Challenging Leo on women

[Lucasxp64]

On 04/09/2026 at 2:29 AM, Emerald said:

It's important that a woman's beauty is for herself as something she pour into herself... and not as a bargaining chip/mating dance to prove herself worthy of male attraction. 

There is no such thing as a human improving their sexual fitness just for their own sake, nature makes us puppets, by its invisible hands in the name of "self-care".

But also I do believe you got a good point, this idea of being locked blind into self-beautification, or should we say "self-sexual-fitness" improvement, for males and females alike. It makes us into obsessive pleasers to others.: Big car, Big biceps, Big fake tits, Big dick, Big ass, etc. Bigger and bigger!

Nature doesn't tell us: "Go sweat under heavy iron, eat protein, and buy decent clothes so you can perpetuate the genetic line of Homo sapiens."
Instead, Nature whispers to our ego: "Do it for you, king! Look at those biceps! It’s self-care! You deserve to feel good!"

Maybe men and women were born for intense self-attraction for self-attraction for its own sake? Maybe many people want an attractive mate, they don't want them for themselves, but for their own sense of self-attraction.

But It's an androgynous loop. The risk with that, it's that it can turn into a highly narcissistic womb. Like, I often think the mirrors in the gyms are not so much to perfect the form, but to perfect the ego.

---------

On female beautification:

Men are the only male creatures on earth who have massive aesthetic standards for long-term commitment.

But, men are tricked by fake big breasts and fit asses which gives mid women ability to attract a more attractive male even if genetically her face is average.

Some women are so facially attractive and have specific phenotypes, that at least for men like me, there is no pair of breasts and ass that for committed long-term relationship would make me cheat with them.

But also due to my phenotype tastes, some women no matter how much they might beautify themselves, they couldn't possibly compete with the genetics of such phenotypes I seek.

Edited Sunday at 01:59 PM by Lucasxp64

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Lucasxp64 said:

Theory for most things makes us go crazy, there are too many unknown variables, too many assumptions, it leads to this combinatorial explosion of variables in our head. Also, we don't even have enough working memory to keep all of those variables all at once. The real world tosses it at us for free, we don't need to simulate in our heads.

We can simulate at best a few variables at a time, but not all of it. 

Kind of like that. Attraction is alot of learn by experience. Watch Leo's series about how to get laid and go! Just go out and practice! There are many more things that improve your game not just that kind of theory. Power dynamics is huge. Masculinity vs femininity, gigantic.

[Schizophonia]

On 12/09/2026 at 3:10 AM, BlessedLion said:

Losing our connection to normal, daily socialization has really been the downfall of people. Especially the ones growing up without socializing, i can't imagine how unhealthy that is for one's mind. 

 

Interesting post, but what do you mean by this?

Dictature of the truth of what you really crave to do when you are with someone. 

I will do a topic to talk about that more in details. 

Edited Monday at 11:32 AM by Schizophonia

[LordFall]

On 9/11/2026 at 9:10 PM, BlessedLion said:

Losing our connection to normal, daily socialization has really been the downfall of people. Especially the ones growing up without socializing, i can't imagine how unhealthy that is for one's mind. 

I don't think it's that simple. Life works with incentives, if people got a lot of benefit from socialization they would pursue it more. Especially when you look at it from a collective consciousness perspective and being already whole as a singular being then the trope that mere socializing is particularly healthy and society is losing touch with it falls apart.

A lot of socializing is coping to avoid either achieving your goals or being satisfied by yourself. I'm a big fan of intentional socializing where you hangout with aligned people to collaborate or enjoy curated events but socializing just for the sake of it is massively overrated imo. 

AI is a big step in the right direction here too where one of the big usefulness of hanging out with people is their ability to give you feedback which LLMs can now provide in a much superior fashion if you prompt them well. It increases the quality of engagements since you can use it to vent, get feedback on your ideas or stuff that happened in your life and when you're with others be much more intentional and present in your relationships. 

Edited Monday at 11:25 AM by LordFall

[something_else]

9 minutes ago, LordFall said:

A lot of socializing is coping to avoid either achieving your goals or being satisfied by yourself. I'm a big fan of intentional socializing where you hangout with aligned people to collaborate or enjoy curated events but socializing just for the sake of it is massively overrated imo. 

Not everything in life has to be about achievement. Many of the best memories I have are from when I was just vibing with friends with no particular goal. 

There's a reason people typically don't develop particularly deep friendships with work colleagues despite spending 40 hours per week with them. You rarely get a chance to just have fun and be fully authentic in a professional / goal-oriented environment.

10 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Life works with incentives, if people got a lot of benefit from socialization they would pursue it more

I disagree with the premise here. People would benefit from many things they could do but don't do. Eating healthy, gym, meditation, reading etc. The incentive for these activities is far in the future, requires work, and is relatively abstract. This means it doesn't really activate your brain's reward system very well. The same is true for socialising, if you aren't naturally sociable.

It's very easy to sit at home alone, scroll on social media, and watch videos. If you do that long enough your social skills atrophy and then you end up in a situation where you can't pursue a fun social life because the barrier to entry becomes so high. Even if you have an abstract sense of "this would be good for me" as an incentive, it actually isn't very motivating and doesn't really drive most people towards action.

 

[Schizophonia]

On 10/09/2026 at 10:31 AM, Alexop said:

I stopped theorising about attraction. Waste of time

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 

[LordFall]

@something_else Yeah I think it depends on the phase of life you're in. When I was in my teens and early 20s then shooting the shit with the boys was one of the funnest things I could do. Now I have way more fun working on stuff that has an actual outcome and the time we spend just chit chatting or having a beer to destress after the week I still appreciate but its not as meaningful to me. 

Some of my best memories in life involve others but in an achievement type of setting. One of my best friends helped me make my first few montages and we created my first Youtube channel together after I hit Challenger in League of Legends. We had other great times just smoking weed and fucking around but that one stands up above all others. 2nd was probably when he came across the country to live with me for a couple months and we started out first business together. 

1 hour ago, something_else said:

I disagree with the premise here. People would benefit from many things they could do but don't do. Eating healthy, gym, meditation, reading etc. The incentive for these activities is far in the future, requires work, and is relatively abstract. This means it doesn't really activate your brain's reward system very well. The same is true for socialising, if you aren't naturally sociable.

I think you proved my point here, I think a lot of people go to the gym more than they hangout with their friends. Plenty of people workout 5 times a week or daily and hangout with friends once a week or only a few times a month. I meditate almost daily but I only see friends once in a while.

If an activity has really high ROI you would do it daily and perhaps multiple times a day. 

Edited Monday at 01:19 PM by LordFall

[Lucasxp64]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

big usefulness of hanging out with people is their ability to give you feedback

😜 We have had internet forums before LLMs. We are still old school lmao. Unfortunately LLMs are too sterile when we don't know how to prompt them, and for the things that we need them the most, we might get the most sterile answers.

Knowing what to ask in life is half of the answer!

[LordFall]

24 minutes ago, Lucasxp64 said:

😜 We have had internet forums before LLMs. We are still old school lmao. Unfortunately LLMs are too sterile when we don't know how to prompt them, and for the things that we need them the most, we might get the most sterile answers.

Knowing what to ask in life is half of the answer!

Forums are great, I spent half of my life on Reddit lol. 

Try a stream of consciousness, that's one of the best formats I've found for introspection through LLMs. I just vent to it about thoughts or problems I have and it does quite a good job of organizing my thoughts and finding problems for issues or at least pointing out blind spots in my thinking.

[Alexop]

@Schizophonia no offence buddy, but Leo himself said you guys who are dissecting women here have no idea what you are talking about. Not my words. 

When you are neurotically talking about the same subject years in a row, with very little progress, some red lights have to blip in your head.

[Schizophonia]

50 minutes ago, Alexop said:

@Schizophonia no offence buddy,

I don't know why you say that because I agreed with you. It's a Bible quote that I like for certain reasons.

Quote

but Leo himself said you guys who are dissecting women here have no idea what you are talking about. Not my words.

Leo is a normal human being, and he often fails to express himself well when he is no longer talking about non-duality or things of that nature because he is not particularly interested in sociology or other fields that might provide him with talking points.

I don't place absolute trust in any human being no matter how much psychedelics they take; that would be idolatry.

Quote

 

When you are neurotically talking about the same subject years in a row, with very little progress, some red lights have to blip in your head.

Leave people alone you don't know their lives, and in doing so you reveal something about yourself; siince we are essentially talking to ourselves, we ironically implicitly expose who we are every time we speak. If I think people have an anger problem it’s because I am short-tempered, if I think people are lazy I am projecting my own laziness onto them and so on.  But above all we reinforce our own state of being we reinforce the ego.

Right now I’m answering you because I’m projecting something onto you, and you’re projecting something onto me or others I don’t know; it’s the ego’s trap/joke.

Edited Monday at 05:15 PM by Schizophonia

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Leo is a normal human being

Such statements will get you banned. lol 

[Schizophonia]

3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Such statements will get you banned. lol 

🫨

[Lucasxp64]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

Such statements will get you banned. lol 

That's why people call us a cult once in a while on YouTube 😂😂😂

[Lucasxp64]

3 hours ago, Alexop said:

@Schizophonia no offence buddy, but Leo himself said you guys who are dissecting women here have no idea what you are talking about. Not my words. 

When you are neurotically talking about the same subject years in a row, with very little progress, some red lights have to blip in your head.

Makes me remember of this forum poster of early 2000s called "Pook",  there are compilations of his forum posts online.

Quote

The first quote about the **mirror** is from the chapter *"On The Nature Of Sexuality"*:
> "Oddly, I could never define woman. Nothing was there. Was Weineger correct? **The more time progressed, the more it became clear to me that I was trying to define a mirror.** In my mind, it seemed I posted an article on femininity but it ends up being on masculinity instead! **The more I looked into the core of woman, the more I saw the spirit of man.**"

From *"Lesson Three"*:
> "What is that monster?” cried the young man. 
> “Why,” said the Pook, “it is All Women, Mother Nature herself! This nasty sphinx devours all hearts and lives of those who cannot answer her riddle. That man, in the picture, he figured out the riddle to Woman. Thus, he became known as Don Juan.” 
> “And the answer to the riddle?” 
> **“Is that there is no riddle. Woman is a sphinx with no secret. It is only our minds that we assign her secrets, mysteries, pedestals, and goddess-like status.”**

 

Edited Monday at 07:49 PM by Lucasxp64

[BlessedLion]

On 9/13/2026 at 6:55 PM, Alexop said:

@BlessedLion

I think we hold two different concepts in our heads. For me attraction is the initial phase where you lock the woman, not the "glue" that holds the relationship together. 

Attraction happens fast, based on superficial factors. Like the opener (than can be aped), the game (that can be aped), the charisma (that can be more or less learned with time), what to say and more important what not to say (also learnable). You learn all these steps and you lock the woman. That is attraction for me. 

Relationships skills are a whole different beast. This is why all these pickup scumbags fail at maintaining a healthy relationship. 

Attraction is important, but it has to be taught as a part of how to be a real man, not just a bunch of skills, like learning how to swim.

For sure, I'd agree with that. The only thing i'd push back on is for most guys is not that easy to learn attraction skills. There seems to be a ton of practice needed and then once they hit a certain "breaking point" its like they've unlicked attraction and it works for most women (because most women are pretty similar in what they find attractive). 

But yeah, if that's all you obsess about and work on while ignoring essential relationship aspects or just being a peice of shit (like Todd V or other pick up guys) then you will be terrible in relationship. It's not like figuring out attraction somehow unlocks a deep and fulfilling relationship. It is powerful to understand though, lots of women leave relationships or cheat because the guy doesn't understand atttraction

[Emerald]

On 9/12/2026 at 10:09 AM, BlessedLion said:

@Emerald And i definitely don't think being unnattractive serves any women in any way. It's something they just have to make peace with and do the best they can with. Not saying they can't find true and deep love, but the idea that they are somehow advantaged is just wrong. The dating market is a real thing, and it's fucking cut-throat. 

If being average or below average looking was an advantage, then women would strive for that, but they don't, they optimize as best they can to be as beautiful as possible not because they are stupid or narcisistic, but because there are real world advantages to that including finding a partner. 

An ugly woman is just as suseptible to some creep who just wants her for sex as a beautiful one. 

That's definitely not true. Even in nature... blandness and drabness are actually great evolutionary strategies, as they help to avoid predators and ensure that the animal will go on to reproduce. 

For example, in a stream with few predators... the fish with the very attractive bright colors will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

But in a stream with many predators... the blandest fish will be the most likely to survive and reproductive.

And funny enough, the same logic applies with women. 

The more attractive you are as a woman... the more men you will attract. And many of those men will ONLY be interested in predating upon your beauty for their own selfish benefit. And the most attractive women are the most susceptible to predators... just like the very colorful fish are the most susceptible to predators.

And the less attractive you are as a woman... the fewer men you will attract. But a lower percentage of that pool of men will be approaching you from a predatory mindset... as you don't have much beauty or status to be siphoned off of you. And that dodges a bullet.

So, many women actually do dress themselves down... as it can be a repellent for predatory beauty diggers.

So, plainness and unattractiveness actually serve great benefits.

Also, if you look around at the world, probably only 20-30% of women really doll themselves up. Most women tend to feel more comfortable blending in a bit more. You just may not notice them as much... and it may feel like all women doll themselves up because those are the only women you're focused on.

And I've only met one unattractive woman who struggled to attract and meet men. And hers was more of a self-esteem and not putting herself out there issue in combination with her appearance.

But I've known MANY unattractive women. And all of them have had boyfriends and husbands. (I've also met plenty of uggo guys who never struggled to find a partner)

But even beyond human beings, natural selection always sorts for the fittest in the environment... and sometimes the fittest will be the most attractive and other times the fittest will be the one who repels predators the most.

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

That's definitely not true. Even in nature... blandness and drabness are actually great evolutionary strategies, as they help to avoid predators and ensure that the animal will go on to reproduce. 

For example, in a stream with few predators... the fish with the very attractive bright colors will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

But in a stream with many predators... the blandest fish will be the most likely to survive and reproductive.

And funny enough, the same logic applies with women. 

The more attractive you are as a woman... the more men you will attract. And many of those men will ONLY be interested in predating upon your beauty for their own selfish benefit. And the most attractive women are the most susceptible to predators... just like the very colorful fish are the most susceptible to predators.

And the less attractive you are as a woman... the fewer men you will attract. But a lower percentage of that pool of men will be approaching you from a predatory mindset... as you don't have much beauty or status to be siphoned off of you. And that dodges a bullet.

Lol in this last case “predator" means the possibility of reproduction, not the possibility of being killed and prevented from reproducing.
That's the most dishonest reasoning I've ever seen.

Edited 10 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Asayake]

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Lol in this last case “predator" means the possibility of reproduction, not the possibility of being killed and prevented from reproducing.
That's the most dishonest reasoning I've ever seen.

A woman cant get pregnant with multiple guys at once, evolution favors that the child has the best chances of survival, if a woman gets with a predator who makes her pregnant then tags out, historically the child would have poor survival & thriving probability. 
 

Getting reproduction is easy for women, finding a good father isnt.

[LordFall]

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Lol in this last case “predator" means the possibility of reproduction, not the possibility of being killed and prevented from reproducing.
That's the most dishonest reasoning I've ever seen.

In this case the predator is a toxic man or a low value man pretending to not be one. Even for a man, association with low-value men is ruinous as they literally don't offer value to your life and nothing is really neutral so often times they really lech value from you until you're drained to the point of exhaustion or worse.

For a woman it's the same thing except if she makes the error of getting pregnant by such a man, her life will now be disastrously impacted compared to having found a reliable man that she can count on.  

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall