells her everything she wants to hear, how likely is she really to avoid getting attached to him? How likely is she to immediately recognize what is happening, see through the deception, and avoid potentially screwing up her life? How likely do you think she is to actually have the tools, experience, and wisdom necessary to avoid any of this? Would it even be realistic to expect her to? How realistic is it to expect her to somehow have enough worldly experience and psychological insight to immediately recognize manipulation, see through deception, and make all the right decisions?

And now consider that the red-pill/pickup world specifically targets exactly these types of women. It teaches men to look for women who are young, innocent, inexperienced, trusting, agreeable, and emotionally open. It doesn’t just teach them how to pursue these women, either. It also gives them a framework for rationalizing what they’re doing, so that they can convince themselves that what they are fundamentally doing is perfectly okay.

And more importantly, how realistic is it to expect her to somehow figure all of this out quickly enough to conduct extremely heavy screening and “mate selection” during the very narrow period that these men claim is her most valuable?

You’re describing a girl who is supposed to be maximally innocent, trusting, inexperienced, agreeable, feminine, and emotionally open, while simultaneously expecting her to possess enough psychological sophistication and worldly experience to immediately identify manipulation, carefully screen men, understand male incentives, and make optimal decisions about lifelong partners.

• And then if those girls say, “Hey, I don’t want to have sex. I’m saving myself for the guy I eventually marry,” the guy might get frustrated, resent her, or even cheat on her with another girl who is more promiscuous. So either way, she can’t win.
• If those girls instead say, “We don’t want to date men. We’re going to stay single because all of this has made us confused, distrustful, and resentful,” then you have men complaining about male loneliness, saying women are selfish and ungrateful, arguing that women shouldn’t have been given rights in the first place because “look how they turned out.” Feminism, grrrh!
• If the girl is somehow smart enough to see through his bullshit, he can get annoyed by that too. Suddenly she’s “too masculine,” “too intelligent,” “too argumentative,” “too suspicious,” or “attacking him” simply because she questions what he says instead of blindly trusting him.
• If she has her own career and doesn’t need a man financially, she’s “too independent” and supposedly incapable of submitting to a man. Not girly enough.
• If she wants to take things slowly and actually get to know him, she’s “playing games” or making him “wait.” Shit testing.
• If she has sexual boundaries, she’s boring. If she is sexually open, she’s apparently “used up” or no longer worthy of commitment.
• If she doesn’t ask enough questions and trusts him, then she’s supposedly responsible for choosing a bad man.
• If she stays and tries to work through the problems, then her staying can simply be interpreted as proof that the man's behavior wasn't really that bad.
• If she wants a relationship but also wants to maintain her own identity, she’s selfish. If she completely devotes herself to the relationship, then that devotion can be taken for granted. That is just what women should do; they are "naturally" submissive.

• If she chooses to commit to a man when she’s young, say at 18-25, and he eventually cheats on her or leaves her when she’s 40, then apparently she “chose wrong” when she was young, so it’s her fault.

• If she goes through that experience and becomes more guarded or less trusting afterward, while she is older, then apparently she’s “used up,” undesirable, old, ugly.

• If the man leaves her and she becomes a single mother, then that’s also her fault. She chose wrong. Now she’s supposedly an “old hag” or a “used-up single mother” who no longer has the same value or desirability.

That's what makes the whole framework feel so fundamentally rigged. Almost any response the woman has can be interpreted in a way that confirms the ideology. If she trusts him, she's naive. If she questions him, she's too masculine or combative. If she stays, she's accepting his behavior. If she leaves, she's selfish or incapable of commitment. If she dates men, she's choosing badly. If she stops dating men, she's selfish for contributing to male loneliness.

The whole framework basically ends up teaching women to be the perfect victims while teaching men how to become the perfect predators and exploiters.

You can rationalize anything in this world. Life is life, and people will do whatever they want to get whatever they want.

But this ideology is especially poisonous because it actually convinces you that what you’re doing is fundamentally good or justified, when it absolutely isn’t.

Edited 1 hour ago by Xonas Pitfall

[LordFall]

@Xonas Pitfall

6 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

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

What both of you said leads to casual sex being good for women though. How else are you supposed to get to know yourself and what you like in a partner? Surely you're not implying that marrying the first guy they date is the right option? Finding cool guys to have FWB situations and explore what they like in a relationship and sexually seems like the best option.

One of my FWBs basically broke up with me a few months into us seeing each other because she got a boyfriend and wanted to see how things go. I think they dated long term and are perhaps still together. About 1 week before this happened she came to my place, brought me a bubble tea, blew me until I came in her mouth and then went to her graphic design class. 

You see how both of your perspectives are sex negative and lack an abundance mindset? I think I probably helped this girl a bit find her boyfriend by hanging out with her for months so she could tell which characteristics she liked in a man and when she found one that more closely aligned with her she went for it. We were not compatible people for a long term relationship but we could hangout casually and have a good time. I was also happy for her, I can find women to date pretty easily so I wasn't butthurt over her leaving. Both parties were enriched by the experience. 

Edited 46 minutes ago by LordFall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Xonas Pitfall it is a self-sealing, unfalsifiable model. 

Whenever something feels off in the logic, the conclusion is usually embedded in the premise, or there is no way to falsify. Those types of arguements usually sound coherent on the surface.