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 Wednesday at 09:22 AM 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 Wednesday at 11:58 AM 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 Wednesday at 04:14 PM 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 Wednesday at 05:39 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:42 PM by Jirh

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Jirh said:

@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).

Think about it this way...

Men and women both have the same minimum bar for general attraction... which is "Do I like the way this person looks and their at-a-glance vibe?"

But men will be spurred into action by the minimum bar for general attraction because his task is attraction... and creating an abundance of options.

Women already have an abundance of options. But she can also operate off of that minimum bar for general attraction if she's not looking for anything serious or she's out sowing her wild oats. In that case, 60% of guys are attractive enough to sleep with on a one-night stand.  

Also, women with low self-esteem or loneliness issues can also operate off of the minimum bar for general attraction.

But when a man is looking for a serious relationship... he will still start taking action at the minimum bar for general attraction. For men, it's about casting the net wide and playing the numbers game. So, he will be biased towards increasing attractiveness to women as a general group.

In contrast, when a woman is looking for a serious relationship (which most women are only/mostly interested in that)... she will become very focused on a specific man and how he makes her feel. The goal is to narrow it down.

Even most female dating coaches have to specifically teach women to have a few guys in the pool of candidates... because women will get locked in on a guy who it may not work out with. But having a pool of male candidates as opposed to just one guy that there are feelings towards can feel a bit unnatural.

And most women's standards are such that they won't even particularly notice/register the majority of men who meet their minimum bar for general attraction, even if they're attracted to her. It's still going to be a no, unless there are deeper feelings pulling her toward him.

So, you're just incorrect, as you're looking at hook-up behaviors in women as a sign that the true indicator of how women get attracted to a man she's serious about.

But most women aren't interested in casual sex because it's just not that emotionally stimulating. So, it's a low to medium reward behavior... for a higher risk. 

Like, I've had casual sex before when I was in my early 20s, and it's very boring.

I discovered that I didn't get anything that I want from a sexual interaction with a man because I need a connection that is more intimate and heart-centered to even feel interested in considering getting closer to a man in that way.

So, men who meet the minimum bar of attraction are fine for women who are open to hook-ups for whatever reason.

But most women don't actually want hook-ups and find them emotionally lacking.

They want only to pursue where there are more intense feelings... and those only come towards a specific man for most women.

And those feelings of boredom at casual sex... and feelings of excitement towards a specific man... are a woman's biology prioritizing selection over attraction.

It's 100% biology and 100% psychology working together in tandem.

Of course, a woman's biology (nervous system) and psychology can also pre-dispose her to feeling intense feelings of attraction towards specific awful men too.

It's just that the feeling is so strong and magnetic when you feel that way towards someone. So, you don't see their flaws. 

It's very different than the lukewarm "meh" feelings of hook-ups.

Edited yesterday at 01:39 AM by Emerald

[Olaf]

@Emerald but if Justin Bieber came in the room most girls would do him, how do you make sense of that? 

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, Olaf said:

@Emerald but if Justin Bieber came in the room most girls would do him, how do you make sense of that? 

Most women absolutely wouldn't.

[Olaf]

@Emerald come on now

[Emerald]

Just now, Olaf said:

@Emerald come on now

I wouldn't sleep with a celebrity just because they're a celebrity.

And I wouldn't sleep with a good-looking guy just because he's good looking.

I need more heart-based emotional stimulation than that to truly want to get close to a man.

And Justin Bieber (or whoever other attractive celebrity) simply walking into a room and offering himself to me wouldn't do anything for me.

And while I think some women would sleep with Justin Bieber because he's famous/attractive... most women would not.

My guess is that 30% of women would... and 70% of women wouldn't unless there was some deeper level of intimacy established with him on a personal level.

[Olaf]

@Emerald but you are not most woman, you are on a forum with only guys talking about consciousness with Leo as our leader. So of course you are very unique in what you want.

[Elliott]

@Olaf women that do that have psychological issues

[Emerald]

Just now, Olaf said:

@Emerald but you are not most woman, you are on a forum with only guys talking about consciousness with Leo as our leader. So of course you are very unique in what you want.

You're not understanding what I'm saying... and you seem bound and determined not to get the core of what I'm communicating. And if you don't understand, you will misunderstand how women feel about men entirely and end up in the trap that so many men on this forum end up in.

I need VERY strong levels of heart-based emotional stimulation to feel romantically and sexually attracted enough to a man to feel moved to pursue anything with him. And many women also operate the exact same way.

So, I'm not different than most women in this way. It's all about emotions and biological bodily responses... which are fairly similar for all women regardless of what's happening with the pre-frontal cortex.

And if I could give you the feeling of hooking up randomly (even with Justin Bieber) from a woman's perspective... you'd be like, "This is mildly physically stimulating but also kind of boring". It's nothing to write home about.

But if I could give you the feeling of what it's like to deeply want a specific man, you'd be like, "Wow! This is the best feeling ever! Can we turn this into a drug and sell it and make a fortune?"

So, in this hypothetical with Justin Bieber, the maximum level of positive feelings that I could feel are like a 4 or 5 out of 10. And that's only if he's totally amazing at sex. So, it's not very rewarding to sleep with a random guy... even if he's an attractive celebrity.

Of course, it would be different if I was a huge Bieber fan. Maybe then, it would feel like I knew him personally in a parasocial way  and I'd feel highly emotionally stimulated by that in a heart-centered way.

But unless a woman is a fan, she's probably going to feel very neutral about the sex offer from a celebrity. And it depend on if a woman is into random hook-ups or not to determine if she'd say yes or no. But most women aren't interested in hook-ups.

Now, when women are sowing their wild oats or they're lonely... they may do hook-ups. But that's not very emotionally stimulating as it lacks all the highly intoxicating heart-centered feelings.

And a woman who's operating that way would probably sleep with Justin Bieber if he was like "Hey, wanna have sex?"

But that kind of sexual interaction is so emotionally tepid that I can't imagine that any woman would really feel like she got what she was looking for from it.

Basically, the doorway to unlocking the full intensity of female sexuality and evoke genuine longing in the woman is through her heart.

And random hook-ups don't do anything to the heart. It's why women are meh about them... and they're not very many women's actual goal.