Emerald

Sure, that's true. But I'm not even specifically thinking about looks. That was just an example. I could have also used qualifiers confidence, shyness, success, etc. to make my point. I'm making a point that all objective qualities come secondary in female attraction to the gestalt of the person. So, I tend to be platonically oriented towards the majority of men, where I can notice if a man is more or less objectively attractive based on looks, status, success, maturity, charisma, humor, etc. But these things won't do anything for me and won't evoke feelings in me by default because objectively attractive qualities without the presence of deeper seated feelings about that specific person with that specific personality don't do anything for me. But if a guy that I've become smitten with the gestalt of his personality, happens to have those objective qualities, they're super attractive to me. But if a guy that I've become smitten with the gestalt of his personality, happens to not possess those objectively attractive qualities, his qualities will still be attractive to me... unless he becomes mean or irresponsible. Mean and/or irresponsible kills attractions for me, even if I have attraction to the guys whole personality.

Cold approach is a numbers game in the same way that cold sales is a numbers game. In sales, you have to learn to build rapport and show there's value to what your selling. The same it true for approaching. But the most important thing is to be social and have interactions. In business, conversations equal sales. The same thing is true for guys approaching women. But again, this is all just practical stuff that you can learn from anyone anywhere. My main point is that this doesn't give very much insight into how women develop an attraction to a man subjectively. And it's important to recognize the discrepancy between what works practically and how women's subjective experience is... and not to conflate the two. This is especially important for men who are consuming all these false narratives that cause copious amounts of unnecessary insecurity and shame with regard to women. They start believing that women are sizing them up in a way that is mostly objective and measurable... which is only one factor of attraction. What really interests a woman is in sensing the actual essence of a man. A woman becomes attracted to whole personalities and not just to qualities. And there's not really an objective measure of the man's personality, as the attraction is arational and illogical. And this is great news for men because women aren't just preferring the guys on top of the hierarchy and then settling for less if the guy she ends up with is down in this perceived hierarchy. Women tend to prefer their male crushes and partner's on the unique personality level over some objectively more attractive guy. For example, when I was in the 7th grade, I was head over heels for this kid who rode my bus who very shy and had a big head. And he also had this way of speaking very quickly and mumbling a little bit. But he just lived in my mind rent free because my heart was set on him specifically. And at the time, I was also into boybands. And Justin Timberlake was what I thought of as an objectively attractive guy. And that was fun to have little celebrity mini-crushes on these kinds of guys. But I was thinking at the time if I had to choose between Justin Timberlake and the big headed kid that rode my bus, Justin would have lost and it wouldn't have even been a contest. And the same is true for any objectively more attractive guy that I was acquaintedd with. It was just that one person pushed all those psychological buttons for me. And that's always been the way my attractions have gone. Most guys are platonic to me, regardless of any objective qualifiers of attractiveness. But then, when an infatuation or deeper feelings arise, it's hyper-specific. And it's wanting that one-of-a-kind personality... even though there are flaws. In fact, the flaws become attractive through that lens.

Some men are definitely sexier than other men. That's pretty obvious that sexiness is a semi-objective qualifier that most women would have some degree of consensus about. But a woman can genuinely prefer a guy who is less sexy over a guy who is more sexy because women's attractions are more subjective. It's really like 20% about the semi-objective qualifiers of attraction... and like 80% an organic arational chemical reaction to his fundamental essence as a human being. And the latter part is the cake, while the 20% is just the icing. Like, I see a guy with a nice physique and it means nothing to me. But if I become attracted to a guy based off of his personality essence, and he happens to have a nice physique, it's the sexiest thing in the whole world. And it gives even a little extra excitement to it because he possesses something universally appealing. Or if I see a guy who is skinny and nerdy, it means nothing to me. But if I become attracted to a guy based off of his personality essence, and he happens to be skinny and nerdy, it's still the sexiest thing in the whole world to me. It's like the attraction to the whole of the man comes first. And then I can appreciate the objective qualities he has... and I appreciate them because they belong to him and he's the guy with the halo around him. And those objective qualities can either coincide from or diverge from what I would consider attractive in the abstract if I'm just naming off attractive qualities in a man.

That 20% of predictable conditions are things like confidence, charisma, emotional intelligence, nice physique, humor, responsibility, and other qualities like that that are nearly universally recognized as attractive qualities by women. But the men who have sex with lots of women don't even necessarily have too many of these qualities. But they are able to have sex with lots of women because they're out there approaching lots of women. If you want to sleep with a whole bunch of women, it's a numbers game, plain and simple. Cold approach in dating is just like doing cold outreach to get people on sales calls. And if you hit your numbers, you know you're going to get a sale eventually. For example, maybe for every 100 cold emails a marketer sends out, 10 people get on a sales call with them, and 2 people buy. Similarly, maybe for every 100 cold approaches a pickup artist does, he'll get 10 phone numbers, and 2 women will go to bed with him. That's the essence of what men do to get laid a lot. But you can also use warmer tactics (like social circle connections) to have a higher conversion rate... but typically for more serious relationships. So, if you approach or talk to a lot of women you will have some success with getting laid. And if you don't approach or interact with women, you won't get laid. Plain and simple. And to do that, you have to develop a certain degree of social acuity and the ability to flirt and show up confidently as yourself. And you HAVE TO get rid of these insecurities about your level of attractiveness, because you won't be able to interact and have a normal no stakes conversation with a women with these insecurities in effect. But attraction DOES tend to be evenly distributed in the actual real world. And you can notice this if you actually observe real life ordinary people. Women tend to naturally become attracted to a particular man who's in their proximity. And they are usually intuitively attracted to someone they perceive as their match. Look around at couples and you will see that the man and the woman in the couple tend to be about the same level of attractiveness. And your flatmate is having that issue because he's interacting and flirting with lots of women. He might be attractive too, which always helps. But it's fundamentally about his ability to be at ease having lots of interactions with women. But all of this is just the 20% of practical stuff that a man can do to increase his odds with women as a conglomerate. But these don't actually tell you anything about the way that women experience attraction to a man subjectively. And if you knew how this process goes for women, you'd recognize how subjective and particularized it is. And it would take away a lot of the insecurities that you've built up around these false narratives about how women's sexuality works. Currently, you seem to be under the impression that no woman will prefer you. But that just isn't true. If you shake your insecurities and have real normal interactions with women in your social circle, some women in your social circle will get a crush on you. And things can naturally unfold. But you actually have to interact with women for this to happen. And you have to get comfortable with yourself so that you can stop seeing women as invalidators of your worthiness. And what can help with that is to realize that all these stories you believe to be true about women are just stories that men made up and that they tell each other to make sense of what they don't actually understand.

You're projecting the way you understand attraction onto women's sexuality. And you believe that women are just seeing men as a collection of objectively more or less attractive/valued qualities. But that only accounts for like 20% of the picture. And ChatGPT was talking only about this 20% because those are the only things that can be generalized and understood about female sexuality. But that doesn't account for the 80% of women's sexuality that operating off of patterns that are unique to her and are totally arational. When a woman organically develops an attraction to a particular guy, it's like a wave forming in the ocean or a random weather pattern that starts to emerge. Certainly, there are some predictable conditions for this that men should learn if they want to be more successful with women in general. But just like a pattern in nature, there is only so much control that someone can exert. So beyond this 20%, the core of female attraction comes non-quantifiable, subjective, holistic, arational, passive perceptions of a man as a gestalt and not as a collection of qualities. Like you can have two guys that are identical in all ways value-wise and attractiveness-wise, and a woman can feel everything for one of those guys and nothing for the other. And a woman's patterning can lock in on a guy who isn't objectively more attractive or compatible because the feelings that arise are ineffable and unpredictable from the woman's perspective and the perspective of all outsiders.

It's not painful, it's just a misrepresentation to say that women are only attracted to the top 20% of guys and that everyone is just settling for their partner instead of preferring them if they're under the top 20%. And it's annoying and frustrating to have your sexuality constantly misrepresented with such confidence and ignorance all at once. But the real victims of this kind of misinformation is men... especially young inexperienced men. It would be like if there was a woman with total and complete authority telling a bunch of younger inexperienced girls and women that, "You'll only be attractive to men if you are rail-thin and have under 5% body fat. And men will settle for you if you're over 5% body fat, but they will always prefer the thinner woman." Then, when most men say that they're not really that attracted to rail-thin women... the women say some stuff like "Sure, men will say that. But they don't want to look at their REAL preferences because it's too painful for them to face with. They're either lying to themselves or lying to you." And then you get tons of shame-filled women with eating disorders that feel like they can't eat and be loved at the same time. And I remember what it was like to be in that mindset as a child and young teen. And it was really horrible. And now, the same thing is happening with men and boys because of all these false narratives about female sexuality that are framed as "harsh truths".

I don't think that's what she means. Men do crave deeper experiences with the Feminine and with women. They really deeply want that, in fact. And I 100% know that she recognizes that because I know her personally and we've discussed this topic a lot. But men generally also have lots of fear and shame in regard to women and the Feminine, so they default to holding onto shallower paradigms of understanding relationships with women and how women operate that make them feel more in control of avoiding the shame they feel in relation to the Feminine. And this semi-scientific reductionism of the female perspective on men and female sexuality makes men feel like they can 'figure it out' and mold themselves into the type of man that women want to be with. But this also reduces women and Femininity in their intellectual framework, to a safer more understandable collection of symbols that can be understood logically.... like eyelashes, and handbags, and hourglass figures, etc. And these are culturally and/or archetypally understood symbols of the Feminine that evoke the deeper desire for the Feminine... though these symbols are just surface-level representations. But many men in certain Internet communities, want to hold tightly to these shallower and more understandable symbols and concepts so that they don't have to grapple with the mysteries, unknowns, and arational functioning that's inherent to the Feminine. And there's also a lot of social reinforcement between men who hold these paradigms that encourages being strong, in control, detached, etc. But all of this actually backfires and keep men from developing the deeper relationships with women that most men deeply desire... but probably don't admit that even to themselves because it doesn't feel Masculine enough... either in the eyes of women or in the eyes of their male social group or both.

The call is coming from within the house. Your issues with religious people are actually a problem you have with unconscious parts of yourself that you see in them.

Of course it's authoritarian in every instance to consider taking people's voting rights away, because you'd be wielding an asymmetrical amount of power to prevent other people from exercising the basic power that democracy affords them. And yes... power can be abused by ANYONE! And that includes you. And your desire to take basic voting rights away from religious people would be authoritarian and a huge abuse of power. This is the issue. You're afraid they're going to be authoritarian and abuse their power over you... precisely because that's what you want to do to them. And that's true, even if there are lots of authoritarian Christians out there.

Hey! Good to see you on here! This is 100% accurate. And it's so frustrating that so many men think we're kidding ourselves or lying when we say things like this because they keep projecting the way their sexuality works onto us. And it's a shame, because female sexuality is a lot more interesting than that because it tends to be geared towards a real person with unique thoughts, feelings, mannerisms, quirks, flaws, etc. And it's really geared towards a devotion of attention to that specific person with that specific personality. But so many men try to gain intel and are like, "Um, actually... according to evolutionary biology, women ...." or "According to dating experts, women ...." And all of that is so foreign to the way women ACTUALLY experience an organic attraction to a man in her subjective experience. And if they could experience the actual way that women become interested in a man just once, they'd lose a lot of their insecurity around women because they'd recognize how profoundly subjective and particularized it is... and how wrapped up it is with the gestalt of a man rather than specific qualities he has. But it's difficult, because many men rely on external validation from women to compensate for poor self esteem. And they need to weave the narrative to themselves that woman are objective arbiters of male worthiness. So, swallowing the idea that women's sexuality is subjective, would take away the objective arbiters that could validate them. Like if women could genuinely prefer a 5 to a 10, it would be like having a bunch of Olympic judges that say that the person who got a 5 got first place and the person who got a 10 got last place. It wouldn't make any logical sense and it would be unfair... in this Olympic game they feel they're competing for their worth in. But that's the way that female sexuality is. It doesn't make logical sense, because it's operating off of chemistry, resonance, and deeper seated psychological patterns.

I'm sorry to hear that.

But that valuation is typically unconscious and completely subjective to the woman. Trust me, especially in my youth, I've been attracted to guys that most people would be like "What the hell are you thinking?" or "What do you see in him?" In retrospect, a lot of it was because I was attracted to what he represented in my mind and what kind of experiences that I could have. I really wanted a certain brand of chaos in my life back then, and I would be attracted to guys who brought that particular brand of chaos. Like I really liked working class grungy guys with long hair that smoked weed. And there was a lot of romanticization of a certain kind of lifestyle that he represented. And there's also usually a lot more complexity and psychology to it... like a woman (or man) will unconsciously pick up on familial patterns from childhood that this man could bring her back through. And she'll get inexplicably attracted to him. That's why the idea that "women always go for the top 20% of guys" is false. It's nowhere near as logical or straightforward as that, as it's like 30% biology and 70% psychology. And there is no objective "top 20% of guys" in the eyes of women... though there are some generally crowd pleasing qualities that lots of women resonate with. Plus, there are also some semi-conscious tendencies to be attracted to a guy for a weak point he has, if he will strongly value that strong point in her. For example, a woman may go for a guy who's a little bit less physically attractive compared to her, so that he will value her level of physical attractiveness. But overall, when a woman gets attracted to a man, it's usually because of something greater than the sum of his parts... instead of an objective valuation (conscious or unconscious) of exactly the sum of his parts. It's how the whole gestalt of a man makes you feel. And you can have two guys next to each other who are identical in every single facet of life... and a woman can feel everything for one and nothing for the other. It's hyper-particularized.

It's really unfortunate. Dating would be so much easier for them if they did genuinely grasp the subjectivity of how women experience attraction. It would be horrible to be under the impression that, if I'm not in the top 20% of women, no men will be interested in me. It would create lots of shame and scarcity.... and would take a huge toll on my self-esteem. And it would feel like I have a need that's impossible for me to meet just because I am me and not someone more attractive. And that's the type of propaganda that so many men are exposed to. And it echoes back to them their insecurities about how "A woman may settle for you, but she'll always prefer Chad." or "No woman will ever notice you if you're not in the top 20% of men." I honestly don't know how men can even talk to a woman with all these inaccurate insecurity provoking beliefs about women.

This can happen. And yes, the men who complain about women going after the top 20% of men are also men who tend to only be focused towards the most attractive women. So, it is a projection of their own tendency... and a fear that women are sizing them up the same way. But women aren't generally as objectively focused when selecting a male partner. So, there tends to be less of a tendency to shoot for some ideal guy. It's usually some guy who's proximal to her level that she ends up developing organic feelings for. Women tend to look more for their match in my experience.

I never said that attraction is a choice. It definitely isn't a choice. What I said is that getting into a relationship doesn't necessarily involve compromise and settling. And this is my main point of contention with what you said, because you're looking at things through a lens that doesn't fit what's actually happening. It's operating too much off the logic that "A person will select the most objectively attraction person they can achieve with their level of attractiveness." And that might end up being the way that things are programmed to shake out... with people of equivalent levels of attractiveness ending up together. And that's the science behind it. But if you want to understand how women are thinking about romantic partners, that's way too logical and objective. Women tend to become organically attracted to men in their proximity that they feel chemistry with. So, it's very subjective. And when she ends up with him, it isn't that she's settling. She's genuinely getting who she prefers. It's not like she's thinking, "This guy who's an 8 won't go for me, so I'll settle for a 6." It's just like "Wow! Tom!!!! He's my favorite person on the planet and I'm going to obsessively talk about him with my girlfriends to the point where they'll get annoyed with me. And OMG... you know that thing he does with his with his hair when he gets flustered!!!" Meanwhile, Tom is a solid 5. But she's fare more interested in Tom than she will ever be in Chad who is a 10 who doesn't spark any feelings in her whatsoever. Often times, for men who are operating more off of objective qualifiers... of course he wants a perfect 10 in looks, and he would gladly go for a perfect 10. But he'll settle for a 6 because it's what's available to him. And it's a pattern I've seen many times before that many men operate that way. And you can look all around this forum for evidence. And that is why men tend to assume that women are operating the same way. And men will often see women as doing a pickier version of what men are doing. And a minority of women are doing that. But it is very different to how most women are actually thinking. And of course this isn't a panacea across the board. There are women who exist who are looking for a laundry list of objective qualities. And there are men who exist who are operating more off of a subjective feeling of connection as their main guiding principle in the attraction phase. But I'm talking about broad sweeping patterns that can be noticed. And in terms of these broad-sweeping patterns, men and women do tend to operate differently. For most women, when they are really interested in a guy, they're not settling for him. They truly prefer him... even if he isn't very attractive by objective measurements. A man can get there too. But not usually in the attraction phase. Men mostly just approach in numbers and try for the best looking woman he can get.

The main thing that causes men to project so much power onto women to validate them or invalidate them is not being integrated with their Feminine side... which includes things like empathy, the body, the emotions, common sense, and the intuition. Without the Feminine side integrated, it causes men to become hyper-logical, hyper-intellectual, stiff, and rigid where he loses sight of the forest for the trees. Think of a nerdy guy that tries to approach dating as a science and reads tons of theory about female psychology, but doesn't actually have any experience talking to women. And talking with women becomes like a paint-by-numbers puzzle. And this creates a lot of issues socializing, as the Feminine side is necessary for developing social skills like empathy, charisma, and social attunement... and the ability to be an ordinary person among other ordinary people. And regarding seeking external validation, because the man is disconnected from his Feminine side, he feels an acute sense of lack and desperation for the Feminine. And this pressurizes his relationships with women as he begins to shadow box with himself when he's in the presence of a woman who becomes the projection screen for his own repressed Anima. And he begins to feel like "If I can't get a beautiful woman to love me, I am worthless." And then he will often try to repress his Feminine side further because he believes that his issue is that he's not Masculine enough to get the acceptance of a woman. So, he'll double down on his already excessive Masculine side and become even more of a hyper-logical robotic brain in a jar that knows all the words but can't hum the tune. And he will feel even more of a lack for the Feminine. It's a vicious cycle that happens because a man feels ashamed of his Feminine side. But it creates this love/hate obsession with women, where he sees women as the arbiter of his worth... and then resents women for the power he projects onto them. It's really caused by shame that arises as a result of being ashamed of and repressing his Feminine side.

What I will share isn't very exciting, and it doesn't have much to do with the excitement of the beginning of the relationship. But it is true. The main factors of being in a relationship are living life together as partners. And this is much easier if there's mutual love, respect, trust, and care. And compatibility is also important. You basically need the other person to be someone you can be great friends with. From a needs perspective, the point of being with someone beyond survival needs... is our love and belonging needs. And it is in our nature as communal creatures to seek relationships with other people. Relationships (platonic and romantic) give us the foundation for all that we do. But from a more subjective experience, it just makes life more meaningful to do life with someone else. Like my husband and I aren't together anymore romantically. But we still live together and raise our kids together. And we just went on a short vacation over the weekend a couple hours out of town. And being able to have these experiences with him and our kids makes them a lot more meaningful than if I were going alone. But the fundamental things that keep people in a relationship beyond survival is deep familial love and bonding and the rootedness of building a life together.

You're thinking too logically about pair bonding. And because of that, you're not understanding how women feel about the men they care about. The process of falling in love with a partner and being bonded to them is much more emotional. And it's NOT about settling for less than you want. It's about preferring that one man over all others. And that's the issue that happens when men project their sexuality onto women's sexuality. We aren't just pickier versions of men. Men tend to be attracted to women physically based off of objective qualities. And men are attracted to lots of women. But women tend to be attracted to fewer men... but based off of very subjective emotional experiences of the guy and the chemistry that's there. And because you're unaware of how subjective women's attraction are, you keep lookin through these hyper-logical, science-ish paradigms and you miss the mark entirely. It probably doesn't compute to you at all that a woman can genuinely prefer a totally average guy over a guy who's a perfect 10. But this leads to a lot of male shame, because men who think this way just think that women are settling for them because they couldn't find better. And of course, he is just with her because he feels he must settle.

I'm glad it was relatable. Same here. It's super transparent if a guy is just giving spam attention. For me personally, it's only really interesting if there's something that develops organically from a totally platonic place first. And if a guy is trying to take things to a romantic place right away without the slow burn of gradually intensifying feelings and a deepening platonic intimacy that threatens in moments here and there to become than platonic, it isn't compelling enough to entertain anything. Yet again, I understand that when people are looking for a partner, they might be more open to meeting people they don't yet know for those purposes. I was always just really compelled by the slow burn and the tension that comes from waiting but unrealized potential and a wondering of if the feelings are mutual. And guys who approach romantically right away are analogous to reading the end of the mystery novel first. It destroys the tension and mystery and there's no barriers to push up against to develop deeper levels of intimacy.

I elaborated above. He was claiming that all women just go for the top 20% of guys and that all other men are invisible. And that's not true. Most women are attracted to guys who are evenly matched with themselves. The problem is looking at things purely from a biological perspective, when it's would be far better to understand all the complexities and nuances of being a vulnerable, living, breathing, feeling human being. And this is what is missed with the bro-science perspectives. So, women aren't just biological robots that are programmed to be attracted to the top 20% of guys. We are fundamentally operating from a more subjective and emotional space. And most women just get attracted to a guy she feels good around. And for the average woman, she will be attracted to the average guy.

The call is coming from within the house. Yes, there is religious extremism... and that's a problem. And it's annoying being proselytized to. And we have to watch out politically for Christofascist dictator types who may abuse their positions of power. But all this fear and desire to fight that you have is more about what you're projecting onto religious people. Like I've seen you say a few times that you don't want religious people to have the ability to vote... which is incredibly authoritarian. And you've even projected onto Leo that he's going to be some kind of messiah that protects the world from religious extremists... which he's never expressed interest in doing. He just sees them as state blue people and that they do and will exist. So, you are only seeing your own authoritarian, extremist, absolutism in them. And you're trying to oppress them before they oppress you. But everything you're saying is 100% about you and the way that you think about things. And if you want to feel safer, you must change the inside first.

No, you need to be upfront about that from the get-go or it's completely dishonest. And bear in mind, that I'm saying this as a monogamously oriented bi-sexual woman. If a guy sprung that on me, I definitely wouldn't be sticking around. But there are plenty of women who are polyamorous themselves. And if you're interested in that kind of a relationship, you have to advertise yourself as such from the get-go and go for those polyamorous women. And yes... most women aren't interested in that. So, of course, most women will reject you. But there are bisexual women out there who are polyamourous and want a boyfriend and a girlfriend and would prefer that dynamic. But You have to find them. It just isn't right to establish a monogamous relationship under the pretense of monogamy and spring it on your partner. Also, if she'd just have a threesome to make you happy, that also isn't healthy. She should only be agreeing to a threesome if she's excited about it for her own gratification.

I agree with that. But that's not what I mean by repression. Repression is where someone has all this shame about having sexual feelings and thoughts. And I was giving an example of how that manifested in a very religious person with lots of sexual shame.

I do indeed deny this! This thing that so many men believe isn't actually true. It's just part of the way that grifters in the Manosphere capitalize off of men's insecurities and shame by selling themselves as a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. They tell men "If you're not in the top 20% of men, no woman will ever like you. So, buy my program to become a top 20% kind of guy!" Or if you're on a black pill channel they'll say, "Let's face it, you're hopeless. Send in your picture and pay me money and I'll rate your face to tell you how hopeless you are." These Manophere grifters are down-right predatory and prey on a man's weaknesses and teaches him false narratives about reality that will worsen his relationship with women. Of course, there are women who exist that want to go after a guy for his status, money, fame, etc. And of course, gold-diggers exist. But these women are in the minority. Most women aren't going for the top 20% of men. Most women tend to organically get attracted to a man that is about at the same level as them. One tendency that women have is to try to look for their match. And most couples are about equivalent in terms of age, attractiveness, wealth, intelligence, etc. And this is easy to spot if you look at the world... instead of at the narrative that's been fed to you. Look around at all the married men you've ever known. Are they all (or even most) in the top 20% of guys? If you pay attention to how reality actually works, you'll be able to let go of these silly narratives and actually be able to have normal interactions with women without tons of shame popping up.

Thank you! I actually have set up a new channel that's meant for more self-actualization oriented content. I haven't begun it yet because I have some more urgent fish to fry. But my plan is to niche down in my Diamond Net content to be focused mostly on Shadow Work as that's what most of the audience I've cultivated on there are interested in. And in my new channel (called Emerald) I plan to use it for more miscellaneous wisdom and insights that help people reach their full potential. But I probably wouldn't tackle dating advice in particular as that would tend to pigeon-hole me into cultivating a specific audience that's looking for that. And I could give a lot of great relationship advice for women, and the topic is somewhat interesting to me. But I don't want to become known for it. This is especially true because I've always had an audience that's like 60% male and 40% female.