Challenging Leo on women

[AION]

2 hours ago, LordFall said:

Where are you from? Are you on dating apps? Do you practice social circle game? Are you building a personal brand? 

There are always options to build more leverage and value. Don't resort to lying to get your wants met; that's low value behaviour. 

I only do cold approaches, dancing or social game. Dating apps aren’t working for me. I don’t have personal brand. I had a business though. 

[Alexop]

18 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

Bingo! We have to think with our brains, not with our dicks. And best sex you can have is in a relationship with a woman you care for. A few relationships can scratch you itch for sexual diversity I think. You don't need to sleep with the whole city for that. 

Body count is like personal wealth. 5-10 body count sounds ok. 500.000 - 2 million in personal wealth is ok. But wtf dude? 100+ body count? Billions in personal wealth? Are you sure you are not running away from yourself??

[BlessedLion]

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

True, because what men find attractive and what women find attractive are different so this might work in "worse looking" women's favor. Because women typically find personality, status, presence, energy more attractive than looks. Men highly value looks. This makes sense evolution-wise. 

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

Seems like an assumption here that quality guys can't meet a woman on the street. Why do they have to be limited to her social circle? I agree most will probably be junk mail but i don't think it's fair to say public approach = low quality guy. That limits her a lot, plenty of beautiful couples meet at a subway, cafe, bar, park, gym, whatever. Plenty of toxic horrible relationships come from people in the social circle, work environment, same yoga school, whatever. But I can understand the sentiment that it helps to act as a filter in general. Also, if a guy is approaching in public it's not likely his first time ever doing so, meaning he does it a lot. 

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

Fair enough, I understand what you are saying. 

 

I will say that learning "pick-up" or let's just say learning "attraction/dating skills" is essential for most men and will not automatically stunt their growth. That only happens if they become unethical and lost in that world. But for many it's an essential part of stepping into masculinity and being ready for a life partner. So many men commit too young and end up regretting it because they never went out there and tasted different flavors of ice cream. 

 

Similar to how you said women are not low on options/ attractiveness,-men have 0 if they don't take action and learn how to be attractive. And make no mistake women can be absolutely brutal with their filtering, labeling a guy as "ick", etc.

 

Lastly, I think the discernment is important, but can go too far. Similar to a guy going too far with his pick-up and becoming Peter Pan, a woman going too far with her red flags and list of requirements can become what I'll call a "Deluded Goddess" this is a woman who has placed such a high ideal on her potential partner that no man let alone human can fulfill, leaving no room for human imperfection, that she just ends up alone.

 

I can think of countless women who do this, and guess what, they are all alone and single and have been for years. Cute women too. 

 

Example- today i was talking to my female friend at a cafe and asked her what her requirements are for a partner, she went off about an ideal man who can hold "pure perfect presence, guard her from any penetrative looks in public with a simple glance, hold her through all her chaos and emotion no matter what, etc" I then said "have you ever found a man like this?" and she said "No, never. We're talking about the DIVINE MASCULINE here"

 

Yeah...Good luck with that one

[BlessedLion]

16 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

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.

Yeah exactly. This reminds me of a book im reading now "The Value of Others" by Orion Tarabahn. I'm mostly reading it just as part of my research on these topics, but it fits almost perfectly with what you are describing. 

 

16 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

• 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.

I understand the sentiment here, but also, look at how much of a victim mentality this gives to women and power this gives to men. You could make a similar list for men and how complex, contradictory and bullshit it is to deal with women and dating. I definitely agree that it isn't fair and women are told way too many conflicting messages that is likely confusing as fuck. But also, on some level, can they not stand on their own feet and not be subjected to whatever labels are being thrown at them? 

[BlessedLion]

16 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

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.

Ah my mistake, i realize that in these examples you were just showing how the Red Pill justifies what it does and how it basically gaslights the shit out of anyone critiquing their models. 

 

This was a great read, thank you for sharing. I definitely feel for women in this sense, which is why wayyyy back (lol) in my intial post i said the truth of the matter is that it is kinda just is bullshit for women and i understand why they think it's bullshit

[BlessedLion]

15 hours ago, LordFall said:

@Xonas Pitfall

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. 

I think if a woman is on board with that and the boundaries/expectations are clear there is no issue. What i have a problem with is leading women on, being deceptive, especially when for the most part they don't want casual sex. Most of the women i talk to don't seem interested in that as they have already experienced it, like a phase. Sometimes they do, but i think that needs to discussed and clear before moving forward. Otherwise, there's no problem there at all. 

[BlessedLion]

15 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

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.

Yeah, and you can't quite put your finger on it but something is off. I feel that way when i listen to Orion Tarabhn , he's selling a whole paradigm that is pretty powerful and a framework that is hard to break down- but fundamentally lacks heart

[BlessedLion]

14 hours ago, Joshe said:

So then, you have to be blunt as fuck, which basically means, as a man, you're ending your own fun.

It's the cost of having ethics and growing a spine as a man. You get less sex, but you can look at yourself in the mirror. That said, sometimes there are women who genuinely are in a phase of being open to casual sex and you can go about that with a playful, respectful, kind attitude. No reason there can't be love there either. 

[LordFall]

7 hours ago, AION said:

I only do cold approaches, dancing or social game. Dating apps aren’t working for me. I don’t have personal brand. I had a business though. 

I would recommend hiring a photographer or go out with a buddy if one of you has a good phone and getting great pictures done for dating apps. Dating apps don't work for most men until they get the right pictures. They didn't work for me until I did properly. I remember I used Tinder for like 2 years and had 14 matches and 0 dates. I became a photographer in 2020 and did constant photoshoots for myself and others and got up to 750 matches and slept with like 15 women on it in 2 years.

This is a good video on the type of pictures to take

The angle you want is especially the badass shots, shots at trendy spots in your city, shots working out/martial arts if you're fit and one that's sleeper OP the having fun wide smile picture.

You will find the most DTF women on dating apps and the process to bed them is the most simple. You meet them at a spot near your house, get 1 drink then ask if they want to come over. That worked in about 75% of cases for me. 

Having a personal brand is the evolution to that. Your dating strategy(life/business as well but that's another topic) should rely on being able to meet people globally and building status. Who gets laid the most in society? Musicians, athletes, celebrities and overall dudes that have a global audience. Why is that? Both because they reach millions of women so even if only a few % want to fuck them that's still thousands. It also elevates them above the masses of random dudes.

Most women look for value but also for novelty when picking men. Most dudes are cardboard copies of each other if not in appearance in how they interact with the world and the value they provide. What type of bad boy is popular with women? Club promoters, drug dealers, starving artist archetype, etc in all those cases there is a unique emotional experience linked with the man.

Also remember that even if you're in a conservative country, women are horny. If you stand out from the sea of hundreds of timid and stuck up men your dick will literally be the lightning rod they flock to. This strategy would work in India, in Georgia, in Indonesia, in Russia, etc. There are nuances to each place and how to pull it off but the principles are the same and tested across many different men. 

If you do all this you will not need to lie to women to get laid, you will find plenty of women down to fuck you and date you. It's also quite fun to level up in this manner, I haven't found it to be a chore at all. To me it feels like getting laid with my brain which is more rewarding than just hammering out approaches pretending to be an extrovert. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, AION said:

@Emerald you are only looking at it from the female imperative. And I do get it. But I’m not a woman. So I have different imperatives. Sometimes I just want to get laid. And she wants to get a relationship. If I tell her the truth what I want she wouldn’t even entertain me plus it would be insulting. I kind of get why you are teaching women these strategies but you are just teaching men to lie to get what they want. Because truth is punished and falsehood is rewarded. 

I'm just trying to get you to understand that it is indeed the female imperative.

That's the entire point of my posts is to dispel myths and projections about how women become attracted.

But you should not lie about what you want in order to get laid. A sizable minority of women do want casual sex, so there's no need.

And of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to have casual sex.

I'm just here to say that there's a limit to how interesting casual sex is for the majority of women. So, don't think about a woman's willingness to have casual sex with a man as some indicator that the man has evoked a peak state of sexual attraction for her. 

[AION]

57 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I would recommend hiring a photographer or go out with a buddy if one of you has a good phone and getting great pictures done for dating apps. Dating apps don't work for most men until they get the right pictures. They didn't work for me until I did properly. I remember I used Tinder for like 2 years and had 14 matches and 0 dates. I became a photographer in 2020 and did constant photoshoots for myself and others and got up to 750 matches and slept with like 15 women on it in 2 years.

This is a good video on the type of pictures to take

The angle you want is especially the badass shots, shots at trendy spots in your city, shots working out/martial arts if you're fit and one that's sleeper OP the having fun wide smile picture.

You will find the most DTF women on dating apps and the process to bed them is the most simple. You meet them at a spot near your house, get 1 drink then ask if they want to come over. That worked in about 75% of cases for me. 

Having a personal brand is the evolution to that. Your dating strategy(life/business as well but that's another topic) should rely on being able to meet people globally and building status. Who gets laid the most in society? Musicians, athletes, celebrities and overall dudes that have a global audience. Why is that? Both because they reach millions of women so even if only a few % want to fuck them that's still thousands. It also elevates them above the masses of random dudes.

Most women look for value but also for novelty when picking men. Most dudes are cardboard copies of each other if not in appearance in how they interact with the world and the value they provide. What type of bad boy is popular with women? Club promoters, drug dealers, starving artist archetype, etc in all those cases there is a unique emotional experience linked with the man.

Also remember that even if you're in a conservative country, women are horny. If you stand out from the sea of hundreds of timid and stuck up men your dick will literally be the lightning rod they flock to. This strategy would work in India, in Georgia, in Indonesia, in Russia, etc. There are nuances to each place and how to pull it off but the principles are the same and tested across many different men. 

If you do all this you will not need to lie to women to get laid, you will find plenty of women down to fuck you and date you. It's also quite fun to level up in this manner, I haven't found it to be a chore at all. To me it feels like getting laid with my brain which is more rewarding than just hammering out approaches pretending to be an extrovert. 

I have an iPhone 17 pro. Is that camera good enough? I might try it out again 

[Emerald]

18 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

No, of course not. I never said that.

My main criticism is aimed at men who hyper-focus on telling women exactly how they should behave and what kind of women they should be, while developing all kinds of rationalizations for why they should pursue a very specific type of woman. Then, when they actually get that woman, they completely disrespect her position and perspective and don't acknowledge it in the slightest. Instead, they use evolutionary biology, gender-war rhetoric, and self-reinforcing red-pill ideology to justify their behavior.

For example, you have men who specifically look for virgin women and talk about them as something precious, pure, and uniquely valuable. Yet those same men can be the ones who eventually cheat on her or leave her. The woman may have genuinely been ready to marry him, love him, and build a life with him, and yet after he betrays her, she can somehow be reclassified as “less valuable,” “used up,” or undesirable.

Or you have men constantly complaining that “there are no good women left” and that women don't want commitment anymore, while they themselves don't even know what kind of relationship they want. They lie about wanting monogamy, get a woman emotionally attached to them, then push her toward an open relationship, cheat on her, or keep other women on the side.

They say they want a traditional, loyal, feminine wife, but then cheat on that wife with the exact kind of women they claim they would never want as a partner. They want the status and social respectability of having a “pure,” respectable woman as their wife, while privately pursuing promiscuous women, strippers, mistresses, or whatever else they actually desire. Then they hurt the very woman they supposedly considered so precious, while still expecting absolute loyalty and devotion from her.

And, of course, they would be completely disgusted if their wife treated them the same way.

That's the contradiction I'm criticizing.

Some men build an entire ideology around what women supposedly owe men, what women should be, how women should behave, and which women are supposedly worthy of commitment, while simultaneously giving themselves endless exceptions and rationalizations for violating standards themselves.

That's the part I find deeply dishonest.

If you find an honest, beautiful, sweet woman who is hopeful about love and genuinely wants to commit herself to an honest, noble man, then you should respect that. And if you're the type of guy who knows that you will abuse that trust, manipulate her, lie to her, or try to convince her into whatever lifestyle you can mold her into once you've gotten her attached to you, then you shouldn't go after her in the first place. You shouldn't deliberately seek out someone's innocence and trust because you know those qualities will make her easier to manipulate, only to use that trust against her once you've hooked her.

But a lot of men don't acknowledge this aspect at all, because why would they? It's much more convenient to believe that you can do whatever you want, that you're entitled to pursue whoever you want however you want, and that whatever happens afterward can somehow be justified. “It's biological. It's human nature. Men are different from women. Women naturally like this. Women can be made to like this. We're just wired this way. So why are you blaming me for doing what I'm naturally programmed to do?”

Ideally, of course, people should explore their options and find someone who genuinely fits their values and relationship paradigm. I'd never recommend that someone blindly marry young or stay with the first person they like unless they're genuinely very sure about the person. That would be foolish.

Yeah, there's a ton of paradigms that are like this. And all of the paradigm are set up in a way where the man always wins and the woman always loses no matter what she does.

And that's specifically why these paradigms are so popular amongst men, as whatever happens can always be reframed as, "Well, I'm a man. So, I am always the winner eventually." 

Like, "Oh yeah. Well the 25 year old hottie rejected me now. But wait until she's 30, and she'll regret having missed her chance with me."

Or (in response to his own loneliness), "It's such a shame that there are all these hyper-Masculine lonely cat ladies out there. That's so sad for them. If only they were more Feminine and committed themself to a man, they'd be happier."

Or (in response to his own lack of career success), "Why do women have to be so Masculine now-a-days. Don't they know it's natural that only men are meant to have careers. A woman's sole purpose is reproduction. And it's a shame that these successful career women are ruining their chances to find a good man."

And it does get confusing for young and inexperienced women. 

Like, when I was growing up (when these paradigms were there... but just baked into the culture in more subtle ways), it took me until I was about 14-15 to start developing some discernment about guys. When I was 13-14, I was just glad to be getting interest. 

Then, my awareness grew as I got into my early 20s. 

But I also think that, in modern day, young women are usually aware of these paradigms from the jump... as the paradigms are popular among men with all the Andrew Tate stuff. 

So, many young women now-a-days are actively scanning for these kind of things.

For example, last year, my daughter had some friends over for her 14th birthday. And one of the 14-year old girls at the party was already saying things that indicated a weariness about the boys her age being disrespectful towards girls/women.

And there's also more of a lefty political identification for young women, and it would even be taboo in that group to date a guy who gives off those kinds of red flags. So, there will be peer pressure to avoid dating a guy who's dabbling in those paradigms. 

So, I do think that there will be enough discernment to weed it out for many young women.

But the unfortunate thing is that so many young men adopt these paradigms to avoid the powerless feelings that can come up when dating. And these paradigms seem to offer a solution where he's always going to be the one in power, simply because he is male. 

And these guys will ends up giving off the signals that young women are scanning for to determine who not to interact with and date.

So, I do see them decreasing young men's opportunities for dating in the long term.

[LordFall]

25 minutes ago, AION said:

I have an iPhone 17 pro. Is that camera good enough? I might try it out again 

Yes. I shot pics on an iphone 14 pro when I didn't have my DSLR. If you don't have an Instagram I would start one today, it's easier than ever to grow on it with the reel algorithm.

There's a lot that can be said about it but this video covers the basics of the strategy

What you post on your IG and how you brand yourself is basically a Venn diagram of your current life, interest and your desired outcome. Of course it's drastically different if you focus on business vs dating but it's the same strategy just with a tweaked content strategy. If you're purely doing it for dating you can run your own meta ads as your dating funnel to act as a Tinder boost but now available to the whole world and not just in the closed system of Tinder.

The power of Instagram is that it scales exponentially whereas most of game is linear. Each girl that you meet in person, you add her on Instagram. I still have girls watching my stories that I met years ago. I had a girl recently hit me up when she came to Montreal that I knew from Calgary. If you're not using IG for your dating life it's like trying to sail the sea in a canoe like what the fuck are you doing?

When I used Tinder a lot I would not even text them on Tinder I would say Heyy what's your IG I'll message you on there then send a voice memo on Instagram and ask when they're free and get a date setup in basically 3 messages. 

When you do it like this you'll realize that running around the street trying to cold approach women is very low level and you'll unlock a whole new level of abundance. I've had girls come up to me saying they recognize me from watching my content on Instagram. I obviously don't have musician level fame yet but it feels cool to play the same game. I will keep refining this strategy over the next few years since it works so well I see no other logical conclusion other than to double down on it. 

Edited 38 minutes ago by LordFall

[AION]

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Yeah, there's a ton of paradigms that are like this. And all of the paradigm are set up in a way where the man always wins and the woman always loses no matter what she does.

And that's specifically why these paradigms are so popular amongst men, as whatever happens can always be reframed as, "Well, I'm a man. So, I am always the winner eventually." 

Like, "Oh yeah. Well the 25 year old hottie rejected me now. But wait until she's 30, and she'll regret having missed her chance with me."

Or (in response to his own loneliness), "It's such a shame that there are all these hyper-Masculine lonely cat ladies out there. That's so sad for them. If only they were more Feminine and committed themself to a man, they'd be happier."

Or (in response to his own lack of career success), "Why do women have to be so Masculine now-a-days. Don't they know it's natural that only men are meant to have careers. A woman's sole purpose is reproduction. And it's a shame that these successful career women are ruining their chances to find a good man."

And it does get confusing for young and inexperienced women. 

Like, when I was growing up (when these paradigms were there... but just baked into the culture in more subtle ways), it took me until I was about 14-15 to start developing some discernment about guys. When I was 13-14, I was just glad to be getting interest. 

Then, my awareness grew as I got into my early 20s. 

But I also think that, in modern day, young women are usually aware of these paradigms from the jump... as the paradigms are popular among men with all the Andrew Tate stuff. 

So, many young women now-a-days are actively scanning for these kind of things.

For example, last year, my daughter had some friends over for her 14th birthday. And one of the 14-year old girls at the party was already saying things that indicated a weariness about the boys her age being disrespectful towards girls/women.

And there's also more of a lefty political identification for young women, and it would even be taboo in that group to date a guy who gives off those kinds of red flags. So, there will be peer pressure to avoid dating a guy who's dabbling in those paradigms. 

So, I do think that there will be enough discernment to weed it out for many young women.

But the unfortunate thing is that so many young men adopt these paradigms to avoid the powerless feelings that can come up when dating. And these paradigms seem to offer a solution where he's always going to be the one in power, simply because he is male. 

And these guys will ends up giving off the signals that young women are scanning for to determine who not to interact with and date.

So, I do see them decreasing young men's opportunities for dating in the long term.

If you are attractive Guy you can get away with everything regardless of being blue or red pill. But if you are unattractive you can have the blue pill butt plug up your ass and girls will still not give you the light of day. That is because attraction is amoral. So Andrew Tate guys will keep getting laid. It is just the nerds that larp that won’t get any. But they weren’t getting anything regardless. 

Edited 33 minutes ago by AION

[AION]

9 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Yes. I shot pics on an iphone 14 pro when I didn't have my DSLR. If you don't have an Instagram I would start one today, it's easier than ever to grow on it with the reel algorithm.

There's a lot that can be said about it but this video covers the basics of the strategy

What you post on your IG and how you brand yourself is basically a Venn diagram of your current life, interest and your desired outcome. Of course it's drastically different if you focus on business vs dating but it's the same strategy just with a tweaked content strategy. If you're purely doing it for dating you can run your own meta ads as your dating funnel to act as a Tinder boost but now available to the whole world and not just in the closed system of Tinder.

The power of Instagram is that it scales exponentially whereas most of game is linear. Each girl that you meet in person, you add her on Instagram. I still have girls watching my stories that I met years ago. When I used Tinder a lot I would not even text them on Tinder I would say Heyy what's your IG I'll message you on there then send a voice memo on Instagram and ask when they're free and get a date setup in basically 3 messages. 

When you do it like this you'll realize that running around the street trying to cold approach women is very low level and you'll unlock a whole new level of abundance. I've had girls come up to me saying they recognize me from watching my content on Instagram. I obviously don't have musician level fame yet but it feels cool to play the same game. I will keep refining this strategy over the next few years since it works so well I see no other logical conclusion other than to double down on it. 

I have IG but I’m not that type of guy that puts himself out like that. I prefer being low key because I live in a small time country and I don’t want to be recognized. 

[LordFall]

16 minutes ago, AION said:

I have IG but I’m not that type of guy that puts himself out like that. I prefer being low key because I live in a small time country and I don’t want to be recognized. 

Sometimes moving is important to build a better life. If you're concerned about your safety, that would be my advice. If it's based on insecurity, then obviously becoming a more high status man has increased social pressure but you get rewarded with more pussy and more money so I mean do you want big things in life or do you want to be the average mediocre man?

Just remember the concept of being at the cause and not the effect, that's what defines a real alpha male and high quality man. Now we're going full circle to the concept of going on the hard quest of building yourself up to become an abundant and powerful man or taking the quick and easy shortcuts like lying to women to get laid.

To me the right answer is obvious but others keep surprising me with the shortcuts filled lives they choose to have. In my experience taking the easy way out works short term but inevitably catches up to you medium and long term. 

Edited 15 minutes ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

True, because what men find attractive and what women find attractive are different so this might work in "worse looking" women's favor. Because women typically find personality, status, presence, energy more attractive than looks. Men highly value looks. This makes sense evolution-wise. 

Yes. That's my point. A lot of the things that are relevant in men's dating strategies don't apply to women. 

So, 2s and 3s (and probably even 1s) will have plenty of options to strike a good match, even though they're unattractive. 

And most romantic partners are at about the same level of attractiveness. 

That's why attraction isn't women's bottleneck.

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Seems like an assumption here that quality guys can't meet a woman on the street. Why do they have to be limited to her social circle? I agree most will probably be junk mail but i don't think it's fair to say public approach = low quality guy. That limits her a lot, plenty of beautiful couples meet at a subway, cafe, bar, park, gym, whatever. Plenty of toxic horrible relationships come from people in the social circle, work environment, same yoga school, whatever. But I can understand the sentiment that it helps to act as a filter in general. Also, if a guy is approaching in public it's not likely his first time ever doing so, meaning he does it a lot. 

I'm saying that approaches on the street come with added risks. Plus, the guy is most likely doing pick-up, and his paradigm may be a liability.

So, I do treat street-approaches all purely as spam attention, even if there are a few earnest ones in there. It's just unnecessary risk, when you have plenty of other more familiar options.

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Fair enough, I understand what you are saying. 

I will say that learning "pick-up" or let's just say learning "attraction/dating skills" is essential for most men and will not automatically stunt their growth. That only happens if they become unethical and lost in that world. But for many it's an essential part of stepping into masculinity and being ready for a life partner. So many men commit too young and end up regretting it because they never went out there and tasted different flavors of ice cream. 

Similar to how you said women are not low on options/ attractiveness,-men have 0 if they don't take action and learn how to be attractive. And make no mistake women can be absolutely brutal with their filtering, labeling a guy as "ick", etc.

My issue is the type of paradigm locks that guys who engage with that kind of content end up in.

These pick-up paradigm locks tend to transform men into poor options as long-term partners for women. And it can end up stunting their level of maturity, as they can optimize themselves for greater approach conversions... and not towards becoming a great person.

But I get that it may increase his casual sex results in the short term. And that may feel like an improvement. That's the tricky part.

It's similar to how a woman might experience more male attention by coming across as cheaper in certain ways. And a woman who develops herself only in relation to what maximizes male attention and validation, is going to stunt her own growth. And she may not be very attractive for a discerning man or as a longterm partner.

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Lastly, I think the discernment is important, but can go too far. Similar to a guy going too far with his pick-up and becoming Peter Pan, a woman going too far with her red flags and list of requirements can become what I'll call a "Deluded Goddess" this is a woman who has placed such a high ideal on her potential partner that no man let alone human can fulfill, leaving no room for human imperfection, that she just ends up alone.

I can think of countless women who do this, and guess what, they are all alone and single and have been for years. Cute women too. 

Example- today i was talking to my female friend at a cafe and asked her what her requirements are for a partner, she went off about an ideal man who can hold "pure perfect presence, guard her from any penetrative looks in public with a simple glance, hold her through all her chaos and emotion no matter what, etc" I then said "have you ever found a man like this?" and she said "No, never. We're talking about the DIVINE MASCULINE here"

Yeah...Good luck with that one

I call this "checkbox mentality". And it's something that men and women with an avoidant attachment style tend to do when looking for partners, to avoid actually settling on one.

They come up with a list so long and so specific. And they logically assess their prospects based off of the checkboxes on the list, and they toss them out if they don't fit the checkboxes.

But this is just a common strategy for avoidants. It's not actually developing the skill of sorting well.

In my experience as a woman, when I'm attracted to a man... it's almost like a specific man is a combination of flavors (I sense these emotionally). And some of those flavors are pleasant (like sweetness) and others of those flavors are disgusting (like bitterness, sourness, saltiness, and spiciness). 

And when I'm interacting with a man, I'm sensing his unique "flavor profile"... which is always a combo of both pleasant and disgusting flavors.

And as my palate has grown more refined and my selection standards have gotten more honed in, I've learned to differentiate whether the disgust signals add or detract from the quality of the "dish".

So, sometimes there are clearer dealbreakers that don't require a very sophisticated palate. (Like, if the guy has a history of violence, just sort him)

But in other ways, it's just taking in the "flavor profile" of people (even for friendships) on a holistic level, and asking "Does this flavor enhance my life or detract from it?" And for romantic relationships specifically... "Could I live contently with this person for a long time?" and "If I had kids with this person, would I regret that they were my children's father?"

So, sorting well with high standards and high refinement isn't about a wishlist of ideal qualities. It's about refining your palate to understand holistically and intuitively who belongs in your life and who does not.

Edited 11 minutes ago by Emerald

[Ulax]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And as my palate has grown more refined and my selection standards have gotten more honed in, I've learned to differentiate whether the disgust signals add or detract from the quality of the "dish".

😂