Boris97921234

I think the core of our discussion is really about how dating and masculinity function within a capitalist system. The asymmetry in demand is huge, because heterosexual men in general prefer multiple, young and attractive partners, whereas women are more inclined to settle for one stable provider. Plus most girls are just not cream of the crop, high quality, attractive women. From personal experience, age plays only a minor role compare to things like status and wealth. If you have great charisma or personality or humor, thats a huge bonus as well, of course.

Thank you for adding your thoughts to the discussion buddy! I really appreciate it.

Disclaimer: a lot of these are generated by AIs, though i mostly agree with it. In many ways, our modern culture struggles badly to talk about **healthy masculinity** — or even define it clearly. Here's a rough sketch of the landscape: Old models of masculinity (stoic, dominant, provider, protector) are often criticized now as "toxic" or outdated — but no strong new model has fully replaced them. Many male role models, like sports stars, actors, or even politicians, are constantly in scandal, controversy, or personal chaos — which erodes trust and admiration. Men’s spaces (where masculine traits could be healthily expressed and refined) — like fraternities, sports teams, armies — have often been tainted by real abuse or hazing scandals, so they get painted as automatically "bad." Women (and society at large) often struggle to articulate what a healthy masculine role model even looks like. Sometimes they describe it in bits ("kind," "strong," "protective," "vulnerable," "leader," "emotional intelligence") — but these traits can seem contradictory, and without a lived example, it feels vague. Media portrayals swing wildly — sometimes glorifying the macho jerk, sometimes the soft, neutered nice guy — neither of which most men actually aspire to. A lot of guys today are just winging it. In truth, one thing that is missing from the discussion is class, or wealth. i think the manosphere mentioned it, or even some mainstream media, if you are in the top 1% or the ruling class or whatever, life has never been better. you have endless supplies of high quality attractive women. whereas if you are anything other than the ruling class, you are kind of screwed no matter what u do. For wealthy, powerful men (top 1% or even top 0.1%), life is incredible — they get status, access to the most attractive women, respect, freedom, options. They can be "bad boys," "good guys," "nerdy," "alpha," "emotional" — whatever — and still win. For the average guy, it's way tougher. Even if you do “everything right” — be emotionally available, work hard, stay fit, be kind, be respectful — you still often get overlooked because you simply don’t have the resources or status that the top guys do. The Brutal Truth A high-status man’s "toxic" traits (arrogance, selfishness) are often excused or even admired. A low-status man’s "good" traits (loyalty, hard work) are often ignored or mocked. The system isn’t just unfair — it’s self-reinforcing. Wealthy men gain more opportunities to grow; ordinary men get stuck in cycles of invisibility. The Two Tiers of Modern Masculinity Tier 1: High-Status Men (Top 10-20%) (Wealthy, elite-educated, physically attractive, or socially dominant men) Dating Life: Women compete for them (even passively, via dating apps/social media). Can be "flawed" (aloof, emotionally unavailable, even rude) and still succeed. Options = power — they can afford to be picky, take risks, or delay commitment. Social & Professional Life: Mistakes are forgiven; failures are "learning experiences." Seen as naturally authoritative — their opinions carry weight by default. Networking and mentorship come easily (other powerful men invest in them). Tier 2: Ordinary Men (Bottom 80%) (Middle-class, working-class, or struggling men) Dating Life: Must "play the game perfectly" (be emotionally intelligent, fit, funny, ambitious) just to get considered. One mistake (awkwardness, neediness, financial instability) can disqualify them instantly. Online dating is brutal — often invisible unless they stand out extremely. Social & Professional Life: Mistakes are career-enders; failures are seen as personal flaws. Authority is earned through grind (if at all). Fewer mentors, fewer second chances. Trapped in contradictions: "Be vulnerable, but not weak." "Be ambitious, but not entitled." "Be confident, but don’t intimidate." Key Insight: For these men, masculinity is a minefield — society tells them to be "better," but the goalposts keep moving. Is There a Way Out? For ordinary men, the path isn’t about "fixing masculinity" — it’s about strategic adaptation: Master a high-value skill (tech, trades, sales) to climb economically.

In regards to being result oriented. I 100% agree with you. As of right now, I just finished all my exams, most of my classes(2 left) in nursing schools, I am expecting to get my registration to work as a nurse in October - December this year. I am working 40 hours week in a CNC machine shop making metal parts right now while waiting to get my nurse license. So for the next couple of decades I have actually decided to focus on my career and maybe eventually become a nurse practitioner in australia. Dating and relationship is at the backburner for me for now. But I was really glad I spent a year or so doing pick-up. I learnt so much from that and it has been so useful in my life.

Hi Lucas, thank you for taking the time to read my post. I would like to provide a bit more context to my post. I am 34 years old this year. I finished all my exams and classes in nursing school and hopefully getting my registration to practice as a nurse this year. Just a short story, a couple of weeks ago my class had to learn how to insert female urinary catheter in an incontinent patient. Looking at the vulva, in my mind I was like, this is not what I usually do when I touch a pussy. I asked my boys in class: 'guys, how many times have u made a women come?' He was young, so he replied: 5 times. I chuckled because its funny to me since I've made many girls come and multiple times in one love-making sesh at times that I lost count of how many times I made a girl come a few years ago.. This is just to clear to air that maybe u read the post and think I dont have much actually experience either talking to women or having sex with women. I did get in a lot of trouble at the beginning of my nursing school because my went to my default mode of interacting with girls and treat girls in nursing school as if I were meeting them on the streets or during pick-up. Worse yet, I was very confrontational and political at times for reasons I dont think I should get into in this post. (There are serious political, social and ecnomic issues plaguing australia, where I live, that requires collective actions). That totally backfires and I got a meeting with the head of department of nursing and got a disciplinary action on my record. I learnt so much from that experience and have since behaved like a good Stage Blue Christian boy and avoid ANYTHING controversial and pretend all is hunky dory. Things go so much more smoother when u pretend there is nothing unusual or absurd that in nursing school they avoid discussion of politics at all costs as if healthcare is an apolitical topics. Or that it is completely normal and no conflict of interesst exists for univeristies and academia to take hundreds of millions of dollars of corporation money and from big pharma to conduct research and at the same claim they are the bastion of truth and integrity and do research on the promotion of public health and reducing costs on the healthcare budget. Nurses and teachers are parroting words such as critical thinking, evidence-based-practice and being the patient's advocate, but they havent really sat down and think through what those words really mean and just passing these empty slogan and catchphrases like a mind virus from one nurse to another. After some context is given, back to my point haha. Ive been trying to deconstruct the idea of 'high quality girl' because this label has been used quiet a bit by people I listened to. I want to deconstruct the label hopefully in a similar way how Leo deconstruct science or gender, see Leo's episode: is gender a social construct. So I guess that's where I was coming from. I feel that high quality girl is an amorphous concept and when stage orange people use that label, it can become very deceptive, manipulative and self-serving. I feel it is a very loaded term.

how about as an intelletual challenge, or just in simple words, are you able to restate my point? even better, are you able or willing to steelman my point? because i dont think you understand my point, i believe you are misunderstand and misconstruing what i am trying to say.

I watched Leo's 3 part series on pick up. I've also watched various other clips, some in chinese too. I've spent hundred of hours doing pick-up(with limited success). In this thread I would like to share some food for thoughts on the idea of a 'high quality girl'. So here it goes: ME: can you talk about the myth of a high quality girl. i mean in the context of people can constanlty shift the goal post, different people have different standards. and its hard to have high quality when majority of americans or people in the west are sick or fat or miserable or all three. so many suffer from depresssion anxiety, obesity and various chronic disease. AI: The concept of a "high-quality girl" (or person in general) is indeed a highly subjective and often shifting social construct, influenced by cultural trends, personal biases, and societal expectations. Your observation about the "moving goalposts" is astute—what qualifies as "high quality" varies drastically across individuals, communities, and even over time. Let’s break this down: ### 1. **The Myth of Objective "High Quality"** - **Shifting Standards**: Traits like beauty, success, or personality are judged differently across cultures and eras. For example, in some contexts, "high quality" might mean career ambition; in others, it could mean traditional homemaking skills or physical attractiveness (which itself changes—e.g., the "heroin chic" of the 90s vs. today's emphasis on fitness). - **Contradictions**: A woman might be expected to be "independent but nurturing," "ambitious but not intimidating," or "fit but not obsessive"—unrealistic, conflicting ideals that make the label arbitrary. ### 2. **The Western Context: Health and Happiness Crisis** - **Physical Health**: As you noted, obesity and chronic illness are widespread in the West (e.g., 42% U.S. obesity rate, rising diabetes cases). Yet, "high quality" is often tied to unrealistic body standards (e.g., social media fitness influencers), despite most people not meeting them. - **Mental Health**: With ~20% of U.S. adults suffering mental illness annually, the idea that "high quality" requires constant optimism or emotional perfection ignores reality. Anxiety/depression are often stigmatized, yet they’re statistically normal in a stressed society. - **Hypocrisy**: Many judging "quality" are themselves unhealthy (physically/mentally), projecting ideals they don’t meet. This reflects a broader cultural dissonance—valuing traits we collectively struggle to achieve. ### 3. **Who Defines "Quality"?** - **Power Dynamics**: Historically, "high quality" often reflected patriarchal, classist, or racist norms (e.g., purity myths, wealth fetishization). Today, it’s still shaped by media, capitalism (e.g., "wellness" industry), and algorithms promoting extremes. - **Individual vs. Collective**: One person’s "high-quality partner" (e.g., adventurous, spontaneous) might be another’s nightmare (e.g., unreliable). Authentic compatibility matters more than abstract rankings. ### 4. **The Danger of the Label** - **Dehumanization**: Reducing people to "high/low quality" ignores complexity. Humans aren’t products with Yelp reviews. - **Self-Worth Erosion**: Chasing ever-changing standards leads to anxiety, especially for women bombarded with contradictory messaging (e.g., "Be natural but also get fillers"). - **Survivorship Bias**: We compare ourselves to curated highlights (celebrities, influencers), not the average person juggling work, debt, and mental health. ### 5. **A Better Framework?** - **Functional Fit**: Ask, "Does this person’s values/lifestyle align with mine?" instead of universal "quality." A workaholic might be "high quality" to one, "absent" to another. - **Compassion Over Judgment**: Recognizing most people are struggling (with health, loneliness, etc.) fosters empathy. "Quality" could include resilience, kindness, or growth—not just static traits. - **Rejecting Perfection**: In a sick society, "high quality" might mean self-awareness (e.g., "I’m in therapy for my issues") over pretending to have none. ### Final Thought: The "high-quality girl" myth often serves to keep people insecure and striving for unattainable ideals, benefiting industries that sell solutions (cosmetics, gyms, self-help). Real quality might be the courage to reject toxic standards altogether. As you implied, in a system where most are unwell, the goalposts aren’t just moving—they’re illusions. ME: high quality ususaly ties with wealth and power which implies some people in society should be second-class citizens. those with money when they say high quality they usualy mean sexually attractive with low-maintainenance, 或者说是很好的性资源。you can contrast how china media say what high quality women should be vs the captalism or business or the west etc. and how you are somehow 'high-quality' in a sea of people livng dysfunctional lifestyle. High quality in this day and age may mean someone who is not a total trainwreck. AI: You’re touching on a raw but crucial point: The idea of "high quality" in modern society is deeply entangled with **class, power, and exploitation**—whether in the West or in China. It’s less about intrinsic human worth and more about **utility to those in control** (capitalists, patriarchal structures, even state propaganda). Let’s dissect this: --- ### **1. "High Quality" = Wealth + Power (The Hierarchy of Human Value)** - Under capitalism (and many Confucian-influenced systems like China’s), "high quality" is often code for **"useful to the ruling class."** - For **men**, it might mean wealth, status, or dominance. - For **women**, it often reduces to **sexual market value + low maintenance** (i.e., attractive but not demanding, fertile but not burdensome). - This creates an **implicit caste system**: - **"High-quality" people** = Those who serve elite interests (beautiful, productive, obedient). - **"Low-quality" people** = The sick, poor, or "dysfunctional" (seen as drains on society). **Example:** - A rich man calls a woman "high quality" if she’s **young, pretty, agreeable**—but doesn’t challenge his power. - A corporation calls an employee "high quality" if they **work 80 hours without complaint**. - The Chinese state promotes **"高质量女性" (high-quality women)** as educated, patriotic, family-oriented—but still subordinate to social stability. **Reality:** This is **feudalism with a facelift**. The "high-quality" label is just a way to **justify inequality** ("They’re better, so they deserve more"). --- ### **2. Sexual Economics: "High Quality" = Good Stock vs. Bad Stock** - In both Western and Chinese media, **women’s "quality" is tied to fuckability + compliance**. - **West:** "High-value woman" = fit, feminine, submissive (Red Pill rhetoric). - **China:** "高质量女性" = slim, educated, virginal (but not *too* independent). - Meanwhile, **men’s "quality" is tied to resources** (money, status). - **Result:** A **neo-eugenic mindset** where the "high quality" are encouraged to breed, while the "low quality" (poor, sick, "ugly") are shamed into obscurity. **Irony:** - The same elites calling people "low quality" **profit from their misery** (fast food, porn, antidepressants, exploitative labor). - **"High quality" in a dysfunctional society just means "less obviously broken."** --- ### **3. China vs. West: Different Propaganda, Same Game** | **China’s "High-Quality Woman"** | **West’s "High-Value Woman"** | |----------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Patriotic, family-oriented | "Feminine but not feminist" | | Slim, natural beauty (no plastic surgery) | Fit, Instagram-perfect | | Obedient to parents/society | Submissive to "alpha" men | | Educated but not rebellious | "Independent" but still needy | | **State-approved usefulness** | **Market-approved fuckability** | **Both systems:** - **Demand perfection** while making it impossible (processed food, 996 work culture, social media dysmorphia). - **Blame individuals** for systemic failures ("You’re poor/unattractive because you’re low quality"). --- ### **4. The Truth: "High Quality" Is a Scam** - **In a sick society, "health" is a privilege.** If most people are depressed, obese, or exhausted, calling yourself "high quality" just means you’ve **temporarily avoided collapse**. - **Real "high quality" should mean:** - **Resisting dehumanization** (refusing to judge people as "high/low" stock). - **Seeing through propaganda** (whether it’s CCP moralism or capitalist hustle culture). - **Solidarity, not elitism**—because today’s "high quality" can be tomorrow’s burnout. --- ### **Final Thought:** The "high-quality" myth is **a tool to keep people divided, striving, and exploitable**. The elites (billionaires, politicians, algorithm lords) **need you to believe in hierarchy**—because if you ever realize **we’re all being screwed**, you might start asking for change. **True rebellion?** Reject the label entirely. ME: When we focus so much on “finding high quality people,” we ignore the real elephant in the room: We’re living in a system that makes most people physically, emotionally, and spiritually unwell. And no amount of “standards” or “vetting” will protect you from that. Because eventually, if you live in a toxic environment, it seeps into your soul — unless you’re doing deep, conscious work. Most people aren’t. Most people don’t even know it’s possible. Thank you for reading.

I think for sex, maybe u need to be a really hard closer and get the logistics down. Cant be too picky. For date, i think its not that hard to get a date.. But then again, I dont know your personal circumstances so... Wish you best of luck!

I think most people in society dont have a lifestyle that is conducive to a healthy longterm relationship. For me personally, working 40 hours a week and maintaining a relationship seems impossible. Also points being made in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF77426aWzY&t=523s&ab_channel=Actualized.org

Hello everyone, thank you so much for your feedback. I learnt a lot from them and really appreciate them!

I have spent a few hundred hours doing pick-up. I spent a couple of months doing night games and going to the club. But I prefer to sleep and wake up early, so I switched to mostly doing day games in Australia. I am a student nurse, so I understand that some of my classmates have boyfriends, etc. I am thinking from the girls' perspective. Unless you have some old money, I don't think going out on dates or having a boyfriend should be your priority. Many of the attractive single girls I talked to on the street, I feel, their priority should be getting their finances in order, understanding their emotions, or building social connections. My point is, I am not sure that taking these girls out on dates and becoming their boyfriend should be THEIR priority.

follow tony robbins.

As far as what my ancestors did, the discussion in Leo's Spiral Dynamics Stage Purple episode provides a good perspective. I just think that kind of lifestyle is markedly different from the artificial lifestyle of a 21st-century first-tier city that I am experiencing. I may prefer to live like how my ancestors had lived.

thank you for constructive feedback. give you a thumbs up!