Consept

It is but apparantly not when it comes to making money. The halo effect works for things like making friends, attracting partners etc. But in terms of making money a lot of studies have shown more unattractive people make more, there's a few reasons if you read the stories I posted earlier

Your taking your anecdotal experience and extrapolating it to make a wider point. I could find 10 overweight and not good looking women who are very successful but it doesn't necessarily mean every woman who is successful is that way. If you then say 'oh but I know 10 women who are good looking and successful', both samples are so small that they don't really help as come to truth that's why it's better to look at a wider scope of society than your own. The equivalent of what you said would really be something like 'a man's physical strength is proportionate to his success' which obviously doesn't make any sense. But the whole thing of if you're not that good looking you'll always be behind good looking people, is again not true and basically incel mentality.

OK so I guess you read the standard studies as well and take them into account. You are aware that there's a scientific consensus contrary to your central points. How do you square the circle of accepting the scientific consensus but also disagreeing with it? Let's 98% of experts say make up the consensus and 2% disagree, does it make sense to give equal weight to the 2% that disagree?

@BadHippie what you don't see is that in this discussion @Forestluv is not saying you're right or wrong. Your viewpoints are correct, they just don't encapsulate the whole picture. It's like your looking at one corner of a painting and saying 'it's a cloud, that's all there is' , but if you stand back and look at the whole painting there's a whole country scene that's been captured. You have to acknowledge that truth encompasses things you don't know and/or don't accept, if you don't you are severely limiting yourself

This could be true for models or jobs that are based on looks but for every other job this is a reach. By your logic, every female in politics, law, medicine, tech should be a super model as these are the top jobs, of course this isn't the case, that is actually the most sexist comment on this thread so far ?? I love you though https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/28/opinions/ugliness-premium-opinion-drexler/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/really-ugly-people-make-more-money-2018-4%3famp

Yeah the funny thing is that this mindset is actually very similar to a male incel mindset. They believe 'women should just want them just because and its womens fault because theyre whores that are only attracted to chad'. Theres not much difference between 'high value men should want me because im successful and if they dont its because they cant handle a woman like me and theyre weak', both shift responsibility onto the opposite sex because theyre not being chosen. These are extremes, but with the incels they are kind of shunned and looked down upon, rightly or wrongly so, with the females theyre almost pandered and catered to, a lot of people agree will agree with them in conversation, which is why i think it could be a real problem if it becomes a mainstream way of thinking, which i guess it kind of is already. The result is the same though, both groups will end up alone and/or unfulfilled if they dont address their own personal issues.

Yes on a personal level i would be interested in someone who can engage in deep conversations, even if they cant but are open to new ideas thats also a plus. I do have to be attracted to them though otherwise i would more just see it as friends, its happened a couple times for me, but it definitely puts their attraction level up though, so if it wasnt someone id typically be attracted to, this factor could put them over the edge. Right im completely with you on this point and here in lies the issue of the thread. There are a lot of women that dont posses these almost default qualities or at least suppress them, successful women in particular who think to be successful means being like an alpha male type man is just not attractive to men and the issue is that they think because now theyve got all this success in the material world that it automatically translates to success and desirability in the dating world. If you have success and keep these qualities then you wouldnt have a problem, there maybe issues with a man being insecure but as you say youll filter them out or possibly if you really like him work it out. I know some women, some even family members, who are very successful, phds, high education all of that, who are very strong, direct, say whats on their mind, theyre usually very vocal in terms of feminism, but they come off as masculine. They can barely get a man to stay around for a couple days let alone a relationship and if you tell them anything to help or make them think, theyll rip your head off and tell you 'men are the problem they just cant handle strong women'. This to me is sad because i do care about these people and i know that they will most likely never get someone who will be with them long term. Its also sad because in moments of introspection or just a deeper conversation you can see that feminine energy coming through. So these women and women like this, really need to work on themselves, not in the way they think but actual counselling to open up their feminine and intuitive side. These woman also seem to blame men for all their troubles, this needs to stop as well, this is not co-operative by any stretch of the imagination. There should be understanding between the sexes and i feel these type of women deeply want to be understood but have zero understanding of any man.

What is that based on?

Numbers wise, there just won't be enough men to give every woman in this bracket a partner that they would accept. So they have a few options, one is of course being single forever (if they always get what they want this will be tough), dropping their own standards and picking through intuition or love or being single but having boyfriends (sugar mummy style). This generation is unlucky in that they have success or at least opportunity for it, but they also evolutionarily speaking want someone equal or preferably higher status. So they're stuck in two worlds. Equality in this sense is great but it means that they also might have to take on the man's traditional role and be the breadwinner and head of the household, I can't really see them wanting to do it but it looks like it's kinda going that way. So yeah you could start to see a lot of traditional gender reversed relationships where the man is the stay at home dad. The other thing of course is men could get really disenfranchised with this setup, you're already seeing things like mgtow. Men always accepted their role now a vast amount are being made redundant. I don't know exactly where it will go but definitely the dynamics have are irreversibly changed.

I kind of agree, but to really be honest all the things you mention like individuation, education etc are things we end up liking because we like you. If we like you, we accept whatever about you, we don't like you specifically because you are into personal development or into fitness, there's just something we like about you. The foundation of which isn't about maxing out on looks or being feminine (I don't know what a maxed out feminine person would even be) but there are a certain set of qualities that most guys want, (that I've mentioned) if they had a choice. However this is the foundation of attraction, then other things as you mentioned, are built on top of this. In terms of keeping a man, if I was to give advice to women, I would say don't compete with him, don't try and change him - if there's something you really can't stand and can't get passed then maybe move on, co-operate with him - be on the same team, add value to his life in some way, take a genuine interest in what he's interested in, have a high level of respect for him. If you don't feel like you can do these things then it probably won't work or you'll think it's working but he'll be unhappy underneath

Im just going to focus on the points that i think theres a misunderstanding, hopefully ill make it clear what i mean When i say a woman has made herself too valuable im literally talking about he sees herself as too valuable, im not saying a man sees her as too valuable and is threatened, Im saying he just doesnt consider her success and so from a mans attraction point of view it doesnt make her more attractive. This is a very important point. To flip it lets say a man works on being nurturing, being more feminine, he learns about womens fashion, he gets really good at housework and looking after kids, this guy might really believe that his value in terms of women being attracted to him is going up, he may put himself at a 10 and think he can relate to women and hes got lots of stuff going for him, he may think that hes now more attractive to women but once he gets out there he'll find that probably isnt the case (yes some will be attracted to that). Just because you think something youre doing makes you more attractive it doesnt make it so and its not to do with guys being intimidated, if you lined up an attractive woman with an unattractive woman who was successful, a guy is not choosing the attractive woman because hes intimidated by the other option. Right but the laundry list tends to be from successful women because of their own inflated value, but yes if you dont have a laundry list then there will be a lot of potential partners. Im not saying you have to make yourself small or less valuable to attract a man, however you are will attract men if you look good, women control the access to sex they choose partners ultimately, but when it comes to marriage and long term relationships, men control that aspect of it. The acid test is whether a man wants to marry you or not. For this a man, especially a man valued highly by women, has to really want to do it and to really want to do it, yes he has to see value in the woman on his terms. As you say, if he doesnt and he doesnt think it will work he wont marry her. Again its not about men being one upped or wanting to be catered to, the list for men is very simple and very short, feminine, attractive, co-operative, nurturing, its pretty much it. Even if women havent got a long laundry list youd be lying if you said theres not some things you want, this is the same for men and men wont settle down with you if you dont match up, at least if we have options. So im not saying change yourself, you shouldnt, but if you dont have those qualities you probably wont get what you might consider a higher quality man. True, but there will be a limit for women, most dont want to look after a man, ive not met one that is looking for that, whereas a man would. So there are practical implications here. I agree he should be interested in that, but then it depends what he wants. If he wants a family he may choose a woman whos dreams and goals are to have a family. There is you are filtering out 99% of the male population. Also you will get a lot of men wanting to hang out but as i said the acid test is if they want to settle down. You might not, but a lot of women i know have problems keeping a man around but not getting them in the first place. But i agree that its probably cos theyre not in their feminine. Actually i believe that if you are with a woman in a long term relationship or marriage, the man should provide that safe space for them to grow and do what they want, so i agree with you on this. If a man brought up that hes the breadwinner or even really believed in its importance and so it showed subtly in his behavior, i think a woman would notice this and not like it. Its the same if a woman does it, but its obviously a slightly more sensitive subject for men, given the history of humans

First of all i appreciate your response and the time you took to consider the points i brought up. Im gonna just clarify some of the stuff i said. So yes there are some complaints on the forum about women's preferences, but i would say that if its about womens's high standard then its a valid complaint, if its just the fact that women have preference then obviously thats a poor argument. Either way men may complain but the majority have always historically married women, protected them, provided for them etc. Whereas as some women today are complaining to the point of not settling for anyone and putting it on the men ie the Tomi Lahren vid. OK so this is all fine if the women doesnt have a criteria that rules out 99.9% of men. So this is really for the women that are complaining that there arent enough good men, which are usually (not always) successful women. Women traditionally and really even now, will have a certain amount of suitors as you say, who approach them and they make their selection out of those. Obviously the more attractive women will have more options. Whats happened now is that some women have overvalued themselves to the point that theyve priced themselves completely out of the dating market. This is because theyve tied their attractiveness to their success, which as every man has commented on this thread, does not increase their attractiveness. Because theyve judged themselves to be so high up, essentially they are becoming the pursuers as their criteria is so high it only includes a certain amount, so they know who the want, the problem is those guys most likely dont want them as their criteria is no where near as high plus theyre probably looking for different things. Therefore there is accountability on the womans part in this case because she needs to compete with the other woman, without her success being a factor. So if she wants that top guy she has to appeal to him otherwise accept the suitors who are giving you attention. That top guy may just want basic things, a feminine woman, co-operative, attractive, fit body, if you cant provide those things, thats not the guys fault and your success does not make up for it. yes agree completely It definitely can happen, in fact some women who earn more than their partner have actually said they have to really consider how to make him feel ok with earning less. This makes sense as if its the other way women dont like to be reminded that the man is earning all the money either, but of course men have had years of being told they should be the breadwinner so it hits harder

Yep and thats what you call an incel mindset which is why incels are bottom of the barrel

That's what you took from what I said? The success doesn't matter, I've said that many times

I saw your comment just after i posted mine lol, but yes i completely agree with your take and i like your conclusion that women are picking with head rather than heart, that is really the core of the issue. On a wider point just on this whole topic - Woman have always been the choosers, men have had to do what they can to be chosen, this is an evolutionary thing. The reason why men are even ambitious or driven in the first place is that the men women chose, back in hunter gatherer days, were the most resourceful and physically able to protect their family. This how its been for 1000s of years, men have never complained about this even when it leads to things like wanting them to be physically imposing by having a certain height or having enough resources or being able to connect emotionally, all these things and more push men to improve and be their best to attract a woman. If its things they cant change like height they play the cards they were dealt. The alternative is going into victim mode and becoming an incel. From an early age we almost intuitively know we have to work in some way to get a woman, at first we're told be society we need to be really nice to them, then when that doesnt work we might overdo it with the 'badboy' persona, then (if we get there) we realise we have to actually understand women on a deeper level and not treat them as some fragile pixie and actually treat them as a human and reach a connection on that level. This is a hard, long, confusing process (not many tell you this). Now cut to women, for the first time in history the last 50 years have seen women nearly reach parity with men in terms of resources, opportunities, pretty much everything, girls are outperforming boys at school so this is likely to carry on. This is great of course, there should be freedom for anyone who wants to do anything (within legality). But now with the choice comes responsibility for the choice, for example back in the day it wasnt that men wanted to do all the work, they just knew if they didnt they wouldnt get a partner. They were free to make that choice to some extent but they knew that it would severely limit their options. Now im not saying thats exactly the same as women working, its not, but you have to realise that men like certain things like a woman whos caring and nurturing, who is co-operative, who doesnt compete with him (oneupmanship), who is attractive, who is fit etc. What ive seen a lot from women that complain about men is 'he needs to take me as i am', which is fine but understand that many men may not want to do that, the same way women will not take a man who hasnt developed himself in the ways ive mentioned previously. So there has to be some accountability here of not being what men want, which by the way is not a very long list. Success doesnt factor into a mans selection to pursue you, its really all the other factors that would put someone off. Also a lot of successful women are not even looking at Mcdonalds workers or refuse collectors, theyre not looking at 91% of men who dont earn more than them, then cut into that 9% with height, fitness, age etc. So when you get to this probably 1% of the male pool that a successful woman would want, this person has a variety of choices, plus he doesnt care about dating someone who earns as much as them, so why would he choose this woman if she doesnt match up in the areas that are important to him? Also the guys that are put off by a womans income, this will not even be a factor until they get married and have to work out bills and things like that, in most cases i dont think a guy like this would even get past that womans selection process. If he does what will put him off are other attributes that could be synonymous with a successful woman, its not the success itself.

OK apologies for mis-representing you in that case. But men don't have a problem with it, she can have her own financial independence. The issue is women think it makes them more attractive so their expectations of what they can attract go up, but for most men it makes no difference. Likewise a man can think being a caring, nurturing guy who wants to be looked after by a woman will make him more attractive and women might even support his view, however in reality he won't get much action.

This is not true depending on what the woman earns of course. If you take america, a successful woman let's say is on 6 figures which is what Emerald said. The amount of men making similar is 9% of men in America, so if you're criteria includes them earning the same or more you've cut out 91% of all men. Then when you factor most men earning this will be 50 plus as it takes time to get to this level, if you're early 30s and would like a guy under 40 this is gonna be a really small pool. Also as I see on dating sites a lot of women will have other criteria, over 6 foot, in shape etc. This shrinks things even more. The point is because of your criteria that you're free to choose, your selection is smaller. If men don't have the same criteria then they have a wider selection.

How is it mens fault? Men are in that same context that you speak of, do you think men could ever make that choice in the past to not slave away all day to look after their family? It's no ones 'fault' it just is what it is and everyone has to play the cards they're dealt. Your position seems to be 'women aren't attracted to a guy that wants to be looked after by a woman because of how they've been throughout history. However men are wrong and are at fault for who they're attracted to despite how they've been throughout history'. Can you not see the incongruence with this position? I won't go as far as saying it's sexist but it's definitely not an equal view

It's not about wanting all women to tailor themselves for men, everyone is free to be who they are and others are free to desire that or not for a potential mate. Let's flip it for a second though, let's say a man says, 'you know what Im not going to work, my aim is for a woman to marry me and look after me financially and I'll help with the home. When we have kids ill look after them'. Now of course he's free to say this and some women maybe attracted to this but majority will not be and that's their right not to be. This man can't now say 'women are just scared of a caring, nurturing man, they're threatened, that's why no one wants to marry me', this would be a ridiculous stance but this seems to be the stance people have no problem taking the other way. Also if a man did say this a lot of women would agree and be like 'yeah that's really progressive', but I bet when it came to marrying or even dating that guy they'd start getting hesitant. This is also how men feel, of course we're for freedom of choice, but it doesn't mean men will marry someone who doesn't align with them. This is about taking responsibility, you can make whatever choices you want and you should but to say how others should react to your choices is an insane position.

Here's the thing that women have trouble accepting 'men don't care about your financial or career success', it's not a factor in us pursuing you. Everytime this subject is broached men are always gaslighted into thinking that's wrong, men and women are attracted to different things, it's very simple. What's happened is women are doing much better than guys academic wise and are outperforming them and achieving more, which is great, but the downside is the pool of men these women will accept as a partner is shrinking. Men may feel some intimidation but there's whole scores of men that wouldn't even be given a second thought. This is not mens fault. For men the more we earn and improve we become more attractive to women but it's not the same and women think it will be hence the dissapointment. Women generally are in their prime in terms of attractiveness in the 20s (according to majority of men) and men from about 35 to 50 when they're more of the finished article and have created a good foundation. It just works like this, I don't know why people get pissed about it

Thanks for the share my bro, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Yes current society is what it is, but i think what underpins what youve said is that those that can are taking advantage where they can. If we think of money as basically an exchange of value, there are some that are trying to take as much value as possible whilst giving very little. The example of the 08 crash is interesting because the banks were claiming they were giving value but in reality they were squeezing value out of the poorest people, its particularly underhanded because they were dangling the idea of owning your own house underneath them. But this is why its so important to understand money because you can see where people are trying to give you less value a mile away. btw and im guessing youll disagree, but this is why i think cryptos, at least some are going to have problems, because there isnt actually inherent value, its just people trying to get rich. You could argue cash is just as valueless but its aim isnt really to make people rich its just a way of spending value. Cryptos essentially are trying to replace or at least offer an alternative to cash but most are not seeing it like that atm. Also it would be unlikely that you get so many coins being used as a way of exchanging value in the future, likely one or two might but not all, so i think eventually if the value isnt taken out, a lot of people will lose out. Yeah this is needed because the poverty mindset is really ingrained and i think its really holding up a lot of peoples progression. What is this about? Great video and thats what conscious business is about, setting up win/win situations and deals. If i offer you something you want why would you not go for it?

This is the problem, who is the arbiter of what Jesus teachings are perversions? Is it you? Im not stuck on that, you brought up the quotes to prove your point but when i offered the full quote or context of it, you dismissed it and said the teachings are wrong or perverted, this is close, if not is, a fundamentalist mindset. You have some truth in what you say but the way youve said it is clearly not the best. This is fine in that yes material doesnt compare with being, its not even close. However to say its worthless is a poor take, for most people to even get to being or spirituality there needs to be a foundation that allows it through resources but also through relationships, through experience of the material, through purpose, through contribution to society. It would be very difficult for an undeveloped, homeless person to become enlightened, thats the other side of the coin. Oshos views are quite interesting on the subject -

This is a slight misquote, the quote is actually -"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Notice he said 'if you want to be perfect'. His teaching has always been man can not be perfect only God can. So it doesn't seem as if he's saying sell your possessions. This misunderstanding , as @Wilhelm44pointed out, is part of the reason why so many have an aversion to money or think it's anti spiritual. There is also debate on the camel quote, a lot of people say he was talking about either a rope going through the eye of a needle or theres pathway that goes between to large cliff faces, which is a narrow passage, and so it's hard for a camel to get through. The key thing is that both are not impossible, it can just be harder to do. But of course I might be wrong, but the point is that teaching are open to interpretation so it can become troublesome when they are followed as the highest truth, especially when they appear to give rules on how humans should think and feel.

Interesting, so do you think passages like this have led to money being looked at negatively by some or what is your interpretation? I also think the classic quote from the bible 'the love of money is the root of all evil' has probably had an effect particularly as its often mis-translated as 'money is the root of all evil'

The motive or intention of the thread is to highlight something thats not often talked about in spiritual communities and challenge underlying assumptions that i think some people have. A lot of threads ive seen recently from younger people are along the lines of 'money and material stuff is so toxic stage orange and i want to bypass it through meditation', i wanted to open up a discussion on the counter side of that and offer a different viewpoint, as i think the viewpoint i mentioned can be unhelpful although im open to be challenged on that. If we are looking at the whole its important to look at all sides. What was your intention in posting your first response?