Emerald

He could avoid being McDonalds... As long as he’s not trying to be McDonalds. And the issue is often that men feel like McDonalds guys are the most desirable and highest quality guys because of the high patronage as men (like restaurants) value high patronage. And so they seek to be like McDonalds or be McDonalds. And as a woman who is bored with McDonalds, I see it as a shame. What’s useful about pickup is learning appetizing dish presentation and effective branding and advertising strategies. But keep in mind that a high quality restaurant probably won’t be advertising themselves using the exact same strategies as McDonalds does. McDonalds will probably go for the cheap, fast, easy, and satiating angle of advertisement. This is the type of strategy that guys who lead with sexual intent use... and it’s an effective strategy for the restaurant. But a fine dining restaurant will advertise in more subtle ways and communicate quality of experience over simply speed and convenience. And my recommendation to women is to avoid restaurants that use fast food advertising strategies.

Yeah, that’s a good extension of the analogy. Basically, a caveat emptor to patrons about the long-term health risks of eating at McDonalds... and also to watch out for misleading advertising strategies that present to food to look more appetizing and better quality than it actually is. But also, on the qualitative level, to encourage patrons to cultivate a more mature palette and refined tastes so that they can really go deeper with their exploration and appreciation of food... instead of just settling for McDonalds.

Hey, it’s a good business model for them. And you’ll get tons of insecure restaurants, who gut the entire menu and theme of their restaurant to become a McDonalds franchise. Some great Mediterranean place in a bad location... boom, sold out to become a McDonalds. Nice Vegetarian restaurant without the advertising savvy to know that most women won’t be interested but that hippie women will love them... boom, sold out to be a McDonalds.

Yes! Chads target the emotions in the same way that McDonalds hamburgers target the tastebuds. I mean McDonalds tastes pretty good, to be honest. I see why it’s a popular restaurant. It’s a fast and easy way to satiate hunger and get the dopamine firing. But if someone says McDonalds is their favorite restaurant, I’m going to seriously question their taste. And if someone wants to “settle down with McDonalds” and eat there daily, I will warn them that it’s bad for their health in the long run.

Perfect name! Sure lots of people eat at (Chad) McDonalds. In fact, it may very well be the most well-patroned restaurant in the history of humanity. And then you get all these other restaurants (men) trying to be more like McDonalds (Chad) because they assume more patrons means that the food must be higher quality from the patrons’ perspective. I mean, if McDonalds didn’t have really high quality food, then it wouldn’t be so popular... right? And since restaurants (straight men) don’t patron other restaurants, they can only assume that McDonalds has to be the best one. And so when patrons (women) tell these restaurants (men) that we’re not that into McDonalds (Chad) and that we prefer some one-of-a-kind mom and pop restaurant that absolutely puts McDonalds to shame, they simply don’t believe them (us). And then they site the numbers... because men are biased towards seeking abundance and think the most well-patroned restaurant must be the best one. But the fact that McDonalds has more patrons doesn’t communicate anything about the quality from the patrons’ (women’s) perspective.

See this is the issue with these distorted but useful viewpoints. Men operating off of this framework, tend to make the mistake of thinking that guys who are the 5-star dish guys are the McDonalds hamburger guys... and that the McDonalds hamburger guys are the 5-star dish guys. And so you get lots of men aspiring to being a McDonalds hamburger which has mass appeal but is ultimately unhealthy, lukewarm, and mediocre. And that’s just not as emotionally stimulating from the female perspective. It’s also not strategically wise to invest in if you’re looking for a fulfilling relationship. Those men that are typically called “beta-male providers” by men operating off of this framework are the alphas in most women’s value system. Women generally want a long term relationship. It isn’t something we just settle for when we “can’t” get random sex from some random pick up artist. And that’s because we can ALWAYS get random sex from some random pick up artist. McDonalds is ALWAYS available.

Absolutely... emotion ALWAYS trumps logic. That’s actually a huge facet of the point I’m making. Don’t go for any guy who feels emotionally lukewarm to you. But my experience has been that it takes a few months for the emotion to hit a fever pitch. It’s like a very slow boil. And it’s that heart-centered fever pitch that makes me soften and be motivated to merge with a man. You see, I find the IDEA of a relationship unappetizing. They seem really boring to me when I see others in them. And unless I have feelings for someone, the thought of finding a relationship doesn’t compel me. And sex is a bit ‘meh’ without the fever pitch too. So, I really need to be completely drowning in a river of loving, erotic emotions to really soften up and feel compelled toward seeking a relationship with given man. For a guy I just met, (if I actually allowed myself to be receptive to his advances)... he can maybe hit 3 or 4 out of 10 if he’s really good with seduction because the loins-centered feelings can still be aroused without the slow boiling required for the heart/centered feelings. And pick-up works for evoking mostly loins-centered feelings. But from my experience, I can tell you that that’s really not that motivating, unless you’re horny or lonely... or you you’re more worried about simply having a relationship rather than seeking a quality emotional experience. This is why, even if I’m only looking at this through the lens of the potential for feeling certain emotions, I recommend being unreceptive to cold approaches. It’s a bit like saying, “Don’t spoil your appetite on the McDonalds hamburger of feeling-states, when you can be patient and hold out for the 5-star restaurant dish of feeling-states.” There’s just a clear qualitative difference in the feelings your capable of experiencing with a man you’ve known a while and had time to build up the intimacy, tension, and anticipation with... compared to the quality of emotion capable of being experienced with a guy you just met... even if he’s a bonafide seduction master. So, my recommendation to women is to stay non-receptive to any guy who’s Johnny on the spot. Just make it clear to him in the first minute that you’re not interested and he’ll move on to the next. It’s honestly as easy as hanging up on a telemarketer. Then just save your appetite for a while until a man in your circle really sparks your interest.

Yep! For men (especially men with a small social circle), pick up is useful as attracting is the main challenge. For women, attracting isn’t that much of a challenge, so there are much slower and more gratifying ways to meet and get to know a man just through organic socializing. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is the main challenge for women. So, even though I get why a lot of men do cold approach and can see why it’s useful to them, I would consider it poor strategy for a woman to invest any time or energy into men who try to sell themselves to you immediately.

It would be very similar to the feelings you have for your closest friends. So, if you can tell when there is a genuine give and take of love in your platonic friendships, then you can see if your friendship dynamic feels similarly strong with your romantic partner. Basically, does it feel like you’re good friends?

It’s hard for me to articulate it because many man are still capable of loving who are also dealing with trauma and dysfunction. So, there’s no wrote disqualifying behavior that, “If he does ____ he definitely doesn’t love you. A man can be pretty terrible and still love you... not that it would be wise to continue this relationship. But generally, you’ll be able to tell by looking past the sexual/romantic layers of the relationship and seeing how strong the friendship bond is between you two.

And that’s okay. Plenty of women will still be open to pick up. Bars and clubs aren’t going out of style anytime soon. I just don’t recommend it for women who are looking for a relationship. It’s not a very good strategy for getting the type of relationship experiences that most women want.

Thank you. ? The social circle thing works well for warm approach as a man too. And a wide social circle also conveys social status. It’s a much better way to find a compatible partner. But you’ll have more quantity of dates/sex with cold approach as it’s a numbers game. It’s just usually not as good as the social circle for cultivating relationships.

If you’re doing pick up, go ahead and be clear about your intentions up front. It will get you laid more often. But that’s your agenda... not a woman’s agenda. I recommend to women to just avoid men who cold approach and show sexual interest too quickly (unless she’s only looking for sex). This ‘rushing in’ that pick up oriented guys learn to do can be a red flag... but even if it’s not, it just isn’t emotionally stimulating enough to feel that yearning desire to merge with a man, tbh. Women are like water in a tea kettle... we take a while to get hot enough to boil. And if a man tries to make tea with me right away when the water’s still ice cold and I’m not even on the burner yet, I won’t have any desirous feelings. It will be as boring as talking to a telemarketer and potentially even a bit annoying if he’s doing it in a context that isn’t a night club or bar where cold approach is socially acceptable. And I also recommend women adopt an unreceptive way of responding to men who show sexual interest too quickly. You’re wise as a woman to screen it out because you send a clear message that you don’t accept spam and that you expect higher quality male attention that’s more meaningful and pointed directly towards you in particular, as opposed to being pointed at any and all attractive women this man meets. It’s honestly, much better and more exciting and natural feeling for women to find men by cultivating a rich social circle. And then, as organic interactions happen, feelings for one of the men in that social circle will typically start to arise. And over a month or so, those feelings for that man will get to a fever pitch. And the most fun part is when you’re really into a guy and things are still a little ambiguous and you and the guy are spending more and more time together and being kind of playful. And then, the breaking point comes... and usually that’s where things get physical. That’s what it’s like to develop more organic relationships via having a dynamic wider social circle.

Wrong! I said it’s wise not to date men outside your social circle if you’re a woman. A healthy social circle is like hundreds and hundreds of people that you have a platonic relationship to. And in that social circle you have mostly acquaintances. For example, when I was in college I had a few close friends, 30-40 or so more casual friends that I’d chill with at parties, and hundreds of acquaintances. And I recommend selecting a man who’s either in the more casual friendship category or the acquaintance category. But also, continually meeting new people to add to your wider circle to keep it dynamic. So, you definitely don’t need to be best buddies with a guy before dating him. I don’t recommend that. Just exist in proximity to him for 2 or 3 months, to give time for feelings to arise and to get to know his general MO.

This is the exact point I'm making in the OP. That which is true and that which is useful are sometimes not one in the same. For example, if you tell your child that they better brush their teeth every night or the tooth fairy will get mad... it's not true. But it is useful if you're a parent and your agenda is to get your kid to brush their teeth. Another example, people in an old village bury seeds in the ground to feed to a magical Earth deity. And if the Earth deity enjoys the seeds, it will provide food for the village. Is it true? Absolutely not. Is it useful? Definitely. The same thing is true with the narratives around female sexuality in pick up. It's useful because it gets guys to do things more effectively. But the narrative itself is a deep misunderstanding of what female sexuality is actually like. It is a Stage Orange version of the magical thinking found in Stage Purple. The only difference is that it sounds sciency and rational. So, it's a more convincing fairy tale... especially because it's useful.

The desire to be understood only applies to men I’m interested in.

Thank you!

Well said!

Intimacy... which means being seen and understood by your another person... is a relationship need for women. It's also a relationship need for a man. Intimacy serves as the foundation for a good relationship. It's just that men can still experience random sex with a woman without intimacy and still feel relatively satisfied with the experience. For women, random sex without intimacy is high risk/low reward. The real spice of the relationship for women, is the intimacy. And without that, a sexual relationship with a man is pretty boring as it doesn't even scratch the surface of what's genuinely stimulating for us. So, don't project men's insecurities onto women's sexuality and relationship needs. It would be like you saying, "Most men need sex to feel fulfilled in a relationship" and I would respond by saying... "That's just the insecurity talking." But no... it is genuinely something most men would require in order to feel that a relationship to a woman is fulfilling. So, from the female perspective, a relationship where the man can't/doesn't see you or understand you is as dull and dry as a relationship with a woman who never expresses sexual desire for you.