Challenging Leo on women

[BlessedLion]

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

That's the mistake that I would agree with. Thinking the guy is only interested in sex. But as Natasha mentioned too , the nuance is the sexual attraction as a bridge then you can discern if he has better qualities or is interested in you as a person or you have chemistry or whatever. 

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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. 

Sure i would agree, if a couple forms solely on the basis of some kind of exchange (like Orion Tarabhn would advocate) of Resoucres/Status for Beauty , then she will easily leave him for the next higher status guy and he will divorce her for the younger model, which there will always be, if they don't grow and connect on any other qualities. And obvious as this may seem, many people do use this strategy and yes, it's unwise, because it's almost like an unconscious non-transparent negotiation that has happened "you be my trophy wife arm candy, i'll put you in Benz"

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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. 

Yes, I'd agree, on the basis that she doesn't have dsicernment skills

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

If a woman defines quality as the guy is good-looking or wealthy or high status or other superficial qualities

Is it superficial though? I think we should be careful about labelling this as superficial. It's like labelling mens attraction to youth, curves, and beauty superficial. I believe we have deep evolutionary wiring for being attracted to these things and if we are honest with ourselves we care deeply about it. If a guy is anxious, not respected by anyone and basically a wimp, then the context for attraction is gone just like how an 90 year old grandma doesn't have a context for attraction. No matter how comitted a guy like that is (or how horny for casual sex a Grandma is) no woman (or man) will want it. 

 

Now I'm not saying every woman is secretly a gold digger, but status and wealth usually equate to character. Think about it. Even if she doesn't care about a rich guy, like a girl in Bali or another Stage Green environment, even a hippie commune living off-grid. The higher desired males will be the ones with emotional stability, intelligence, social skills, leadership qualities, strength, resiliance, passion, spine, etc - it just so happens in the modern world that equates to wealth so i almost feel like actual money is just an indicator of a mans competence because usually rich men (espeically self-made) don't just get there without having seriously powerful qualities like that. But equating money to strong internal characteristics is problematic in a tons of ways that i don't agree with.

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

We will just have to agree to disagree here then. I don't disagree with you about the discernment skills needing to be sharp as a tack for women, if i've gotten anything from this exchange it's the importance of that for women, so thanks for that. But I refuse to admit that attraction and beauty has 0 use for women, even in finding their ideal husband. My logic is more beauty = more potential mates = more high quality filtering = more likelihood to land the best option for her specifically. 

 

Kinda like house shopping i'd rather have 1,000 houses to sort from to find my dream home than 52. 

Edited 4 hours ago by BlessedLion

[BlessedLion]

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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

A lot of this comes down to high status traits, it's not just some random thing, and his level of investment will likely correlate to her beauty and how attracted he is to her. If a woman was a fan of say, Led Zeppelin, and went on a date with Robert Plant she would likely delude herself to think they had incredible chemistry, he was totally invested (or at least could be in the future if she slept with him enough times), and of course she admires him, and that they have a super deep connection and speak each others langauge. Why? Because he is high status based on her values. Unless he totally bombed the date, there is little he could do to mess that up. 

 

Similar to how a guy will do the same shit if he is a 50 year old divorcee and goes on a date with a 20 year old OF model. He will walk away feeling like they are soul mates. 

 

This happens all the time. 

[BlessedLion]

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

as that is low-quality male attention.

Why is attention from being attractive automatically "low quality men" 

I almost feel like you are swinging the pendellum too far, maybe because you used to think "Men only want me for my beauty, that is my only form of value in a relationship" (which i agree is incorrect) to this now "beauty means nothing and has no value and is even a liability"

I think Natasha's pov is more level-headed tbh

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

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. 

I agree, pre-pick up time was much more innocent and "human" we could say. But i'd argue on some level the dynamcis were still at play. It's like how people use grammar without consciously knowing all the rules of grammar. These same dynamics of beatuy, status, were very much in play, even being goofy at a club and dancing up on a girl. The difference now is these dynamics have been studied and hyper analyzed by some pretty clever minds and men and women are exploiting them for personal gain. That is the red-pill in it's more tactical forms. Orion Tarabahn is the poster child for that shit.

 

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

"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.

Yes but some men have a smaller desert and some women have a larger swamp. A larger swamp is likely to have more clean water in it.  

[BlessedLion]

Last thing about the needles and haystacks- it's not like a woman with a smaller haystack somehow has a better ratio of high quality to spam options. She still has to sort out the hay and find the needle. Also, the size of the hay stack should correlate to amount of needles.

 

For example;

young model has 1,000 courters, of those 25 are potentiall solid husbands (2.5%)

90 yo grandma has 100 courters of those 2.5 (round up to 3) are potential solid husbands (2.5%) 

 

It's not like grandma has 100 courters and 25 of them are legit husbands. Or are you saying that they are? 

 

It's not like the guys going for uglier women are somehow more committed and not playing games, they just aren't having success with beautiful women. If it were up to them, they would be on dates with more beautiful women. it's not like out of the goodness of the heart and great character they are talking to 2s and 3s

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BlessedLion