Emerald

I preferred this when I was 20 as well.

Personally, I understand. As someone with a really strong life-purpose myself that I'm working on daily, I need a partner who's not quite as married to their work as I am. So, I know that guys who have a strong life-purpose are not someone that I'd be a good match to because it's more likely to put me in a wishbone situation, where either he or I will have to sacrifice investment in our purpose for the others' purpose if they end up bringing us in opposite directions. It's much better to have a dynamic where both support the household, but that one isn't as purpose-driven as the other. But that's just what I need for my personal relationship dynamic, given the fact that I am a very purpose-driven person and cannot be otherwise without massive amounts of unhappiness and depression. I've been that way since I was about 5 years old, where I'm always aiming for some greater future trajectory which provides a sense that I'm living a meaningful story. It is a bit more common that the man be the purpose-driven one though. And it makes sense that many purpose-driven men would want a supportive partner who isn's as married to their work. But making your significant other your "purpose" is not the same as seeing your significant other as the prize.

Exactly. It's 100% like that. I remember, when I was 13 or 14, I thought that boys found the skinniest girls attractive. And I would be really jealous of girls I went to school with who were rail-thin. And this was the early 2000s, so all of the pop stars and actress were SUPER skinny. Mind you, I was only like 125 lbs at the time, which is smack in the middle of the range of normal weight for my height. But I was jealous of girls who were like 90-100 lbs. So, I felt a lot of pressure to get as skinny as possible. But then, I heard a lot of boys in my grade saying they liked a bit of meat on the bones and curves. And I saw a survey in some magazine where most guys hadn't rated the skinniest woman as the most attractive. So, knowing this enabled me to start leaning into my weight and appreciating my body type.

Why? It's a lot more forgiving than what men tend to believe women want.

I am thinking about it in terms of how it would be to be physical with him (cuddling and otherwise) when making that consideration. And the fleshiness is more inviting than the hardness. It just feels like you can physically connect more if a guy has a layer of fat over the muscle.

No... there really is a PREFERENCE for the "betas". And women just tend to respond better to guys with a strong but not ripped look. Bearing in mind, these are very young women so they're probably going to like the lean look... as that's very laddish and might resemble their male peers more. So, if they were a bit older, they might tend to prefer the dad bod. I personally prefer the dad bod... but would have preferred the leaner body as a younger woman. But notice how very few women choose the ripped body.

Not the same guy. But yes, I find the guy on the left more attractive than the guy on the right... body-wise and face-wise.

Yes... he's definitely an attractive man. Men are attractive when they have a mixture of hard and soft qualities because you can see his inner world reflected in his face and tender intimate moments are possible.

I wish we could test it out because you would definitely be surprised at what women REALLY respond to.

But women themselves tend to have a relationship bias. Most women don't tend to value short-term hookups or get a lot out of them. And many women aren't even interested in short-term hook-ups as the emotional stimulation is low and the risk is high. So, they're not as intrigued by super Masculine guys who might have more of a tendency to want to hit and run. Perhaps women who are more promiscuous and enjoy one-night stands might possibly prefer hyper-Masculine guys though for one-night stands. That would be something that would be of value to study. Like, for me, I've had a few one-night stands in the past. But they were pretty boring compared to the sex with a guy who I'm really interested in that I'm in a longterm relationship with. And my attractions and fantasies are geared towards averagely Masculine guys like 100% of the time.

The guy on the left just has a sexier looking body. And his face looks better with some more meat on it.

I'm trying to communicate to you something about what women are attracted to about men. It isn't about settling for the "beta" guy. It's about PREFERRING the "beta" guy. This is where the disconnect comes from because men tend to find super ripped guys more attractive but women tend to find moderately strong guys more attractive that have a more fatherly appearance.

In my experience, I've always preferred men that other men would call "betas" and never had much interest in the super ripped hyper-Masculine kind of guys. It's about the energy of a guy who has both hard and soft qualities... and their body type is more attractive to me. But "beta" guys can also treat you badly. So, it's not such a rigid dichotomy as that. I'm sure there are total sweethearts that look like Arnold Swartzenegger... and terrible guys that look like Adam Sandler. But I've always been far more likely to be attracted to a guy who looks more like the latter.

Women do tend to develop attractions towards men who are their match looks-wise. But very attractive women also don't tend to go for super ripped guys, as they don't respond as well to it compared to moderately strong guys. Like, the guy in that picture is WAY more attractive before his transformation, imo. And I'm sure that very attractive women would say the same things. And they've done surveys of women (including attractive women) where they rated the male body types they liked, and very few women chose the ripped/jacked guys. So "ripped-ness" is not something that most women (regardless of attractiveness level) prefer. Men tend to have a really strong positive reaction to really jacked guys... as it is something that men respect and admire. And it has a lot of currency in male dominance hierarchies. But women don't value what male dominance hierarchies value... and are less likely to go for a jacked guy compared to a guy who's strong and has a normal or fit body type... or even a bit of a dad bod. Women in general tend to be drawn to men who look more fatherly with a mixture of hard and soft qualities. Men in general tend to appreciate the appearance of men who look physically intimidating and hyper-Masculine... and almost machinelike in their level of hardness and stoicism.

Weren't you just criticizing Vegans for disrespecting and undermining traditional culture?

Men are more attractive in motion, that's for sure. And men are attractive when they're doing something that shows their strength and physical capabilities. Plus, gym girls will tend to be interested in gym guys because of the shared interests. But that is beside the point of this video. The point is that men tend to value hyper-Masculinity in men and believe that women are also attracted to it. But women tend to be more attracted to men who are more average in their level of Masculinity and prefer a guy who has his Masculinity mixed in with traits that aren't typically considered Masculine. I keep trying to communicate this a lot of different ways on this forum because I see lots of men on here who are under the impression that they have to compete in some kind of male dominance hierarchy and be the top alpha male to be preferred by women. Women's preferences are a lot more geared towards the average guy than they are towards some gigachad of a guy.

Like I said, this dynamic is subtle and is one that men and women tend to naturally fall into in a long-term relationship. It's more akin to a husband fixing the sink to help his wife and her appreciating his efforts than it is anything super extreme. The best partnerships are quite eye-to-eye. But the Masculine/Feminine polarity is there when the man is more of the doer/leader and she is more of receiver/appreciator of his doing. So, that's what I mean by the woman being the prize and the man being the leader. It's just the Lover and Beloved archetype playing out in subtle ways in a relationship. But don't imagine anything too crazy or extreme. This has to happen in the context of a relatively equal partnership for it work out well or it won't work out. But for women in particular, it's really important to avoid pedestalizing the guy... and to not stick around in a relationship where the guy isn't as invested as you are. Things should either be equal or the guy should invest a bit more that you. Never stick around with a guy who feels lukewarm about you.

I'm sure your tastes will change and evolve as you age. It would be quite uncommon for a man in his mid-twenties to be attracted to a much older woman. Even most women don't find much older men attractive. So, it's normal that you don't find many women over the age of 30 attractive. As you age, you may still be attracted to younger women. But your upper range will probably continue to be a few years older than you, if it's already that now. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

*Shows picture of myself*

That actually describes you investing more because you'd be presumably contributing the lion's share of the finances to the home. So, that's a lot of investing in her. And that means that you're going to be working towards your mission with her as the beneficiary of the fruits of your labors... and that means that you'd have to value her enough to do so. And that's what I mean by the "prize". To take it out of a romantic context... when I make money from my business, it's meaningful because I get to invest in my children who are my "prize". And that's a big part of what makes my efforts worthwhile because I love them and value them just because they exist. They're my little precious gems. And I will work hard to make sure that they are given the best life I can afford. And I'm sure that a man who wants to be the primary bread-winner would need to love and value his wife (and children) as the "prize" so that his work and the fruits of his labors become more meaningful because of his mission to create a stable space for his family. Like, if I suddenly didn't have children or a husband and they just disappeared from existence... and it was just me, I wouldn't find the financial element of my business as meaningful because I derive a lot of meaning from being a breadwinner for my family. And that's a wonderful Masculine-principled quality to have as it is an embodiment of the Lover archetype. But you must value those you are breadwinning for on the level of being. This is a dynamic that tends to naturally arise when a man loves his partner.

This is not what I mean by the woman being the prize. That's just describing a man being needy and attached to the woman, which are two different things. Of course, if a man is desperate and pedestalizing the woman... she's not going to like that. So, it's not about what happens in the first few months of a relationship before her feelings for him are established. That's where the miscommunication is coming from because the guys on this forum tend to be thinking of the initial attraction phase of dating. This is what works best after the woman has already established feelings and desire to be in a relationship with the guy and there is already a sexual relationship that's been established. So, it's a longer-running dynamic than that and doesn't have very much to do with the initial attraction phase. And this is a subtle dynamic that you can see in many couples, as it tends to be a common pattern that men and women fall into.

Because that was the framing of the initial question. But it's also not a terrible framing for understanding these polarity dynamics either. A man who is really in love with a woman will see her as someone he values like a prize. And he will be very invested in her and will try to do things to win her over and progress the relationship... or just to add something to her life. This is how men tend to behave when they really love you and value the relationship. So my observation is that the most successful framing for longterm relationships is even on the level of love itself... but in terms of investment, the man invests slightly more and takes a leadership role in the relationship. Otherwise, the relationship tends to stay a situationship where the woman is head over heels for the guy and the guy just likes her enough to stick around for sex and easygoing female companionship. And a woman who sees the man as the prize doesn't give him space to invest in her.

These are some great points. It seems like our generation experienced a lot of formative social experiences with dating from an early age. And it seems like the internet and the pill-cultures have fed into young boys' insecurities in such a way that it holds boys back from having these formative experiences with female peers. So, the combination of a lack of communal social systems for dating in the early teens (because of how much is done online) AND the pill cultures themselves create a dynamic where the boys stew in the insecurities around approaching girls without the social support and peer pressure to encourage them to move past those insecurities. It's a lot easier to join a pill movement that validates and vindicates you in your non-action than it is to approach a girl you find attractive.

Women are all different kinds of ways, and they have different motivations for doing things. Like when I was 20 years old, I had a handful of one-night stands and brief flings. And none of this was based on deep feelings for the particular guy but came more from a mixture of loneliness and a desire for the experience of hooking up... as I had just gotten out of a 4 year long relationship. So, I was kind of making up for sexual exploration that I felt held back from in that relationship (which I thought would be life-long). So, I spent like 4 years repressing my desire for sexual exploration and not even letting myself admit to myself that I wanted to be single and date around because I was so attached to that relationship... and all of those repressed desires sprang back with a vengeance when that relationship ended. And for that, you just need a guy who's attractive enough to you at first blush. So, you have to find his looks and his mannerisms to meet the minimum standard for attraction. And these experiences can be wild and exciting for those who are looking to have a wild time. But the feelings are more situational and not about the person themselves. But these experiences won't yield very deep emotional results as it's more of a mutual masturbation situation... which doesn't really supply the feelings that women are really looking for in sexual interaction with a male partner as the experience is emotionally lacking. It's like having sex with a guy who's still in the neutral zone. So, the physical element is there without the emotional attraction... which is fairly high risk, low reward for the woman. So, it's not like those deeper feelings arise rapidly. It's more of a lowering the standards for emotional attraction because of a desire for the physical experience.

Thank you. Yes, I totally agree. This dynamic is not about creating something super exciting and passionate. That's often a byproduct of insecure attachment and the intermittent reinforcement of hot and cold. It's more about the deeper kind of bonding that's very stable and gratifying... and makes for a good foundation for a family (whether the partners want children or not). And the investment by the man winning over the woman is not frenzied or desperate on either partner's side. It's literally, just small things... like a husband fixing the leak in the sink and the wife appreciating him for doing it. Or a husband buying his wife flowers because he sees her as the prize and her expressing gratitude and showing him affection. I think the issue is that people who don't have a lot of relationship experience imagine something a lot more extreme when I say that the woman should be the prize and the man should be the leader. These are just subtle dynamics that naturally arise between men and women in a relationship.