Gen Z Women Prefer Gay Men Over Straight Men

[LordFall]

@Emerald Appreciate your grounding and perspective on how arguments actually function versus performative noise.

@Natasha Tori Maru The practical distinction here is context. I’m not proposing a universal metaphysical truth that works for anyone under any circumstances; I’m outlining the mechanics of building leverage in your life and in your dating life in this context. 

@Joshe I think this says more about your psychology than mine. I don't generally tend to put people down for their desired lifestyles, I just call out the logical inconsistencies in the arguments they're making.

If someone says "Kyle what I really want is to spend the next 20 years in the forest and date no one. I've had relationships before and I've built a career and business and now i'm satisfied and want to explore a new stage of my life in the forest. If I change my mind I have other options I can take, I'm in no danger and I'm excited about my new quest!" I would simply say that's so interesting, have fun and report back on how it went.

If someone says "Building a high quality dating life is impossible, society is stacked against you so I will be single and alone for the next 20 years!" Then I will break down their points because it that example their thoughts seem based more on limiting beliefs and lack of strategy as opposed to the truth of our civilization.

I tend to value impact and scale because that's how you start living in a life in a way that gives you real agency in the world as opposed to being stuck in the already established system. If someone is afraid of that mindset then I will push back on it but I don't recall ever ridiculing someone for having modest ambitions.

I do think the average person on this forum is stage green and falls into obvious pitfalls of that stage being that they reject the competence and materialistic aspect of stage orange. They also have the easy cognitive bias of defaulting to lazy stereotypes which makes it easy for me to deconstruct their points. I consider myself pretty solidly stage yellow and understand the world both from their perspective and my own but also bake into my arguments the systems that regulate our society and I don't fall prey to using my feelings first in arguments which would leave me inherently biased. 

@yetineti My reluctance to go deeper into your points was due to your bad faith nature entering the post. I don't think there is much value in engaging antagonistic people as it will turn to mud slinging which I enjoy if theres a gentlemanly duel nature to it but when it becomes purely about evasion and and ego battles then I lose interest. Since you have taken accountability already we can move past that and engage in a more good-faith discussion. To take accountability as well, I did grey rock method you in the previous 'where have you had sex thread' so I do understand you feeling some resentment towards me in entering this one. 

I addressed your points generally and broke down my thoughts on how my dating strategy deals with the general ideals that you've presented. When you made a list of 10+ of them I addressed the one that was most flagrant to me. I generalized your points as being based in victim mindset and identifying with mediocrity because they weren't very precise and tended to take a moral grandstanding approach. Mediocrity just means being average and identifying with average concerns. I try to bake in that I will work extra hard to overcome the limitations of the average man so I can build an extraordinary life for myself. 

"• Freedom: Travel without financial independence becomes slavery and “blue balling” yourself rather than an experience worth having on its own terms"

I don't know what you want me to say, if you enjoy it then have fun. I have travelled enough to experience the world on a shallow level and to really dig deeper I think I will have to host events in other countries and get involved directly in joint ventures with people there or just do it in a luxury travel style to enjoy the best of what it has to offer.

"• Equality: You describe status as “winner takes all,” with the top man getting nearly everything while everyone else becomes irrelevant or fights for scraps."

That's not really my point. I described building a community and helping people problem solve their issues in life and posting it on social media so you scale. Thankfully the average person seems quite lazy or too wrapped up with their psyche to be able to do that so they end up irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as a result. That's what I mean by my "insults" are definitions.

If you are only relevant to the people close to you(Dunbar's number of 150 connections in a base tribe comes to mind) then you are irrelevant to other humans in the world. If you are hosting events or post content across your country and the world as a whole then you gain more relevancy. You can be relevant in a good way as in you help solve problems for humans globally or you can be infamous like I'm sure there are celebrities you dislike that you've never met. 

There are just the ones that jump out to me but if you want to make a more cohesive point against what I say then feel free. Streams of thoughts are hard to engage with as they require so much energy to address. Make it more like a thesis format and start with a sentence summarizing your strongest point. 

@Inliytened1 This is gonna sound harsh but I do mean it well, have you ever tried doing therapy? It seems that you go on these bizarre attack sprees that I can only imagine stem from your need to affirm status online or unloading negative emotions from events in your daily life. 

I have done therapy and it's helped me integrate my psyche and recognize when I was being passive-aggressive or blew up at people in an irrational way.

I think it will also help you understand why I believe in polyamory so strongly. I have addressed most of my shadows and my reactive emotional tendencies so I can generally engage with people in a more grounded approach without my subconscious flipping out or acting in counterproductive ways.

It doesn't make my model cold or unemotional, on the contrary it lets me build very deeply emotional relationships built on a secure attachment style that benefit all parties without being stuck in an anxious or avoidant pattern. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

Thesis: When specific criticism is answered by explaining what is psychologically or developmentally wrong with the person making it, the framework becomes self-sealing.

I’m criticizing specific things you’ve said, not telling you to change as a person, go to therapy, or live differently. In your last response, you did exactly that:

To Joshe: “This says more about your psychology than mine.”

To me: my objections came from “bad faith,” “victim mindset,” “identifying with mediocrity,” and “moral grandstanding.”

To Inliytened: you suggested therapy, status-seeking, and “unloading negative emotions.”

That is the pattern I’ve been pointing to. The criticism gets redirected into an explanation of what is supposedly defective about the critic.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

Supporting claim: Your own forest example reveals the deeper problem with the framework.

You grant the person who wants to live in the forest full agency because they have already built a career, relationships, and other options. But when someone says they want to remain single because dating feels impossible, you immediately interpret that choice as limiting beliefs, lack of strategy, or a failure to understand reality.

That assumes your preferred outcome is the test of whether someone is acting freely. If they choose a life you respect, it is an authentic preference. If they reject your model, it becomes pathology.

I’m not defending hopelessness or saying strategy is irrelevant. I’m saying that rejecting your strategy is not automatically evidence that someone is mediocre, afraid, or confused.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

Final claim: A framework that recognizes excellence only when it resembles your goals cannot accurately measure value. It can only reproduce your preferences.

Plenty of people are highly strategic and have optimized their lives for different variables: privacy, intimacy, stability, autonomy, peace, integrity, craft, or family. Their competence may be less publicly visible, but it is not necessarily lesser.

If every differently optimized life looks like mediocrity, fear, or insufficient ambition from inside your model, you will never discover what those people understand or possess. The model filters their value out before you can see it.

That is the cost I’ve been pointing to.

 

[yetineti]

And to make this less abstract, strategy is not only about maximizing reach, money, status, or options.

A parent may strategically sacrifice scale to create a stable home. A craftsperson may choose mastery over visibility. Someone may build a small number of unusually deep relationships instead of a massive network. Someone else may quietly maintain systems that hundreds of people rely on without ever becoming publicly recognizable.

Personally, I’m strategic in ways that may not register on your scoreboard. I look for patterns, anticipate trade-offs, and care deeply about truth, autonomy, trust, and long-term coherence. Sometimes strategy means deliberately refusing an obvious reward because it costs something you value more.

That does not make my life better than yours, and I don’t think your goals are empty. I think you are competent at optimizing for what you value. I’m asking you to recognize that other people can be equally deliberate and competent without optimizing for the same life.

The point is not to lower the bar. It is to widen the scoreboard.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

Thank you; this is much higher-quality discourse and far easier to engage with if we're having a substantive debate rather than casual chit-chat.

26 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall

Thesis: When specific criticism is answered by explaining what is psychologically or developmentally wrong with the person making it, the framework becomes self-sealing.

I don't operate like that as a baseline. I respond to issues people seem to raise. If someone is perfectly satisfied with their life then I don't have much to talk to them about, they should live their life and enjoy it. 

This thread is a perfect example. As an INTP I like to go deeper to the root of things. At first glance someone might just think that @Monster Energy made a random and funny joke about women liking gay guys. To me I default to taking into account his other posts and the psychology of men in general towards a sour grapes relationship to women they can't get.

It can sometimes be a bad assumption but then the poster can rectify it and the conversation goes on. I assumed that Monster was genuinely wondering why women are more comfortable around gay men so I answered from that angle and I also answered the shadow subconscious angle that gay men are not threatening and some straight men just want pussy without offering much in return as well as struggling with boundaries so it makes sense that in some cases women enjoy having gay BFFs instead of straight male friends.

16 minutes ago, yetineti said:

And to make this less abstract, strategy is not only about maximizing reach, money, status, or options.

A parent may strategically sacrifice scale to create a stable home. A craftsperson may choose mastery over visibility. Someone may build a small number of unusually deep relationships instead of a massive network. Someone else may quietly maintain systems that hundreds of people rely on without ever becoming publicly recognizable.

Personally, I’m strategic in ways that may not register on your scoreboard. I look for patterns, anticipate trade-offs, and care deeply about truth, autonomy, trust, and long-term coherence. Sometimes strategy means deliberately refusing an obvious reward because it costs something you value more.

That does not make my life better than yours, and I don’t think your goals are empty. I think you are competent at optimizing for what you value. I’m asking you to recognize that other people can be equally deliberate and competent without optimizing for the same life.

The point is not to lower the bar. It is to widen the scoreboard.

Sure, I think that's a noble goal and a great way to phrase it. Although I think you will agree that Stage Green/spiritual people tend to want to remove the scoreboard entirely and I think that leads to throwing out the baby with the bathwater and makes society worse as a result. 

Quantification has a lot of merit. You talked about measuring value. 

20 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Final claim: A framework that recognizes excellence only when it resembles your goals cannot accurately measure value. It can only reproduce your preferences.

Plenty of people are highly strategic and have optimized their lives for different variables: privacy, intimacy, stability, autonomy, peace, integrity, craft, or family. Their competence may be less publicly visible, but it is not necessarily lesser.

If every differently optimized life looks like mediocrity, fear, or insufficient ambition from inside your model, you will never discover what those people understand or possess. The model filters their value out before you can see it.

That is the cost I’ve been pointing to.

 

This is the cost of optimizing for a path that doesn't account for universal value i.e. money, status, contribution. The first two are obvious to attack although they have a lot of merit and I can stand up for them if that's of interest to someone but notice that contribution also bakes in having power and scale in your efforts, otherwise you're not contributing much.

I'm not the judge of humanity my guy, I'm just a man that's lived and tried various different business and dating strategies in his 20s. They haven't all produced what I've wanted but I've gained a massive shit ton of reference experience in different domains and I think probably more than 99% of men my age.

I don't claim to know everything but you accused me of trying to project expertise across different domains in which I lack expertise which is funny because I specifically try to not do that. My points are quite nuanced though so you have to be careful reading them or people fall into stereotyping my arguments and turning passive-aggressive, which only makes debunking them more satisfying.

For example in this AI and crypto thread I specifically noted that although my prediction on the price of Bitcoin was proven correct, my overall financial strategy has changed and I don't think that my accurate prediction on that single price action can be repeated so I offered a superior framework. 

To get back to specifics, generally on this section of this forum we discuss dating in different ways. Some people like to make it cultural commentary or venting and I personally enjoy talking more about dating strategy. I think I'm pretty unmatched in that area so I tend to speak with a lot of confidence since I've both taken coaching from what I think are some of the best dating coaches in the world, worked with some of them, was part of a dating company myself, started my own dating photography freelance studio and helped men from THEIR perspective get results in their own dating life. Not my goals but my strategies put to work with their own goals and so far my track record of doing that is pretty good. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

Let me restate the disagreement plainly, because your reply keeps answering a different one.

I am not disputing that money, status, competence, scale, and dating strategy can be valuable. I am questioning whether they are universal measures of contribution and relevance, and whether people who optimize for privacy, intimacy, stability, family, or peace should therefore be interpreted as mediocre, fearful, victim-minded, or Stage Green.

You keep defending the usefulness of your scoreboard. I am questioning your treating it as the scoreboard.

When you say people with limited reach are irrelevant to humanity, you are making the universal value judgment you say you are not making. And when you assume criticism comes from sour grapes, bad faith, or psychological deficiency before fully engaging it, you are repeating the same pattern we have been discussing.

Your strategy may be excellent for your goals. That does not make other goals pathology. The point is not to remove the scoreboard. It is to stop pretending there is only one.

[LordFall]

I've already addressed your point but you seem to not like the answer.

These concepts are universal scoreboards because they are culminations of other concepts. 

If someone optimizes their life for privacy, stability and peace and then demands global recognition for their life that's a bit silly. I hope that they enjoy their life but they are indeed irrelevant to the rest of us by definition.

The reason I keep coming back to stage green is it tends to build a worldview to isolate itself emotionally from the world. "It's not that I'm incompetent, it's that the world doesn't value the type of competence that I bring!" That is true in some contexts but more often than not it's more that the person refuses to put time and effort towards building competence in the fields that actually solve problems for others.

I have read the communist manifesto and attended to a handful of communist gatherings. A lot of the people there are college aged, smart and well educated in economic theory. What is the value they provide to the world? 0

I've been out drinking with a group of communists since as an intellectual I enjoy their depth of knowledge but they have massive mental blocks and cognitive bias. Their conversations inevitably come to we need to build influence in the world, fuck my boss is being so annoying what a bourgeois dickhead and ends up in talking about the general revolution and one day we will over throw the system! When I asked them have you ever tried to start a business? They said "of course not I'm not corrupt!" Then I said imagine needs help working out and they have extra money to pay you to be their personal trainer or someone needs you to mow their lawn and they're happy you did it and compensated you for it; where is the exploitation? 

This is what I call the victim mindset: living as the effect rather than the cause in the world. It’s fine to point out flaws in the system, but when you refuse to build practical solutions, you invalidate your own critique. That is when someone slides into mediocrity, resentment, and bad-faith trolling—carrying a chip on their shoulder simply to rationalize their own lack of real-world agency.

Another example is the MGTOW community that was popular last decade, men not getting the success they want with women so they created a whole movement about MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY that revolved more about complaining about women having too high standards. The community is now banned but on the red pill subreddit we used to clown these guys because they tried to gain status from weakness instead of building competence. That doesn't really hold against the pressures of society and nature itself. 

There is a big sentence in dating commentary that isn't fully accurate but illustrates the point on men and sour grapes when it comes to dating: women wait at the finish line and fuck the winners. It's not always true but a lot of men default to shaming women and controlling their sexual behaviours instead of just focusing on the obvious goal of figuring out what arenas of life are worth winning in and becoming a winner yourself. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

We’ve reached a disagreement, but you keep answering it by defending the usefulness of money, status, scale, and contribution, giving examples of people who rationalize failure, and citing your dating experience. None of that addresses whether those are the only forms of value.

You’re collapsing every kind of value into externally legible, scalable impact.

Money, status, and reach are forms of value, but they are not value itself. Privacy, intimacy, loyalty, stability, care, truth, beauty, craftsmanship, and peace are not failed versions of scale. They are different goods.

When you call people irrelevant because their contribution does not reach humanity at large, you are not stating an objective fact. You are revealing the limits of your metric.

You are not measuring universal value. You are universalizing your preferences. Then criticism of that metric gets recoded as victimhood, resentment, or incompetence, which makes the framework self-sealing.

That is the point you keep missing.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

No, you clearly have a mental block and are refusing to internalize the point. I said already that what other people value is their right as a free willed being. 

Value is mainly an economic term and is quantifiable. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)

Your mom values you (hopefully) whether or not you offer any value to the world. The marketplace rewards you with money if you solve problems for customers. The dating market rewards you with hookups and quality partners wanting to be in your life if you are a valuable human being to be around. 

You also have not made a clear point as to what you value that the marketplace doesn't recognize nor made a convincing argument as to why others should also value that thing. We call this marketing. You might very well be right but right now you are arguing based on vague generalizations that I can only suppose come from your own feelings of being invalidated by the marketplace. As I've suggested, I think it'll be a worthwhile experience for you to drop the ego and simply just become skilled in a field that others generally value. 

What are you good at and what do you enjoy doing? I create communities and host creative events because it combines my own introverted tendencies and systemizing abilities with the real needs of the performance arts community. Creating cool events is mostly an introverted endeavor, you have to sit down and figure out what groups of people enjoy and the logistics around planning an event around it. Me figuring that out required me spending many years as a regular pickup artist just trying to brute force cold approach, then getting involved in the nightlife industry and then combining my own unique strengths with the needs of the marketplace to create a unique product that people value. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

There you go. You just did it again. I challenged your definition of value, and instead of defending it, you diagnosed me with a “mental block,” invented a story about the marketplace invalidating me, told me to drop my ego, asked what I’m good at, and finished with your résumé. None of that establishes your claim.

Forget me for a moment. Is there anything in your life you consider worth protecting even if nobody pays for it, praises it, envies it, follows it, or sleeps with you for it? A relationship, a private truth, a promise, a memory, a piece of yourself that belongs to you rather than an audience? I’m genuinely asking, because whenever another kind of value is raised, you either translate it into market outcomes or demote it to mere personal preference.

Your mother example exposes the problem perfectly. You say a mother can value her child even if he offers no “value to the world.” But why does the marketplace get to represent the world while the mother and child somehow do not? The world contains both of them. You simply assumed that privately expressed human value does not count as value to the world, which is the exact conclusion you were supposed to defend.

So do you actually have anything like that? If you do, explain why its value disappears the moment the market cannot measure it. If you don’t, then you haven’t discovered a universal theory of value. You have outsourced your judgment of what matters to other people’s measurable reactions.

And asking what I’m good at still has no bearing on whether your definition is true. It is the same status maneuver again: place the critic beneath your metric, then use his supposed position within that metric to discredit the criticism. You still aren’t answering my point. You’re demonstrating it.

 

Edited 53 minutes ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

I’m actually done. You have shown an inability to engage in conversation without attacking people.

Edited 55 minutes ago by yetineti