Gen Z Women Prefer Gay Men Over Straight Men

[LordFall]

33 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall

You keep calling me fragile, but your fragility has organized this entire exchange. You have now explicitly conceded that you value things with no quantifiable market value, which was my central point, yet you still returned after I said I was done to diagnose my psyche, question my dating history, and portray me as mentally blocked.

Acknowledging that private sentiment exists does not invalidate market reality; cherishing a memory or loving your family is great for inner peace, but romantic attraction operates on external value exchange. People do not date your internal contemplation, they date your competence, lifestyle, and what you tangibly bring to the table.

27 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I’ve already watched a nearly identical framework get tested in real life. My roommate and best friend of about ten years, also an INTP, held very similar beliefs and insisted I was misunderstanding their consequences. Then I formed a relationship with a woman he wanted, and he ended a decade-long friendship with me because of it.

That establishes two things about this example. First, my outlook on relationships did not prevent me from getting the romantic result you keep insinuating I cannot get. Second, all his intellectualizing about strength and rationality did not eliminate his feelings or fragility. It concealed them until the outcome went against him. That is precisely the kind of cost your scoreboard cannot measure until it destroys something genuinely valuable.

 

Thanks for the vulnerability in sharing that, but interpersonal dynamics are nuanced: maybe your friend had a victim mindset, felt entitled to a woman he couldn't attract, and let his bruised ego end the friendship. Or maybe he felt you snaked him behind his back, compromised basic trust, and decided a man who moves on a girl his best friend wants isn't adding enough value or loyalty to remain in his life.

Relationships are completely voluntary, meaning he didn't owe you continued friendship and you didn't owe him staying away from that girl. You made your move, incurred the trade-off of a ten-year brotherhood, and projecting that unresolved history onto an internet stranger who shares his personality type won't change the outcome.

 

7 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Apply your own value framework to yourself. What value have you actually added to this exchange? You have changed definitions, ignored evidence, invented deficiencies in a stranger, and reduced a disagreement to a status contest. By your own standard of contribution, your value here has been negative. You preach competence, agency, and abundance while behaving defensively, evading correction, and needing the other person beneath you. That is the hypocrisy.

 

The value I brought here is the exact value I offer across all my work: cutting through comfortable intellectual theories and grounding men in the harsh, mechanical realities of human systems and sexual dynamics. I broke down how attraction actually functions in the real world, exposed the cognitive biases of the victim mindset, and held a firm boundary against low-effort posturing until you were forced to formulate structured arguments.

I think intellectualism is great but it must offer results in the real world, otherwise you're wasting your time and perhaps being provably delusional. 

If holding a mirror up to passive-aggressive behavior, calling out bad-faith debate tactics, and refusing to validate self-soothing abstractions feels like "negative value" to you, that is simply the discomfort of having your intellectual shield dismantled. In the marketplace of ideas, real value isn't coddling someone's ego or pretending every subjective cope is equally valid; it's providing the clarity and leverage necessary to produce actual results. You characterizing me as being the antagonistic one is a bit laughable here bro. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall Maybe you have a victim mindset. You’re still just putting other people down to make your points. Now it’s my roommate.

Maybe this maybe that. You don’t know.

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

You just said I achieved the dating result while incurring the cost of a ten-year brotherhood. That is exactly my point.

Whether he was entitled or legitimately felt betrayed changes the moral interpretation, not the existence of the trade-off. Your dating scoreboard recorded a win while missing a profound loss.

You have finally stated the limitation you spent this entire exchange denying.

 

[yetineti]

So, are capable of this exchange or will you just rationalize away and tell everyone how pathetic I may be again?

Because at this point, this is pathetic.

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

8 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall Maybe you have a victim mindset. You’re still just putting other people down to make your points. Now it’s my roommate.

Maybe this maybe that. You don’t know.

What on earth is happening here? Not everything is about putting people down, can we have a baseline of analysis in our conversations without victimizing ourselves please lol

Watch this video; it breaks down the documented Stage Green tendency to interpret objective systemic analysis as personal victimization.

I don't think I have a victim mindset, I tend to acknowledge my shortcomings and work to fix them. I have thought about your points in our conversations and I find some of them worth thinking about but I don't find many of them to hold much credibility. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

Whats your point? You’re just deflecting to spiral dynamics again.

 

[yetineti]

And it is not me ‘victimizing myself’ to point out how you’ve deliberately deflected and insulted people’s lifestyles and made countless assumptions about them.

I don’t have to be a victim to recognize bullying.

Dismissing every objection as victimization is how you protect your model from having to account for its tradeoffs.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

@LordFallSo we’ve established that I get laid, I’m not shutting down, and you haven’t hurt my feelings. Have I finally cleared enough of your invented deficiencies for you to engage with the actual argument? You’ve been given countless opportunities.

[yetineti]

Maybe I should start giving dating advice here. All I need to do is turn my sex life into a universal theory and appoint myself its leading authority.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[LordFall]

Calling light debate friction "bullying" while unraveling into "I get laid" is the clearest sign of an unstable frame. Real-world results matter, but having your single romantic case study be a zero-sum collision in your living room that burned a ten-year friendship isn't proof of abundance—it's an admission of zero social circle architecture. Maybe there’s more nuance to that story—feel free to share if there is—but since that’s the specific example you chose to highlight as proof of your results, that's what we have to evaluate.

16 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Maybe I should start giving dating advice here. All I need to do is turn my sex life into a universal theory and appoint myself its leading authority.

 

Honestly, I think that would do more harm than good.

When a man lacks the operational systems to generate clean options externally, he is forced into opportunistic, high-collateral moves that destroy his own inner circle just to get laid; teaching other men to operate from that level of scarcity is destructive.

Competence means building systems that create real-world leverage without cannibalizing your personal life in the process. Your story is common, a lot of men take low ROI opportunities to get laid and end up blowing up their life as a result. It's a lesson on thinking with both heads at the same time to create true harmony in your life. 

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@LordFall

By what consistent standard are calling me cowardly, barely capable of coherent adult conversation, a troll, mentally blocked, fragile, potentially delusional, and “unstable” merely “light debate friction,” while my calling that pattern bullying becomes evidence of an “unstable frame”?

[Willy Phallicus]

Probably because Lordfall made some unapologetic commentary involving personal goals and the road to them while highlighting some aspects of western culture and people aint having it.

Edited 2 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[yetineti]

22 minutes ago, LordFall said:

…having your single romantic case study be a zero-sum collision in your living room that burned a ten-year friendship isn't proof of abundance—it's an admission of zero social circle architecture.
 

@LordFall

You’re not merely getting the sequence wrong; you’re changing the frame.

I offered the story as evidence that romantic success and relational cost can coexist, and that a supposedly rational framework can conceal emotional reactions. You recast it as a case study in my scarcity and deficient social architecture.

But the actual facts do not establish that I lacked options, acted opportunistically, or “sacrificed” the friendship. He stopped speaking to me when she became interested, I waited three months for the friendship to recover, and only then pursued the relationship.

You are replacing the event with a story that makes me deficient, then treating that invented story as evidence for your framework. That is the self-sealing move I’ve been describing.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 hours ago, LordFall said:

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. 

Got it.

But that's got nothing to do what what I raised.

Can you see that you are making character judgements of users when they don't agree with you? There are many possibilities as to why they may not agree. It could simply be communication styles and not the substance of the arguement. Communication style can have little to do with intelligence or competence. The tendancy is to think "this person has somehing wrong, I can see it, so I'll tell them" - but that is fraught with inference. We aren't mind readers (regardless of how much I might fancy myself one!).

It doesn't help your case to immediately jump to some defect in the other person when they don't grasp, understand or agree with your point. 

Explanation is not understanding.

I note you mentioned coming from competitive gaming. I do as well. That environment is toxic and trolly as fuck. It took me a good few years to rid myself of how bad my own rhetoric was as a result of 10 years in that world. Some of that poor rhetoric, condescension, put downs and defence might originate from there. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Willy Phallicus]

In Lordfalls defense people went out of their way to make sure Lordfall knew they strongly disagreed with him.

And he wasn't saying anything even remotely controversial.  That doesn't mean someone wont try and make it a controversy anyway but when that happens you dont owe anyone any apologies.  He did nothing wrong.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[yetineti]

4 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

In Lordfalls defense people went out of their way to make sure Lordfall knew they strongly disagreed with him.

And he wasn't saying anything even remotely controversial.  That doesn't mean someone wont try and make it a controversy anyway but when that happens you dont anyone any apologies.  He did nothing wrong.

Nobody has asked for an apology. We’re having an intellectual discussion, to the best of our abilities thank you. This is the exact discourse LordFall says he likes. I don’t think he needs anybody to defend him vaguely, unless you’d like to contribute to the conversation directly.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

@LordFall

I respect you, man. I like your Legend of the Abyss project and what you’re doing. I think you’re smart, and I’m sure you’ve gotten real results. I’ve never disputed that, or that other people get results from your advice.

When I first mentioned your potency, I wasn’t saying you’re secretly weak. I meant that you’re genuinely good at building, persuading, creating opportunities, and getting results. But that strength can become a blind spot. You can start mistaking resistance for deficiency and trying to run over people you haven’t taken the time to understand.

When you tell me I have no dating life, no social circle, no communication skills, or that I made some desperate low-ROI move, none of that lands as analysis. It’s a story based on things you don’t know.

That’s also why I initially didn’t want to engage. It wasn’t passive-aggressiveness or cowardice. I recognized the pattern: I would have to spend the conversation proving basic facts about myself, while you would interpret my reluctance to do that as further evidence against me.

I’m an attractive guy. I’ve won awards in school for communication, I play multiple instruments, and I literally communicate for a living through maintenance, troubleshooting, and dealing with people. I’ve had large friend groups and social circles. I don’t need to explain any of that to you to qualify for a conversation, and I’m not listing it to validate myself.

I’m sure many people get results from your advice, and I’m sure you’ve gotten results yourself. You may be better than me at certain things. But how do you think someone who actually comes to you for advice feels when that same force is directed at them? They may get useful advice, but they may also be getting run over by someone who is too confident in his own interpretation.

That’s the trade-off I’ve been talking about. 

Can we please just acknowledge that without turning it into another verdict about me?

 

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[Willy Phallicus]

16 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Nobody has asked for an apology.

I meant the guy is entitled to his opinion and therefore doesn't owe anyone anything, not even an explanation, if that's how he wants to play it.  There's nothing in that opinion that's needs defending or debating.  If you're debating him on his personal opinion you want something from that person - maybe not an apology but perhaps some kind of acknowledgement that you're irrelevant disagreement has been duly noted.

25 minutes ago, yetineti said:

We’re having an intellectual discussion

According to you anyway - it comes off as personal and not objective or dispassionate at all.  He likes apples, everyone else likes oranges.  That's as deep as this gets.  There's pros and cons to everything, we don't need to get bogged down in specifics, we can just agree on that.

31 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I don’t think he needs anybody to defend him vaguely

He doesn't need a dozen people on his back either but here we are.

37 minutes ago, yetineti said:

unless you’d like to contribute to the conversation directly.

Umm..okay.  Good afternoon folks friendly PSA this thread is a textbook example of what happens when you get called on your passive aggressiveness and can't own up to it.

[LordFall]

Sure, I appreciate the compliment on my project. You're a smart guy and tough to argue with lol 

I do think this is good discourse, if we have only pleasant chit chat at the end of the day how are we supposed to have impactful conversations that provoke real change?  

I do think it's important to qualify our track record and put some real weight to what we say. Dating is a bit more nuanced of a niche but if we're to have a conversation on business, career or even health and nutrition then it would become more obvious why the source of the information matters just as much as the quality of the argument. 

My country Canada is in a trade war against the most powerful country in the world at the moment, I assure you the Canadian administration has not given me a call to ask for my opinion on their tariff policy. 

They messed up though, the fools! I'm waiting for that call any day... You see my point right, that was my insight on relevance. I'm not very relevant in that conflict and that's fine. Over the next decade I will put time to work on my poltical connections and network and perhaps the next prime minister 10 years from now will genuinely give me a call to ask for my take on stuff. For now, we chat about it in the politics section but if someone that was more experienced than me in those fields said so to qualify their post it would change how I approach the conversation with them and how much I weigh their opinions vs looking at the multiple PHD award winners in the comment section of the average IG reel or reddit post for example. 

Questioning someone on their credibility and asking them to put context behind what they're saying is not inherently an insult nor should even be taken as a direct confrontation. I can do it in that way if the tone of conversation is already aggressive, I don't mind the heat but the intent is not to be belligerent; it's to have high quality discourse on a self-development forum. 

44 minutes ago, yetineti said:

I’m sure many people get results from your advice, and I’m sure you’ve gotten results yourself. You may be better than me at certain things. But how do you think someone who actually comes to you for advice feels when that same force is directed at them? They may get useful advice, but they may also be getting run over by someone who is too confident in his own interpretation.

That's a fair point, I'm not running an ad here though. I'm genuinely having an honest discussion. If someone pays me for coaching then I take more time to understand their perspective before I make a protocol for them as that's the proper format for it that type of engagement. 

@Natasha Tori Maru You do have a point that I can be more uncouth than I should probably be and I do own that. I will just say I think if we are trying to have serious discussions instead of circle jerks then we need to be precise with what we're trying to do and be willing to open up about our issues and track record if we want accountability or even accurate discussing without the status posturing that anonymous discussions turn into.

@Willy Phallicus Thanks for taking the time to understand my perspective man. I think you made some good points. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[yetineti]

@Willy Phallicus

I don’t understand the point of your post. It seems like you just wanted some action so you jumped in a debate and did the cheap ‘one side is completely correct,’ game.

He doesn’t have to respond. Nobody said they’re judging him or that he did something ‘wrong.’

If you don’t like the details, stay out of it. Don’t manufacture conflict.