is Redpill holding me back

[Leo Gura]

Grab the hoe, it's time to sow!

[Basman]

Red pill is just like an ideology of why you think you are impotent as a male and why it's largely women's fault. It's an ideology of victim mindset. It makes sense that it's going to make you a bitter mad person.

[Emerald]

14 hours ago, StaraX said:

@Leo Gura In terms of dating, and especially in the attraction phase, what problems do they have exactly? Of course, in the relationship phase, they have a shitload of problems. Statistics don't lie about that.

Of course, there are plenty of horrors of having a ton of guys attracted to you. So, that's a problem in the opposite direction... where women getting easy attraction from masses of men is the bad thing for the woman.

But the problems with attraction itself is that women tend to be interested in A specific man... not just men in general.

The reality is that having lots of men attracted to you as a woman doesn't confer that much mating value. The only valuable form that male attraction comes in is from a specific man that your heart and gut has selected.

And if that specific man isn't attracted to you as a woman (or worse... is attracted to you and likes having your around and sleeping with you, but isn't in love with you), it's all for naught. And there's a grieving process about it.

So, a man rejecting a woman based on not being attracted (or interested in something deeper) is a lot more emotionally intense for women because you lose the chance with that specific man forever. And you'll never feel exactly the same way again about anyone else because people and relationships are unique.

That specific unique path of love that you selected is lost forever. And in general, women are usually only interested in specific unique paths of love.

Then as a woman, if the man you're interested isn't attracted to you (or isn't interested in taking the relationship deeper), it may take you anywhere from months to years to find another specific man that you feel strongly enough about to pursue something with. So, you have to wait while you grieve it.

But the reason you're thinking that women don't have any issues with attraction is that you're projecting the mechanics of male mating strategy onto female mating strategy... and you're feeling like women have some kind of unfair advantage because you believe that winning the dating game means maximizing the number of people who are attracted to you.

But that's just the way to win the dating game... as a man.

For women, winning the dating game is about selecting the right man for you who you feel in your heart and gut is a good fit to be your husband and father of your children (if you're interested in having kids).

So, having a buttload of random guys attracted to your figure doesn't directly help you win the game.

Also for a man, outside of ego bruising, it's actually emotionally easy to be rejected by a woman who's not attracted to you at the phase where pursuing a woman becomes worthwhile to a man (which is upon first sight).

And that's because men (at the outset) are interested in women as a general group and in a very shallow way that isn't emotional at all. 

At that point it's just "She's pretty. I'm going to talk to her."

So, if one woman rejects... just move onto the next. And other than ego stuff and shame stuff, there is no grief that that specific woman doesn't love you or won't be your future wife.

And a woman with any kind of standards would NEVER approach a guy at that phase of attraction where the attraction is unemotional and purely physical. That would be like approaching 60%-70% of guys for most women.

And that's too much sorting... and it would be very emotionally boring because there's no loving feelings there.

The reality is that men and woman are playing an asymmetrical dating game, where the objective of the game is different for each gender.

The objective for men is to be selected. So, the bigger the pool of women that are willing to select them, the better chances he has of striking a good match. The strategy is about numbers... and larger number of interested women are VERY valuable.

Conversely, the objective for women is to narrow the pool and select one specific guy who has a litany of very specific and subjective vibes/traits/appearances/gestures/virtues/compatibility factors etc. to fit with her, pair bond with her, and build a family together.

So, women only start to find a man interesting and value his attraction to her when he's already in the selection finals.

And unless a woman has really low self-esteem or she's very inexperienced, a random man who's attracted to her has next to ZERO mating value to her until she starts to feel a slight pull in her heart towards marriage with him.

To give an analogy, let's imaging that a random man being attracted to a woman is worth either $0 or a penny of mating value to the woman. And each of those pennies is invested in a stock... and every once in a while when the stars align and there's a feeling in the heart, one of those penny stocks shoots up to $100,000.

And let's imagine that a random woman being attracted to a man is worth either $0 or $500 of mating value to the man. And men are usually just interested in collecting as many $500 bills as he can. That's what men tend to be focused on as their conscious agenda. And they don't want to tie themselves down to only collecting $500.  But unbeknownst to many of them and undesired by many of them, each of those $500 bills are also invested in their own stocks. And they occasionally stumble upon a woman whose stock is having an infinite money glitch for him where there is no end to the money. The only trade off, is that he can't collect $500 from a bunch of women anymore.

So, in this analogy you're thinking, "No fair! I want to go and collect "money" from women as easily as women collect "money" from men."

You just don't recognize the difference in value between the penny and the $500 bill. And you're thinking that women are just going around collecting a ton of $500 bills from men.

And you're not even thinking about anything past the $500 phase... because $500 is valuable enough to keep your attention. You probably can't even fathom of the infinite money glitch that's possible.

But women ignore the pennies... and instead wait to engage until the penny stock shoots up to $100,000. Until then, it's not worth pursuing.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Grab the hoe, it's time to sow!

Hey! I worked very hard to avoid using two farming innuendos in one joke! And now you went and did it.

This was my process...

"Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you plow." (Hey! That's two innuendos in one joke, and that tells a fundamentally different joke. Also, "Do you plow after you hoe?" (*Googles what ACTUALLY comes after the hoe phase in farming/gardening)

"Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you do the rake phase." (Grrr! Still two innuendos in one joke, and it sounds so corny)

"Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you sow the seeds." (Not again! Two innuendos takes the focus off the humor of the hoe phase joke and becomes a generic sex joke)

"Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you plant the crops." (Kinda clunky. But jeez it was hard to find a thing you do after hoeing that isn't also an innuendo.)

[AION]

A lot of women date through male paradigm too. That is why it is so trick so say men are like x and females are like y. Hunting an elephant as game is very different from hunting a gazelle. 

Edited 13 hours ago by AION

[Jirh]

@Emerald

This female ultra specificity thing sounds like a total myth.

[LordFall]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Red pill is just like an ideology of why you think you are impotent as a male and why it's largely women's fault. It's an ideology of victim mindset. It makes sense that it's going to make you a bitter mad person.

Have you read books like the Rational Male or read through the red pill forum? If you're only watching Fresh & Fit type of content then of course that's the impression you're gonna have from it.

It was mostly about the opposite and stopping blaming other people for your mediocrity in life and sharing ways to elevate men's standing in the sexual and financial marketplace. 

I don't agree with everything in it but most men should probably read through it at least once and also books like the manipulated man by Esther Vilar. 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Jirh said:

@Emerald

This female ultra specificity thing sounds like a total myth.

That's because you're a man, and you're thinking about the conditions that a man needs to want something with a woman.

But everything I said is very logical if you understand that men and woman don't operate the same way when selecting a mate.

It's like male and female birds. The male has all kinds of bright colors and does all kind of funky dances to get the attention of female birds... and he'll dance to many before getting a Yes. Then, the female birds just sit there on the branch and chooses the male bird with the prettiest colors and best mating dance. (or more accurate to humans... most aligned colors and mating dance)

If you want to understand how humans mate... men's bottleneck is attraction and women's bottleneck is selection. 

But the attraction game can feel so universal to men that he believes that women are just playing the same exact game as them and having all kinds of unfair advantages.

Let's make an analogy...

Let's say that a man is analogous to a business. And it's a businesses strategy to get as many leads qualified as possible in order to make it more likely that they close a deal. (a deal being a relationship)

And let's say that a woman is like a buyer. And she's having to choose which business she wants to go with. This requires a high degree of selectivity because (if she's serious about forming a relationship... which most women are) she's only going to pick one.

So to the business (the man), high numbers of women interested in him are very valuable as it increases his number of leads and the likelihood of finding a match. And it's all social proof for his business.

But the buyer (the woman) has tons of businesses vying for her to buy from them. And it's not because she's special... it's only because she's a potential customer. And many businesses only want her money and don't want a win-win.

So, if you're a customer (a woman), having more and more businesses vying for your sale is not very valuable. She already has a ton of those just on the basis of being a customer.

That's why a bunch of male attention is not very valuable to a woman.

Instead, the buyer is deeply 'researching' businesses on the level of mind, heart, and gut to determine if that business is a right fit for her. And her job is to narrow it down to one specific business that she sees as the right fit for her... as she only wants to commit to one.

That's how the majority of women operate when looking for a romantic partner. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Emerald

[Jirh]

@Emerald

I hear you, and I think you make a good point. But it seems you're taking it a bit too far.

I agree that women are more selective than men on average, and that they typically require a higher threshold than men for sexual access. But the way you frame it makes it feel like a lock and key situation, where the woman (lock) has only one or a few compatible men (keys). However, this is easily disproved by casual sex, because women can have sex casually, and it doesn't require a perfect fit. So sexual attraction can and does develop towards "incompatible" sexual partners. Therefore, selection is not the bottleneck for sexual access. It's only a bottleneck for maternity.

And I disagree with the idea that attraction is logical or follows conscious logic. Most of what we consider attractive is deeply wired into our reptilian brain. If the process you suggested was logical, then a woman would benefit from having larger pool of options, regardless of how large her original pool is. It makes logical sense to expand the pool of options, so that she can choose the best offer amongst a larger sample. Then, after she locks in on one specific partner, she gets attached and the rest become noise.

So the ultra specificity develops after attaching to a partner, not before. And it's not inherent or related to a perfect fit. Many women get attached to toxic and abusive scumbags for no reason other than that they've already invested into them. It's not like you said at all.

Edited 4 hours ago by Jirh

[Basman]

5 hours ago, LordFall said:

Have you read books like the Rational Male or read through the red pill forum? If you're only watching Fresh & Fit type of content then of course that's the impression you're gonna have from it.

It was mostly about the opposite and stopping blaming other people for your mediocrity in life and sharing ways to elevate men's standing in the sexual and financial marketplace. 

I don't agree with everything in it but most men should probably read through it at least once and also books like the manipulated man by Esther Vilar. 

 

I guess I'm describing incels more generally.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

@Emerald

I hear you, and I think you make a good point. But it seems you're taking it a bit too far.

I agree that women are more selective than men on average, and that they typically require a higher threshold than men for sexual access. But the way you frame it makes it feel like a lock and key situation, where the woman (lock) has only one or a few compatible men (keys). However, this is easily disproved by casual sex, because women can have sex casually, and it doesn't require a perfect fit. So sexual attraction can and does develop towards "incompatible" sexual partners. Therefore, selection is not the bottleneck for sexual access. It's only a bottleneck for maternity.

And I disagree with the idea that attraction is logical or follows conscious logic. Most of what we consider attractive is deeply wired into our reptilian brain. If the process you suggested was logical, then a woman would benefit from having larger pool of options, regardless of how large her original pool is. It makes logical sense to expand the pool of options, so that she can choose the best offer amongst a larger sample. Then, after she locks in on one specific partner, she gets attached and the rest become noise.

So the ultra specificity develops after attaching to a partner, not before. And it's not inherent or related to a perfect fit. Many women get attached to toxic and abusive scumbags for no reason other than that they've already invested into them. It's not like you said at all.

I didn't say that sexual attraction in itself is logical. It's actually far more emotional and highly subjective and non-rational.

What I'm saying is that the asymmetrical dating pattern makes sense if you think about it logically.

I'm also not talking about casual sex because women generally don't value casual sex that much... even if they engage in it or have engaged in it in the past. Casual sex is just not of high value to most women.

And it doesn't make sense for women to prioritize widening the pool... because the sorting is already difficult. Why add more hay to the haystack when you're trying to find the needle? It just makes the needle harder to find.

And for women, ultra-specificity begins to develop during the attraction phase as a pre-requisite for seeing the connection as worthwhile to pursue. She has to at least partially already be a  little in love with him.

For men, ultra-specificity only develops after the attraction connection has been formed... and may not develop at all if he chose someone he's generally attracted to to get involved with who isn't someone he can fall in love with.

[Jirh]

@Emerald

My point was that casual sex is not something that happens in a vacuum or means nothing. It's sex. It requires attraction. It could lead to pregnancy. And it means the man she agreed to have sex with has passed the minimum bar for selection that she required, at least from a biological point of view.

The fact that women can engage in sex casually completely disproves any claims of inherent ultra specific selection. It also proves that women's standards are at least somewhat flexible, or more accurately malleable, because they don't consciously compromise or negotiate them. They just rather absorb them.

With that in mind, I can agree that ultra specificity is strategy that women can consciously implement for selecting the highest value man in their pool, or as you put it, to find the needle in a haystack.

However, that still doesn't automatically grant that a smaller sample is easier to sort than a larger one. It could be possible that you're using a terrible sorting algorithm for your specific purpose that creates a lot of noise and doesn't really maximize your potential gains. An alternative sorting algorithm could be one where only 3 contenders are always at the top, while the rest are ignored as noise, no matter how large the sample is. Then whenever she's ready to select and lock in on one partner, she can ignore the other two, and it will work, because it's a conscious process.

The minimum bar for attraction is unconscious and involuntary (biology = absolute). But once that bar is cleared, the rest of the process is conscious and selection can get ultra specific or somewhat specific or not specific at all (psychology = flexible).

Edited 47 minutes ago by Jirh