Challenging Leo on women

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I find what you're saying very fascinating because it's power dynamics 101. I think your advice is probably correct for most women. 

I don't know if this is fully accurate but it's worth exploring deeper. I think what you're describing is close to putting women on a pedestal and submitting to the divine feminine ideal. I think this can work sometimes for men but it can also spectacularly backfire. 

This is actually quite high level in terms of dating dynamics because I don't think any science that mankind has done so far can conclusively answer this one way or another. The best I can say is that self-awareness and knowing what your wants and needs is very mandatory for a peak dating life. If I was paid to do dating coaching for women I don't think I would deviate from the advice you've given in terms of female POV. In terms of consulting for men though I don't think that being in the chasing dynamic is optimal. You are also correct though that if you are the one being chased it can lead to being indifferent or jaded. So it's a tough nut to crack. 

It also boils down to what this falling in love means and often times from the male POV it does mean submitting to the woman and being at her mercy so to speak. I will say that I do truly believe this is a weak form of love and there is a more powerful one that can be achieved that benefits both the man and the woman but I will need to test that for myself and report back in a few years instead of speculating.

Me and @Inliytened1 were just talking about this in the other thread though. It truly is a fascinating discussion and I think its good to deconstruct love and relationships as much as we can.  

I'm not describing pedestalizing women or submitting to her in some way. That's also not good.

It's more like, during the dating phase, a dynamic where a man is taking the initiative to add to her life and is showing that he values her and is serious about pursuing a relationship with her.

But he's not worshipping her... or disrespecting himself to do it, and he has self-respect and boundaries also. 

He's just consistently showing her that he's invested and doing the legwork to bring the relationship to a deeper and more committed level.

And men tend to develop deeper feelings when they are investing in the woman.

So, if he's serious about the woman, he's setting most of the dates, and he's the one spear-heading the direction of the relationship.

And if he's not being proactive like that... it's purely because he doesn't want to. And no amount of wooing, chasing, and cajoling will get him to want to.

 

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Ulax said:

Codependent fixing gets reframed into saving women from the bad guys.

Are you saying there's a dynamic with reframing a woman's issues with codependency as something that's the fault of "bad guys"?

Well, there's definitely dynamics that need to be worked on for both parties.

For a codependent woman, it's important to grow some self-esteem and get better at sorting so that she doesn't end up in unsatisfying dynamics with the "bad guys". And it's also important to understand the difference between how women and men operate when they're wanting a serious relationship.

She also needs to learn how to be honest with herself about WHAT she wants instead of settling for whatever because of WHO she wants.

And she has to avoid the idea that a support for women's sexual autonomy means the same as 'being able to have sex without getting invested the way men can.'

So, there's a lot of learning and un-learning the woman must do to avoid these situations. And it's fully within her power and responsibility to do so.

And no amount of telling guys they shouldn't is going to prevent a woman from experiencing this, if she doesn't learn to sort these kinds of guys from consideration.

But it's definitely important for men to not kid themselves if the woman they're regularly sleeping with is clearly lying to herself about being okay with being FWB. He also must take responsibility and cut things off if he senses that kind of power imbalance in the dynamic.

So, while I'm definitely not saying "The power and responsibility all sit with the men who kid themselves and take advantage." They still have the responsibility to do right by the woman and not to delude themselves into taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that are built into women's sexuality and pair bonding drives... which may run counter to the stories that women tell themselves about how they should or shouldn't feel.

[Joshe]

53 minutes ago, Ulax said:

Codependent fixing gets reframed into saving women from the bad guys.

Saying a guy is responsible for what he knowingly does to someone isn't a hero complex. It's just pointing out the obvious. 

If anyone thinks the guy in my story was justified in continuing to use this girl for sex for 2 years, all the while knowing what she wanted, and all the while knowing he was never going to give it to her, you've got some work to do. 

Or I guess because she didn't have her shit together, that makes her fair game and him the adult.

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Are you saying there's a dynamic with reframing a woman's issues with codependency as something that's the fault of "bad guys"?

No

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

They still have the responsibility to do right by the woman and not to delude themselves into taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that are built into women's sexuality and pair bonding drives... which may run counter to the stories that women tell themselves about how they should or shouldn't feel.

Disagree with that

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

If anyone thinks the guy in my story was justified in continuing to use this girl for sex for 2 years, all the while knowing what she wanted, and all the while knowing he was never going to give it to her, you've got some work to do. 

Or I guess because she didn't have her shit together, that makes her fair game and him the adult.

I still think you guys are weirdly thinking about casual sex. What makes you think being fully single is the only way to work on yourself? Why can't she see a guy even if it's not gonna be her forever partner? 

The fact that their FWB lasted for 2 years if anything tells us that there was a lot of alignment there even if they weren't compatible as long term romantic partners. Monogamy is not the only valid relationship format that works for humans. It's a very puritan view of the world. 

Edited 13 hours ago by LordFall

[BlessedLion]

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

I now see what you are saying here and that makes sense. Never thought of it like that but it makes sense.

 

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

This i have to disagree with, because for a man to get results here he has to genuinely develop himself in a certain way. It's not the same for women, if a woman wants sexual / validation results all she needs to do is dress skimpy and act easy. That's why i see the development of sexual and attraction skills as a great mirror for men to develop themselves. And it can be done with integrity and ethics. Also, like i said, if they never learn these skills they are basically fucked- no one is coming knocking on a guys door begging for a date, he has to learn how to build attraction and have options or else he will become desperate. 

 

The main argument i would hold here again is the fundamental difference between male and female sexuality. As you stated earlier, women don't have problems with attraction and options, if it has legs-there's a guy who will fuck it. For men , it's not the same at all. Tons of men have absolutely no options and if they suck at confidence, flirtation, physical escalation, eye contact and generally being comfortable in their sexuality the will "ick out" 99% of the women they talk to- even if they've developed a great character. The sexual and attraction skills in themselves are their own thing that men need to develop. Also, i have a feeling that most women, when they sleep with a man, are actually usually interested in something deeper whether they will admit it or not. A man is okay having sex with a woman he could never see as a wife, i think for women it's not the same. 

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

Sure , that's a cool and level headed way to go about it. I like that you include room for some "Saltiness" (human imperfection) and weigh it with their good qualities. That's healthy. 

[BlessedLion]

5 hours ago, LordFall said:

The fact that their FWB lasted for 2 years if anything tells us that there was a lot of alignment there even if they weren't compatible as long term romantic partners. Monogamy is not the only valid relationship format that works for humans. It's a very puritan view of the world. 

I gotta agree here, I don't think we should castrate ourselves or guilt ourselves for having casual sex with women. It doesn't need to be "I'm either with my wife or i'm celibate" , nothing wrong with having lovers. To me, the disgusting fucked up thing is leading on and tricking a girl to open her heart, then abusing that vulnerablitiy to extract sex. And when you are honest about where you are at, it will in some cases lead to less sex, as a man that's just the pill you gotta swallow for being in integrity and not tricking women 

[BlessedLion]

On 9/4/2026 at 1:29 PM, Emerald said:

It would be like if male birds were looking at female birds like, "Female birds aren't as colorful as us... and they don't do the mating dance as well as we do. It must negatively impact their ability to find a male bird that's willing to mate with them. So, they really need to step up their game and prove to us male birds that they can dance, otherwise they're going to be mate-less."

 

Good analogy, and i'm really starting to see your point on women not needing to worry so much about attraction. Yet another part of me is not so sold yet, if we look around, women are obsessed with being attractive! Is that just for themselves? Is it for other women (I've heard that theory) 

I can't help but think if a Woman walks into a bar with a slim black dress exposing the side of her legs and hips (fertility cues), long wavy hair with extensions (again, health & fertility cues), and her breasts in a push up bra (you guessed it, fertility and youth cue) that this isn't for anything other than attracting men. So there has to be some serious import and value to that or else people wouldn't do it. A part of me still has the feeling that the most attractive women get the higher quality options. If we're looking at things like resources, a young beautiful will woman will have plenty of charming, confident, wealthy, men pursuing her, will some of those guys be tricksters and putting on a front? Absolutely! But she can hone her discernment (like you said) and chose a solid one. A 2 or 3.... I don't see getting many courting options from wealthy, social intelligent, powerful men. 

Now, some women don't care about money, power, wealth, status, which is great, because personally i think a lot of that shit is superficial except for a man having personal power and strength, social skills/status and financial stability, but that's not the majority.

 

Also, notice how in your analogy the male birds are still fucked if they don't learn how to sing and dance and be colorful. So learning to attract (which takes practice and is a skill developed over time) ie "ATTRACTION SKILLS" is essential for them. Hate on pick-up as much as you'd like, but without some form of learning dating skills, men will be colorless birds squaking awkward songs and fumbling around trying to dance and absolutely no female birs will want them. Human attraction is a mating dance exactly like bird calling is.

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by BlessedLion

[Asayake]

5 hours ago, LordFall said:

I still think you guys are weirdly thinking about casual sex. What makes you think being fully single is the only way to work on yourself? Why can't she see a guy even if it's not gonna be her forever partner? 

The fact that their FWB lasted for 2 years if anything tells us that there was a lot of alignment there even if they weren't compatible as long term romantic partners. Monogamy is not the only valid relationship format that works for humans. It's a very puritan view of the world. 

Where did anyone say that being single is the only way you can work on yourself? That’s not what the discussion is about. You on the contrary in a previous post said “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 parrner” as if one night stands and FWB is the only way to 1, getting to know yourself 2, learning what you like in a partner? In such a short relationship as a couple months FWB or a couple one night stands you barely have time to get to know yourself, its an arrangement where the relationship is used as a means for sex, not growth. Growth is better done alone or in a long term serious relationship.

That a relationship lasted 2 years means nothing in terms of alignment you cant just look at a data point and assume that because it serves your argument. There are literal abusive trauma bonded relationships that last a lifetime.

Also, you made a post talkikg about that you nutted in some girls mouth before she went to graphical design class, and that she broke up with you and got a serious relationship instead. You described that as “both people were emriched by the experience” and that you probably helped her find her boyfriend. I’d be interested in hearing the girls point of view, because you basically intepreted her reality in the most favorable way possible in regards to yourself. The truth is you don’t know that was an enriching experience for her, that’s her experience not yours and you just evaluated it to make yourself look better, yet you accuse me of “so you believe you know what’s best for other grown adults better than they do? That is fascinating psychology.” Thats hypocrisy.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@BlessedLion interesting points regarding sexual signalling and dress. 

When I'm looking for a long-term partner, I want to maximise the quality of information I get about a man's interest, not just maximise the amount of male attention I receive. And while dressing in a standard provocative manner risks attracting a man who might overly value me for my appearance, it isn't a guarantee he doesn't also value other aspects. This is where courtship becomes a second phase of filtering for me.

I think presentation can be used as an initial screening strategy without treating it as a definitive character test. This is also why I am not totally averse to being cold approached. The interaction after is just another level of filter. 

[LordFall]

@BlessedLion Exactly. It's not because some men lack the integrity to have casual sex responsibly that it's a negative concept entirely. A lot of business people are unethical, it doesn't mean we should sleep in the forest to protest against the evils of the real estate industry. Especially because we're hopefully not just doing social commentary here, there are life strategies to adopt. I've been greatly enriched by the women I've had both long term and short term relationships with.

Also women benefit greatly from being attractive and appealing to the male gaze. If you take a starting point of both genders just being blank canvases then one of the best possible imaginable survival and competitive strategies would be somehow turning yourself into an object of desire for half of the population so that they are inspired to work on your behalf.

Being a bottle girl in a nightclub is an entry level position that requires no experience and pays $5,000-15,000 a month in big cities. I've never heard of a bottle boy. There is such a thing as a busboy though, it's the dude that comes to wipe your table after you've finished enjoying your bottle. They get paid minimum wage and like 5% of the girls tips at the end of the shift. 

@Asayake That is what the discussion was about. People are saying that you should be single or currently in a relationship working towards marriage and if you're engaging in casual relationships you're either getting exploited or the one doing the exploitation. That seems like a reductive view to me. 

When two consenting adults date casually, enjoy each other's time, part ways respectfully on good terms, and move forward into relationships they genuinely want then to me that is an arrangement running a healthy, natural course. Reflecting on a shared past with positivity is normal emotional maturity; nobody is trapped, nobody was coerced, and nobody was infantilized.

Sometimes people push on others insecurities and trauma to get what they want but to assume that this is the undermining of all casual relationships shows a massive bias and unintegrated relationship to sexuality IMO. 

4 hours ago, Asayake said:

Also, you made a post talkikg about that you nutted in some girls mouth before she went to graphical design class, and that she broke up with you and got a serious relationship instead. You described that as “both people were emriched by the experience” and that you probably helped her find her boyfriend. I’d be interested in hearing the girls point of view, because you basically intepreted her reality in the most favorable way possible in regards to yourself. The truth is you don’t know that was an enriching experience for her, that’s her experience not yours and you just evaluated it to make yourself look better, yet you accuse me of “so you believe you know what’s best for other grown adults better than they do? That is fascinating psychology.” Thats hypocrisy.

We had a great time while FWBs, watched movies, cuddled, fucked in all kinds of crazy places, went out to festivals in the summer, she hung out with my friend group and had a good time and we kept in touch for months talking here and there while she was in her relationship.

Your weird assumptions reek of resentment my friend. Have you ever had a girlfriend or FWBs before? When I was more inexperienced in my youth I was also bitter about people having an active sex life. In life there are two main options though, getting bitter or getting better. If you'd like to work on your dating and sex life feel free to elaborate on your issues and we can work on it. I used to be a dating photographer, this niche of life is my specialty. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Good analogy, and i'm really starting to see your point on women not needing to worry so much about attraction. Yet another part of me is not so sold yet, if we look around, women are obsessed with being attractive! Is that just for themselves? Is it for other women (I've heard that theory) 

I can't help but think if a Woman walks into a bar with a slim black dress exposing the side of her legs and hips (fertility cues), long wavy hair with extensions (again, health & fertility cues), and her breasts in a push up bra (you guessed it, fertility and youth cue) that this isn't for anything other than attracting men. So there has to be some serious import and value to that or else people wouldn't do it. A part of me still has the feeling that the most attractive women get the higher quality options. If we're looking at things like resources, a young beautiful will woman will have plenty of charming, confident, wealthy, men pursuing her, will some of those guys be tricksters and putting on a front? Absolutely! But she can hone her discernment (like you said) and chose a solid one. A 2 or 3.... I don't see getting many courting options from wealthy, social intelligent, powerful men. 

Now, some women don't care about money, power, wealth, status, which is great, because personally i think a lot of that shit is superficial except for a man having personal power and strength, social skills/status and financial stability, but that's not the majority.

Also, notice how in your analogy the male birds are still fucked if they don't learn how to sing and dance and be colorful. So learning to attract (which takes practice and is a skill developed over time) ie "ATTRACTION SKILLS" is essential for them. Hate on pick-up as much as you'd like, but without some form of learning dating skills, men will be colorless birds squaking awkward songs and fumbling around trying to dance and absolutely no female birs will want them. Human attraction is a mating dance exactly like bird calling is.

When I was younger (like 13-14), I was really anxious about looking attractive... as I didn't know that it's not the right strategy for finding a good mate yet.

My perception when I was that age (which was heavily influenced by the culture and media... as society is obsessed with female beauty) was that, if I wasn't 100 lbs and looking perfectly that I wouldn't find a guy who was really interested in me beyond the bare-bones of the kind of attention that I was getting.

And there had always been worries in varying degrees that, "If I don't look ideal, what if I'm not lovable." That is, until I figured out that men like women't looks... but they don't fall in love with them.

So, a lot of women (especially women who have self-esteem issues and a minimal understanding about men's romantic/sexual motivations) will put all her effort into trying to impress men with her looks. But she sets herself for failure because there's always a more beautiful woman... and women who attract a partner based on their looks are fungible and easily replaceable with a younger or more attractive model.

Like I said, if you live by the sword... you die by the sword. 

And if you're a very beautiful woman, and 99% of the attention you get is just guys wanting to have a hot girl attached to them... that's a liability. And that very beautiful woman is going to have to sort ruthlessly to find a great guy who's really into her specifically. 

Like, all women are having to find needles in haystacks to get a good partner. And the more beautiful the woman is, the bigger the haystack is that she has to sort through. 

But as far as looks giving access to higher quality options... that depends on how quality is defined.

If a woman defines quality as the guy is good-looking or wealthy or high status or other superficial qualities.... Looks will be more likely to turn those guys' heads. But a lot of those guys will tend to treat women as fungible objects or as an extension of his own identity. (So, those are often low-quality options, as they're unsatisfying for what actually make a woman feel good in a relationship)

But if a woman defines quality based on how deep the connection is, how good the chemistry is, how compatible he is, his level of investment, and how much she admires him as a whole person... that doesn't require anything of her looks-wise. (And usually, women will like guys who are quite similar to their own level of physical appearance.) And this is what actually feels satisfying in a relationship.

Bear in mind, the goal is to find ONE really great and compatible male partner who has an equal (or slightly greater) desire to make a life together. 

And specifically maximizing for looks will give women access to opportunities to be ogled and to be seen as arm candy for "high status" guys. But it doesn't confer any relationship benefit... beyond getting a more physically attractive partner, which is just a "nice to have".

That said, I still like to look pretty. But that's more of an identity thing, as I want to look powerful. And beauty is power in many facets of life. 

But beauty has ZERO power to assist women in finding a great relationship. It can even be a liability if the beautiful women isn't sharp as a tack with her ability to sort wheat from chaff.

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, Ulax said:

Disagree with that

And this is exactly why I stress that women's main task is to get better at sorting. 

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

This i have to disagree with, because for a man to get results here he has to genuinely develop himself in a certain way. It's not the same for women, if a woman wants sexual / validation results all she needs to do is dress skimpy and act easy.

---

The main argument i would hold here again is the fundamental difference between male and female sexuality. As you stated earlier, women don't have problems with attraction and options, if it has legs-there's a guy who will fuck it. 

First off, women can get a lot of sexual validation by dressing skimpy. But none of that confers any benefit to the woman's goals, as that is low-quality male attention.

The guy who "will fuck anything" will confer negative value to the woman's life.

So, women have the same amount of quality options as men do. It's just that women aren't as obvious when they're interested.

A quote that I heard is, "Men's challenge is finding water in the desert. Women's challenge is finding drinkable water in a swamp." So, the level of scarcity for men and women is the same. 

Secondly... what were men doing before pick-up became so mainstream?

I'm old enough to answer that. They were just frequently socializing with women... and they'd get a girlfriend that way. 

Or they'd go out to a club/bar/party and dance up on a girl... and sometimes they'd make out or hook up.

They didn't need to learn all these weird paradigms... and a bunch of strategies. They were just being social. And the outcome of socializing is that women will sometimes be interested in you. 

Of course, you have to be moderately socially clued in. But you didn't need to be a social genius. 

[LordFall]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Like, all women are having to find needles in haystacks to get a good partner. And the more beautiful the woman is, the bigger the haystack is that she has to sort through. 

But as far as looks giving access to higher quality options... that depends on how quality is defined.

If a woman defines quality as the guy is good-looking or wealthy or high status or other superficial qualities.... Looks will be more likely to turn those guys' heads. But a lot of those guys will tend to treat women as fungible objects or as an extension of his own identity. (So, those are often low-quality options, as they're unsatisfying for what actually make a woman feel good in a relationship)

But if a woman defines quality based on how deep the connection is, how good the chemistry is, how compatible he is, his level of investment, and how much she admires him as a whole person... that doesn't require anything of her looks-wise. (And usually, women will like guys who are quite similar to their own level of physical appearance.) And this is what actually feels satisfying in a relationship.

Bear in mind, the goal is to find ONE really great and compatible male partner who has an equal (or slightly greater) desire to make a life together. 

And specifically maximizing for looks will give women access to opportunities to be ogled and to be seen as arm candy for "high status" guys. But it doesn't confer any relationship benefit... beyond getting a more physically attractive partner, which is just a "nice to have".

I think you're right that self-awareness and knowing what you want is important. Offering value and getting value are core parts of relationships and getting a hot partner that doesn't offer much else is pretty useless.

As anti-aging becomes more and more viable though beauty becomes more valuable as well since it starts to not fade over time. Depends how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go but I think there are good chances humans are able to become biologically immortal in the next 20-30 years and that will rewrite a lot of the rules of relationships as we know them.

Compatibility over time will become even more important as a lot of marriages are currently built around childrearing and not really getting along as people. If we can live for 500 years+ that concept will become vital though. As well as being able to attract mates for casual sex. Incels are still fucked in this timeline (not literally for them unfortunately) and will be stuck with AI girlfriends even in a post scarcity society. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, LordFall said:

I think you're right that self-awareness and knowing what you want is important. Offering value and getting value are core parts of relationships and getting a hot partner that doesn't offer much else is pretty useless.

As anti-aging becomes more and more viable though beauty becomes more valuable as well since it starts to not fade over time. Depends how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go but I think there are good chances humans are able to become biologically immortal in the next 20-30 years and that will rewrite a lot of the rules of relationships as we know it.

Compatibility over time will become even more important as a lot of marriages are currently built around childrearing and not really getting along as people. If we can live for 500 years+ that concept will become vital though. As well as being able to attract mates for casual sex. Incels are still fucked in this timeline(not literally for them unfortunately) and will be stuck with AI girlfriends even in a post scarcity timeline 

I sincerely doubt that people will stop aging or will become immortal through technology. But it would be a nightmare if that did happen. 

Life is meant to have seasons... and an end-point. And too many people try to hold onto eternal springtime... and it corrupts the spirit. 

But I will say... there's no such thing as a true Incel. 

The term Incel is borne from victim's mentality and the sense that, "I'm just not capable" as a means of avoiding fixing the real bottlenecks to their dating/relationship success.

I've known some really yucky guys (personality-wise and looks-wise and socially) who were hooking up and getting women. 

And it's important not to buy the Incel thing, as it just enables those guys to stay in victim's mentality and keep blaming the world for their own responsibilities. 

[LordFall]

I mean I disagree completely, romanticizing aging is just a necessity of being stuck in bodies that break down over time. It's not because technology helps us bypass this process that growth will stop being possible. It seems also conclusive that this trend is happening so we can have this conversation again in 200 years and see if it led to the stagnation of mankind or the unimaginably beautiful renaissance that I believe will take place

I agree on the core of inceldom being based on a victim mindset though. There is usually a bitterness and resentment associated to it that makes the celibacy even harder to break since people don't tend to like dating bitter people.

Plenty of female incels as well that are miserable people to be around. 

It goes full circle to the transactional nature of dating. Being a pleasant person is a huge value giver. 

Edited 47 minutes ago by LordFall

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

And this is exactly why I stress that women's main task is to get better at sorting. 

Glad you see me as the prize