Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[Rinne]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

You could treat it like it’s 50/50 if that’s what works for you.

But it’s not 50/50 in actually.

If I’m going to put numbers on it, it’s more like 80/20 in favor of subjectivity for the average woman.

i would have to disagree. there are certain attributes, characteristics that by default women more attracted too. The same way that men by default are attracted to big boobs and big ass on average. So the more high status you are the more likely attraction youll get. The better looking the more likely attraction youll get.  N thn theres subjective attraction the one you speak of. Which yes does play a factor but you cant just completely ignore objective attraction. If i was the same person me on the street dressed like a bum you wouldnt talk to me if i was dressed more high status your likely hood of talking to me increase. Subjective attraction is just preference of who you think has more survival benefit specially to you. i def wouldnt call it 80 20. Its somewhere 50 50. 

[Raptorsin7]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

As I’ve said many times before on this thread, men are wise to develop themselves along the lines of objective attractiveness factors so that they don’t run into women’s dealbreakers. And it can also help them in terms of knowing how to escalate things as well.

So, as I’ve said, it’s the best strategy for men to use the leverage that the objective element of female sexuality provides them. 

But the issue becomes where the man mixes up the tool and the truth as one and the same. 

When a man only has a hammer, he begins seeing everything as a nail. And this is one of the biggest psychological issues that so many men are dealing with in the current era.

So like the hammer, developing along the lines of objective male attractiveness  is a very useful tool. And it’s wise to learn to use it well.

But when you practice with the hammer, be very careful not to get a distorted view of the truth of female sexuality just because that distorted view fits your tools better.

Know the reality of the situation and the efficacy and limitations of your tools for responding to that reality. The hammer is useful sometimes but useless other times.

The truth is that female sexuality is primarily subjective. And that means, no matter how much you’ve grown in terms of objective attractiveness (and how much you’ve developed your “hammering skills”) it doesn’t guarantee an attraction.

And it’s a blessing to know this because there are tons of men out there who believe that female sexuality is objective. And so, they feel like “Why would a woman want me when she could have Chad?” or “I have to change my entire personality so that women like me.” 

Or they just get so afraid that women are the objective arbiters of male attractiveness and worth that they avoid women altogether.

So, even though I’m not giving men an objective attraction strategy (which is far better served by developing one’s self along objective lines)…. I am sharing the truth that will set them free of so many insecurities around women. That is, if they listen and integrate this truth into their framework.

When a man really realizes that there’s very little that’s objective about female sexuality, then he can experience rejection without it meaning anything about his objective level of attractiveness or worth.

I understand that and I don't think a man can guarantee success with any one woman based on objective factors 

But even in last part of your post you said theres very little about female attraction thats objective... So you think the majority of men can have success with women if they dont meet the objective criteria I listed above?

My view is that for higher quality woman, which is what most on men here probably want, you have to have be sufficiently attractive in an objective sense before subjective factors come into play. 

Like how many woman will honestly turn down a confident, tall, good looking, wealthy, emotionally integrated, and happy/peaceful man. 

 

[TK2021]

How can you people not realize that the men are talking from their agenda and the women are from theirs? Even though you are all partially right, you are basically not even talking about the same subject.

Men are focused on what will be sexually attractive to the most number of women - just like their reproductive strategy. Spreading the seed.

Women are focused on what kind of singular man would be the best partner and provider for them and their possible children. Finding one best mate. In this case loyalty etc. trumps status. This doesn't necessarily mean they will be most sexually excited by this person. Women would love to be most sexually excited by their best relationship option, that is for sure. But my God, just look around. Therefore there is the need for mind games to feel less conflict inside themselves. Men are so intolerant towards this because their sexual strategy has been sabotaged by women who have been lying and misleading them all their lives just to preserve their own ego.

Listen, you have to understand the male sexual agenda here. Men care about passing the bar to have sex. For women it is a bigger risk, so they want more. But still, the bar for you women to give sex is for the man to meet the objective criteria and so it is for 99% of women. Emerald admitted to several one night stands, Ethereal cat to casual sex relationships with random high status guys. All of this subjective criteria is almost completely IRRELEVANT TO THE MALE SEXUAL AGENDA. Please get this through your head. Of course the sex will be better and you will vibe better if your personalities click - what is there to even argue? But you WILL give sex even if the subjective criteria aren't met, just the objective.

[Stovo]

3 minutes ago, TK2021 said:

How can you people not realize that the men are talking from their agenda and the women are from theirs? Even though you are all partially right, you are basically not even talking about the same subject.

Agree with this. It's actually almost impossible for men and women to have a sensible discussion on this subject, because they come at it from different angles and attraction is so often misunderstood. 

Men will always try to rationalise the situation, whilst women will feel in the moment. 

I've had good dating advice from both men and women, but the best advice I have received are from masculine men who understand how to attract girls. 

Sometimes dating advice from women should be taken with a pinch of salt. Most women I know end up with completely opposite guys to the type they say they are attracted to, so how can you trust them to give you dating advice? Also, is it very masculine to ask a girl for dating advice? Absolutely not, it lowers your status immediately. 

General rule of thumb for me, I consult guy friends for actual dating advice. When I am with female friends, I just get to know them and observe their dating preferences Vs what they say. 

[Raptorsin7]

5 minutes ago, Stovo said:

Agree with this. It's actually almost impossible for men and women to have a sensible discussion on this subject, because they come at it from different angles and attraction is so often misunderstood. 

Men will always try to rationalise the situation, whilst women will feel in the moment. 

I've had good dating advice from both men and women, but the best advice I have received are from masculine men who understand how to attract girls. 

Sometimes dating advice from women should be taken with a pinch of salt. Most women I know end up with completely opposite guys to the type they say they are attracted to, so how can you trust them to give you dating advice? Also, is it very masculine to ask a girl for dating advice? Absolutely not, it lowers your status immediately. 

General rule of thumb for me, I consult guy friends for actual dating advice. When I am with female friends, I just get to know them and observe their dating preferences Vs what they say. 

Yeah I agree about being skeptical about woman giving dating advice. Although I think @Emerald makes good points and I wouldn't dismiss her analysis on this basis.

But I have noticed the phenomena of woman saying one thing about what they find attractive/acceptable, only for their actual behaviors/lifestyles to resemble the opposite of what they were saying.

I made a thread a while ago about men not valuing a woman's success in dating, and initially the woman responding were offended etc. Then after a few comments you could see how the opinions started to change in the opposite direction.

[Stovo]

7 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Yeah I agree about being skeptical about woman giving dating advice. Although I think @Emerald makes good points and I wouldn't dismiss her analysis on this basis.

But I have noticed the phenomena of woman saying one thing about what they find attractive/acceptable, only for their actual behaviors/lifestyles to resemble the opposite of what they were saying.

I made a thread a while ago about men not valuing a woman's success in dating, and initially the woman responding were offended etc. Then after a few comments you could see how the opinions started to change in the opposite direction.

Not dismiss, just take with a pinch of salt. 

Feminine women feel in the moment, and those feelings change constantly. She thinks she wants one thing, then a completely different guy shows up and suddenly she's into that.

It's just difficult to get dating advice from people who aren't sure what they want themselves. 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, TK2021 said:

How can you people not realize that the men are talking from their agenda and the women are from theirs? Even though you are all partially right, you are basically not even talking about the same subject.

So you do agree with me!

It’s my exact point that the male strategy and female strategy are different.

Men are more objective in their attractions and women are more subjective in their attractions. 

And because men are too caught up in their own agenda, they begin only seeing female sexuality as a projection of their own sexuality. And so they project their own objectivity onto women.

But where you are wrong is in believing that this is irrelevant to the male strategy.

There are so many men who are insecure BECAUSE they just see women as more selective men.

But women are not selective primarily based on object factors. Subjective attraction plays a much bigger role. And if a man realizes this, he can drop the projection onto women.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Stovo said:

Agree with this. It's actually almost impossible for men and women to have a sensible discussion on this subject, because they come at it from different angles and attraction is so often misunderstood. 

Actually, it’s totally possible. You just have to listen and be very thorough and honest. 

Men will always try to rationalise the situation, whilst women will feel in the moment. 

I've had good dating advice from both men and women, but the best advice I have received are from masculine men who understand how to attract girls. 

Sometimes dating advice from women should be taken with a pinch of salt. Most women I know end up with completely opposite guys to the type they say they are attracted to, so how can you trust them to give you dating advice? Also, is it very masculine to ask a girl for dating advice? Absolutely not, it lowers your status immediately. 

Yeah, definitely don’t ask a woman you’re trying to get with how to attract her. That would be very awkward.

General rule of thumb for me, I consult guy friends for actual dating advice. When I am with female friends, I just get to know them and observe their dating preferences Vs what they say. 

There will be a lot of inconsistency here because women will have lots off objective qualities that they find attractive.

But because female sexuality is mostly subjective, she can get attracted to men who don’t fit her objective standards of attraction. She might become attracted to a man who is the polar opposite of her type because the attraction is coming from a non-objective place.

 

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Some people may not understand nor like what I'm trying to say here, but something really smells bad in this conversation.

Sure, you can study all the objective characteristics that will get you laid, you can push all those buttons and drown in pussy. But that doesn't feel right. There is something really untruthful in that whole shebang. That doesn't sound like deep fulfilling sex. That won't make you cry in each other's hands from the beauty and love.

There is some deeper level to all of this that is not being uncovered in this conversation.

If I see a woman with a great body, a great smile, having all the 'objective' qualities I find attractive, but she doesn't have that certain energy, there is something deep missing there. Sure, I'll get hard. Might even go hit and have sex. But that's not what I'm really looking for. It's not the true potential of sex and intimate relationship without that mystical energy. But if she got that energy, I could 100% be in that relationship even if there was no sex at all.

Who cares about what attracts most women? That's like building a business on what makes the most money. Not very conscious.

An insight that I had at a recent plant medicine ceremony was that, underneath everything (even the most bitter hatred and prejudice) that all human beings longed to love and receive love from each other. There was a desire to be a human family.

And it contextualized a lot of things for me. I could see that men really wanted to love and be loved by women… which I’ve had my doubts for obvious reasons.

And that it’s the desire for love but feeling deeply unlovable that’s led to this culture of objectification and bitterness towards women. 

So, men emphasize the aspects of their own sexuality that make them feel more in control and less vulnerable. And they try to pretend that the desire to love and be loved isn’t there… perhaps to the point that they fool themselves.

Basically it’s a certain type of avoidance strategy that keeps them detached in order to avoid the vulnerability of loving a woman.

And it was clear that most men are playing out some form of this avoidance pattern… in varying degrees. Some very extreme and others more mild.

[aurum]

25 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Some people may not understand nor like what I'm trying to say here, but something really smells bad in this conversation.

Sure, you can study all the objective characteristics that will get you laid, you can push all those buttons and drown in pussy. But that doesn't feel right. There is something really untruthful in that whole shebang. That doesn't sound like deep fulfilling sex. That won't make you cry in each other's hands from the beauty and love.

There is some deeper level to all of this that is not being uncovered in this conversation.

If I see a woman with a great body, a great smile, having all the 'objective' qualities I find attractive, but she doesn't have that certain energy, there is something deep missing there. Sure, I'll get hard. Might even go hit and have sex. But that's not what I'm really looking for. It's not the true potential of sex and intimate relationship without that mystical energy. But if she got that energy, I could 100% be in that relationship even if there was no sex at all.

Who cares about what attracts most women? That's like building a business on what makes the most money. Not very conscious.

Yeah this is good. I made a similar point earlier in this thread.

Sure, I like sexual novelty to a degree. And maybe there’s some biological impulse in me to “spread the seed”. But realistically, I’m now in my 30s and not looking to crank my lay count into the stratosphere. I’m looking for something much deeper than that.

And so, it’s not worth it for me to use strategies that maybe will get more women attracted to me if that means sacrificing quality. And by quality I mean quality of partner and of the relationship itself.

The strategies I want to implement are the ones that are going to get me the highest quality match. Damn anything else. Who cares if I could potentially attract more women with a Rolls Royce? If that’s why she’s with me, that’s a bad sign to begin with. We’re not going to be compatible.

Which is of course not to say women should have no needs in relationships. Or that there’s nothing for you to do as a man to develop. But there’s certainly needs that are more conscious than others. And that’s what I’m screening for.

As a large generalization, I feel like the debates that have been having on this subforum can be broken down to two types of guys:

1) Guys who have yet to integrate leadership / assertiveness / dominance

2) Guys who have and are looking for what’s beyond

The guys who haven’t integrated these concepts to a sufficient degree want to keep hammering the importance of status / leadership etc because that’s what they feel they lack.

[TK2021]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

So you do agree with me!

It’s my exact point that the male strategy and female strategy are different.

Men are more objective in their attractions and women are more subjective in their attractions. 

And because men are too caught up in their own agenda, they begin only seeing female sexuality as a projection of their own sexuality. And so they project their own objectivity onto women.

But where you are wrong is in believing that this is irrelevant to the male strategy.

There are so many men who are insecure BECAUSE they just see women as more selective men.

But women are not selective primarily based on object factors. Subjective attraction plays a much bigger role. And if a man realizes this, he can drop the projection onto women.

No, I don't agree with you. I recognize that a part of your thinking is right, but your ego has hijacked your brain into using that thinking in an unfruitful way - resulting in wrong conclusions.

Focusing on subjective qualities is beyond irrelevant for male sexual strategy. It is counterproductive. Now understand the difference between sex and romance. 

This is not just for you but also for @roopepa and @aurum: 
You are mixing your refined egoic desires(romantic fantasies) with sexual attraction. Then you go so far as to think that these egoic desires will result in true Love. How can true Love be born out of these egoic desires of another person filling your emptiness?

[Surfingthewave]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

You’re working very hard here to say that the perspective I’ve shared is just a social construct and a matter of semantics and that that there’s no fundamental difference between the way women and men get attracted.

But I am sharing an observable truth about the subjective nature of female sexuality. I’ve watched myself go through this process so many times from the meta perspective. And I’ve seen other women do the same, albeit from the outside.

And you’ll notice that there are no women on here contradicting me and saying that I’m generalizing.

It’s only some of the men who are adamant that what I’m saying is false.

And the reason why is because they don’t want to feel powerless to women. They want to feel like all aspects of female sexuality have levers of control.

And so, if they can frame female sexuality purely through the lens of the objective and non-mysterious, they can “solve it” and FEEL a lot more in control.

And this enables them to cope with the sense of powerlessness and insecurity they feel in relation to women and the false images they project onto us.

And just be honest with yourself for a moment.

The only reason why you’re so adamant about proving me wrong is because what I wrote made you feel powerless and insecure. It’s not about anything other than that. These truths feel threatening to you.

And it’s easier to write off any non-user-friendly element of female sexuality as construct or falsehood than it is to integrate that truth into your worldview. But your dating life will be so much less stressful once you do.

The subjective element is much friendlier than the objective element.

 

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

The only reason why you’re so adamant about proving me wrong is because what I wrote made you feel powerless and insecure. It’s not about anything other than that. These truths feel threatening to you.

 

On 27/08/2021 at 11:43 AM, Chew211 said:

@Emerald

 

@Emerald You nailed it ?

 

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

 

@Emerald You nailed it ?

 

? Thank you!

[Jacob Morres]

Who cares what woman what. Just do what you want and find a woman that fucks with you for you. 

But then maybe balance that with the increasing some attractive qualities that don't impede on you or your value system 

But im sticking to my guns for the most part. I aint changing for shit 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Gesundheit2]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

You’re working very hard here to say that the perspective I’ve shared is just a social construct and a matter of semantics and that that there’s no fundamental difference between the way women and men get attracted.

I've worked very hard to develop that understanding. Right now, I'm just sharing it casually.
Yes, it is a social construct for the most part, but there are nuanced differences.
I didn't say male and female attraction are the same. If anything, I gave examples, and showcased the opposite case multiple times. You can re-read what I wrote earlier if you want.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

But I am sharing an observable truth about the subjective nature of female sexuality. I’ve watched myself go through this process so many times from the meta perspective. And I’ve seen other women do the same, albeit from the outside.

And I'm not denying your experience, perspective, or observation. I just think you're not presenting it perfectly correctly because you're possibly a little bit biased.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

And you’ll notice that there are no women on here contradicting me and saying that I’m generalizing.

It’s only some of the men who are adamant that what I’m saying is false.

Strictly logically speaking, this doesn't suffice as enough proof for your case. It could be the case that all of you are wrong and that we are right.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

And the reason why is because they don’t want to feel powerless to women. They want to feel like all aspects of female sexuality have levers of control.

And so, if they can frame female sexuality purely through the lens of the objective and non-mysterious, they can “solve it” and FEEL a lot more in control.

And this enables them to cope with the sense of powerlessness and insecurity they feel in relation to women and the false images they project onto us.

Of course we don't want to feel powerless. Who does? Why would anyone want that? Everyone wants to feel empowered, and knowledge is power. Pick up is knowledge, and therefore power. We are using pick up knowledge to empower ourselves instead of whining like victims. We are stepping up to the challenge, not running away from it. Where exactly do you perceive insecurity?

I think it's more possible that you are giving a misrepresentation of what's happening. If anything, it is an established fact that women operate mainly from fear, not men. You always say that it's men who are insecure and fearful (at least targeting the men here), but isn't the opposite case generally truer? I can't speak for all men, but I can confirm to you that I am not in a fearful or an insecure mode. I'm in a perfectly logical mode, while at the same time being in touch with my emotions as I'm discussing. This gives me more clarity about my perception and possible biases, as I always try to be perfectly objective.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

And just be honest with yourself for a moment.

Haha, I like the backhanded argument. Enticing.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

The only reason why you’re so adamant about proving me wrong is because what I wrote made you feel powerless and insecure. It’s not about anything other than that. These truths feel threatening to you.

And it’s easier to write off any non-user-friendly element of female sexuality as construct or falsehood than it is to integrate that truth into your worldview. But your dating life will be so much less stressful once you do.

The subjective element is much friendlier than the objective element.

I don't want to prove you wrong. It just happens that I disagree with you. Why insert assumptions into a neutral disagreement? Think about it.

And I can tell I've already integrated your perspective. I used to be insecure, but not anymore. I know what works and what doesn't. And I couldn't care less about rejection at this point (self-inquiry: who gets rejected? lol). My goal is not to attract all women, and I understand that that's not how it does or should work. I can't ever cater to all women, or people for that matter. It's basic pick up knowledge. Is there any other lesson you're trying to deliver here? Can you see that there's a chance that this isn't entirely about teaching, but possibly more about something else?

You should know by now that even "truth" is a relative linguistic construct. And therefore it can be as flexible as you want it to be. We can expand or limit our concept of truth to include or exclude anything we want. But to put things in proper context, what we're mostly concerned with here as men is what works with women. We don't care about the rare cases where pick up knowledge doesn't work. You can stick to your little concept of "truth". But you'd be wise to understand that it's not really truth. It's more likely a way you're using to shake our confidence in our worldview or reaffirm yours in your worldview, or both. The truth is that not a single worldview is absolutely true. It's all relative to you as God. This is not the same thing as writing you off. I already acknowledged the truth in your perspective. What's left is for you to acknowledge the truth in mine.

[Gesundheit2]

9 hours ago, blueberries said:

I can definitely verify that, but I'm not sure how it proves that subjective factors don't play a large role in attraction? Just because pre-selection makes a man more desirable, it doesn't automatically mean you want to sleep with him over a guy that hasn't been pre-selected. I can think of times when female attention has made me more interested in a guy, but I can also think of times I've not been interested in a guy my friends found attractive, and times that I've liked a guy nobody else I know of found attractive...

I also think that I have some kind of filter that automatically weeds out guys I deem undesirable, whether that's because they're weak, unattractive, or whatever. So I wouldn't deny that objective qualities are very important.

But once you get beyond that base level of attraction, the subjective factors theory resonates with me way more than anything else and explains my history of attraction the best. And that includes one-sided attraction/attraction I didn't act on.

The main thing I disagree with isn't that objective factors matter. It's the idea that women optimize for objective factors and that it's a given we'll feel more sexually attracted to a man if he is more high-status, more attractive, more confident, etc. That just doesn't explain my history of attraction at all. And surely if it was true, me and my female friends would frequently be sexually attracted to the same guys? But that actually doesn't happen very often. We do universally dislike the same guys, though.

Also, the idea that I feel attracted to people for subjective factors doesn't make me feel superior to men at all. I'm still attracted to a lot of people who would make terrible partners and I'm still attracted to people for shallow and dumb reasons.

I get that you're saying that you and your friends are not hypergamous. Well, I can agree with that. I understand that not all women are hypergamous.

Pick up teachers disagree about this, though. Some of them (pure red pill) believe that all women are hypergamous. Others are more moderate and acknowledge nuance and variety across women.

Now, what percentage of women is hypergamous? I don't know. I don't think there are surveys or research for such things. But I can tell that it's a real phenomenon. Men with higher access to resources are generally more attractive. But of course that doesn't mean they're universally attractive to all women. Everyone is different and unique, but there are general trends, and we are mostly concerned with those, not with the rare cases outside of our control or ability to obtain.

[Gesundheit2]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

But women are not selective primarily based on object factors. Subjective attraction plays a much bigger role.

Again, I would have to call nonsense.

Like I said earlier, I can make the exact same case and apply it for men. I can say that men are not selective primarily based on objective factors. Subjective attraction plays a much bigger role. Subjective here means how they feel sexually about the women, whether consciously or subconsciously. A man doesn't judge by waist to hip ratio. Who cares about an abstract number? Have you seen a guy jerking off to a piece of paper with a bunch of numbers on it? Do you know of any men who fantasize about the abstract concept of D cups? We, men, are attuned to our sexual feelings, and we only determine a woman's attraction worth through our "subjective" feelings.

Just lose that mental identification and you'll see the truth in what I'm saying.

And you can take this as a counter example: A woman can grow her tits infinitely (surprising image attached below, not really sure why I have it on my PC lol) and still not be able to attract a certain guy that she wants. Why is that the case? Aren't tits objectively attractive? Can't women just seduce any guy they want with bigger tits? I don't think so. I have seen girls chasing after dudes who don't give shit about them, and these girls have these "objective" features you think are the only thing that matters to men.

You can't just lure any guy you want. Sure you might have a relatively large pool to pick from depending on how attractive your looks are, but you still can't have a guy outside of your pool. I assume most guys find Kim Kardashian super attractive. I find her super boring. Do you see how useless saying that would be? It's just common sense what you're saying, not anything mysterious or profound. Btw, I haven't once seen Kim except in pictures. And based on my purely visual experience, she's totally boring. Now that might change if I see her in video and get a glimpse of her personality. But for now I'm not attracted to her, and I didn't even feel the desire to check her out in video.

I think there's a sentimental component of polyamory vs monoamory in your arguments. I get the sense that you're confusing the female tendency for a single partner for some "subjective attraction" concept, while at the same time confusing the male tendency for multiple partners for some "objective attraction" concept.

Just how far can I go with deconstructing this worldview? lol

Edited September 2, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[WaveInTheOcean]

There is a big difference between 'superficial attraction' & 'wanting-to-merge-and-live-and-grow-with-someone'.

Attraction, for both the masculine and feminine, is very much based on objective quantifiable standards.

The second thing, wanting to deeply bond with someone, both platonically and sexually, is completely different for person to person, though generally we could say we are 'inspired' by people who live an authentic life with high integrity.

The second thing is of a higher order than the first one, attraction, and can go back a level and alter the attraction  ((to some degree at least; such that a woman who might at first get totally wet by a handsome, rich, high-status Italian businessman, may suddenly be disgusted by him when she sees how arrogant and cold and detached from his feelings he are; or a man who is at first deeply attracted to a hot 10/10-chick, may back off, when he sees how unconscious and detached from her feelings she actually are---just hypothetical examples--and also the reverse can be true, such that attraction suddenly builds and builds when we see the inner beauty and inter-conncetedness and passion and authenticity and compassion in a person who superficially wasn't that attractive to begin with).

Naturally, the feminine has an easier time tapping into the higher level, since the consequences for the feminine to rely solely on attraction can be more rough than for the masculine to commit this childlike mistake.

Grow up kids:)

Edited September 2, 2021 by WaveInTheOcean

[Stovo]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

Agree with this. It's actually almost impossible for men and women to have a sensible discussion on this subject, because they come at it from different angles and attraction is so often misunderstood. 

Actually, it’s totally possible. You just have to listen and be very thorough and honest. 

Men will always try to rationalise the situation, whilst women will feel in the moment. 

I've had good dating advice from both men and women, but the best advice I have received are from masculine men who understand how to attract girls. 

Sometimes dating advice from women should be taken with a pinch of salt. Most women I know end up with completely opposite guys to the type they say they are attracted to, so how can you trust them to give you dating advice? Also, is it very masculine to ask a girl for dating advice? Absolutely not, it lowers your status immediately. 

Yeah, definitely don’t ask a woman you’re trying to get with how to attract her. That would be very awkward.

General rule of thumb for me, I consult guy friends for actual dating advice. When I am with female friends, I just get to know them and observe their dating preferences Vs what they say. 

There will be a lot of inconsistency here because women will have lots off objective qualities that they find attractive.

But because female sexuality is mostly subjective, she can get attracted to men who don’t fit her objective standards of attraction. She might become attracted to a man who is the polar opposite of her type because the attraction is coming from a non-objective place.

"Almost impossible"  

I agree with all your points in bold. 

[Alysssa]

Why I mostly prefer to talk or be in a relationship with gay/bisexsual men:

1. They usually open minded

2. They are authentic. They don't give a fuck about men stereotypes (How men should behave and be) which is fucking attractive

3. They aren't women haters and some of them admire us sincerely

4. I can be who I am around them without feeling judged

5. Many of them are at stage green+ compered to non gay/bisexsual guys who mostly have very weak green stage

6. They don't give a fuck about red pill dogma and tend to see women as an individuals

7. They usually good listeners and have good social skills, even the introverted ones