Emerald

I sincerely doubt that people will stop aging or will become immortal through technology. But it would be a nightmare if that did happen. Life is meant to have seasons... and an end-point. And too many people try to hold onto eternal springtime... and it corrupts the spirit. But I will say... there's no such thing as a true Incel. The term Incel is borne from victim's mentality and the sense that, "I'm just not capable" as a means of avoiding fixing the real bottlenecks to their dating/relationship success. I've known some really yucky guys (personality-wise and looks-wise and socially) who were hooking up and getting women. And it's important not to buy the Incel thing, as it just enables those guys to stay in victim's mentality and keep blaming the world for their own responsibilities.

First off, women can get a lot of sexual validation by dressing skimpy. But none of that confers any benefit to the woman's goals, as that is low-quality male attention. The guy who "will fuck anything" will confer negative value to the woman's life. So, women have the same amount of quality options as men do. It's just that women aren't as obvious when they're interested. A quote that I heard is, "Men's challenge is finding water in the desert. Women's challenge is finding drinkable water in a swamp." So, the level of scarcity for men and women is the same. Secondly... what were men doing before pick-up became so mainstream? I'm old enough to answer that. They were just frequently socializing with women... and they'd get a girlfriend that way. Or they'd go out to a club/bar/party and dance up on a girl... and sometimes they'd make out or hook up. They didn't need to learn all these weird paradigms... and a bunch of strategies. They were just being social. And the outcome of socializing is that women will sometimes be interested in you. Of course, you have to be moderately socially clued in. But you didn't need to be a social genius.

And this is exactly why I stress that women's main task is to get better at sorting.

When I was younger (like 13-14), I was really anxious about looking attractive... as I didn't know that it's not the right strategy for finding a good mate yet. My perception when I was that age (which was heavily influenced by the culture and media... as society is obsessed with female beauty) was that, if I wasn't 100 lbs and looking perfectly that I wouldn't find a guy who was really interested in me beyond the bare-bones of the kind of attention that I was getting. And there had always been worries in varying degrees that, "If I don't look ideal, what if I'm not lovable." That is, until I figured out that men like women't looks... but they don't fall in love with them. So, a lot of women (especially women who have self-esteem issues and a minimal understanding about men's romantic/sexual motivations) will put all her effort into trying to impress men with her looks. But she sets herself for failure because there's always a more beautiful woman... and women who attract a partner based on their looks are fungible and easily replaceable with a younger or more attractive model. Like I said, if you live by the sword... you die by the sword. And if you're a very beautiful woman, and 99% of the attention you get is just guys wanting to have a hot girl attached to them... that's a liability. And that very beautiful woman is going to have to sort ruthlessly to find a great guy who's really into her specifically. Like, all women are having to find needles in haystacks to get a good partner. And the more beautiful the woman is, the bigger the haystack is that she has to sort through. But as far as looks giving access to higher quality options... that depends on how quality is defined. If a woman defines quality as the guy is good-looking or wealthy or high status or other superficial qualities.... Looks will be more likely to turn those guys' heads. But a lot of those guys will tend to treat women as fungible objects or as an extension of his own identity. (So, those are often low-quality options, as they're unsatisfying for what actually make a woman feel good in a relationship) But if a woman defines quality based on how deep the connection is, how good the chemistry is, how compatible he is, his level of investment, and how much she admires him as a whole person... that doesn't require anything of her looks-wise. (And usually, women will like guys who are quite similar to their own level of physical appearance.) And this is what actually feels satisfying in a relationship. Bear in mind, the goal is to find ONE really great and compatible male partner who has an equal (or slightly greater) desire to make a life together. And specifically maximizing for looks will give women access to opportunities to be ogled and to be seen as arm candy for "high status" guys. But it doesn't confer any relationship benefit... beyond getting a more physically attractive partner, which is just a "nice to have". That said, I still like to look pretty. But that's more of an identity thing, as I want to look powerful. And beauty is power in many facets of life. But beauty has ZERO power to assist women in finding a great relationship. It can even be a liability if the beautiful women isn't sharp as a tack with her ability to sort wheat from chaff.

Are you saying there's a dynamic with reframing a woman's issues with codependency as something that's the fault of "bad guys"? Well, there's definitely dynamics that need to be worked on for both parties. For a codependent woman, it's important to grow some self-esteem and get better at sorting so that she doesn't end up in unsatisfying dynamics with the "bad guys". And it's also important to understand the difference between how women and men operate when they're wanting a serious relationship. She also needs to learn how to be honest with herself about WHAT she wants instead of settling for whatever because of WHO she wants. And she has to avoid the idea that a support for women's sexual autonomy means the same as 'being able to have sex without getting invested the way men can.' So, there's a lot of learning and un-learning the woman must do to avoid these situations. And it's fully within her power and responsibility to do so. And no amount of telling guys they shouldn't is going to prevent a woman from experiencing this, if she doesn't learn to sort these kinds of guys from consideration. But it's definitely important for men to not kid themselves if the woman they're regularly sleeping with is clearly lying to herself about being okay with being FWB. He also must take responsibility and cut things off if he senses that kind of power imbalance in the dynamic. So, while I'm definitely not saying "The power and responsibility all sit with the men who kid themselves and take advantage." They still have the responsibility to do right by the woman and not to delude themselves into taking advantage of the vulnerabilities that are built into women's sexuality and pair bonding drives... which may run counter to the stories that women tell themselves about how they should or shouldn't feel.

I'm not describing pedestalizing women or submitting to her in some way. That's also not good. It's more like, during the dating phase, a dynamic where a man is taking the initiative to add to her life and is showing that he values her and is serious about pursuing a relationship with her. But he's not worshipping her... or disrespecting himself to do it, and he has self-respect and boundaries also. He's just consistently showing her that he's invested and doing the legwork to bring the relationship to a deeper and more committed level. And men tend to develop deeper feelings when they are investing in the woman. So, if he's serious about the woman, he's setting most of the dates, and he's the one spear-heading the direction of the relationship. And if he's not being proactive like that... it's purely because he doesn't want to. And no amount of wooing, chasing, and cajoling will get him to want to.

It's definitely codependency. But how did you mean that the people on the thread are turning it into a hero complex? That's the part that I didn't understand.

Can you explain what you mean?

Yes, exactly. What's interesting is that, back in the 90s, people were apparently rooting for the relationship between Carrie and Big to work out. And there were a lot of tropes about a woman winning over a man who's hard to get... probably because that's a common fantasy for women with low self-esteem. And I think that the lack of understand of male/female relationships in the general populace... and a romanticization of "winning over the avoidant" led to a lot of women selling themselves short. But people watching in the 2020s are a bit more savvy, and don't tend to romanticize their relationship... and see it for what it is. Here's an interesting reflection from a therapist about how a couples therapy session might go between them.

I don't recommend a woman ever chase a man... or try to woo him. Men really don't respond well to being woo'd even if they find it pleasing. Chasing a man and wooing him tends to lead to women ending up in situationships with low-investment men. Also, I'm not saying "never do anything for a man". Longterm relationships and marriages should be a place for mutual love and support. What I'm saying is, "Never do anything for the purpose of wooing him." But at the outset of a relationships especially (during the dating phase), a woman should give a lot of space for the man to show that he's invested... and not be so easily won over by him. And that's not meant to be a logical tactic of playing hard to get. It's actually about developing higher standards for what kinds of relationship dynamics you're willing to entertain... and which ones you're not available for. And it comes from loving and respecting yourself deeply... and being willing to choose yourself over the relationship, if the relationship is impacting your quality of life negatively. And this creates a dynamic where you will not be very easily impressed and will take some consistent evidence over time that a man is invested and will be a good partner, in order to be willing to decide to jump into a longterm relationship with him with both feet. Contrast that with a woman who gets involved with a man who's not that into her and is very sure that he's the one she wants... and she feels like she has to chase and woo him to win him over. And she never once asks, "Am I okay with the way this relationship is?" Instead she only asks, "How do I earn his love?" When she chases him, she basically polarity-flips the dynamic so that she's taking on the Lover role... and putting the man in the role of her Beloved and giving him the princess treatment to woo him. But women tend to only feel loved in the Beloved role... and feel anxious in the Lover role. And men only tend to fall in love in the Lover role... and feel pleased but indifferent and uninterested in the Beloved role.

100% And it usually takes women a while to learn to sort these guys out. And it's a hard lesson. Most women do eventually learn. But there are some women who end up in these patterns again and again. And it's a shame. It makes me think of Carrie from the show Sex and the City. If you're familiar, she had this on-again-off-again situationship with this guy she calls Big. And Big is very avoidant and just not that into her... but he strings her along for the entire run-time of the show. And she just keeps ending up in this cycle of taking the breadcrumbs and fantasizing about him finally choosing her, only for him to abandon her and reject her (even at the altar). That's the problem with falling in love with the fantasy of how things could be... instead of realizing that things will almost always end in the exact same way they start. So, it's important that a woman not fill in the blanks of the confusion/mystery of how men operate with how she operates and how she want things to turn out. It's also important for women to develop a very high sense of self-worth so that she doesn't feel like love is something that she has to earn by impressing the guy... or having sex with him... or being hotter for him... or cooking for him... or cleaning for him... etc. That can lead to a dynamic where the woman is trying to woo the man instead of allowing him space to woo her.

I definitely think it's important for men to be aware of these patterns... and not kid themselves. But it's also something that women have to learn to actively sort from consideration. The main thing is that, from an inexperienced woman's perspective, men's sexuality can be very confusing and seemingly contradictory. For a woman, sex and love tend to be linked inextricably together.... as sexual options are more abundant, we have more skin in the game with pregnancy, and our gametes are more scarce and short-lived. For these reasons, women generally have more sexual firewalls up than men do, and our sexuality automatically filters out guys that we might find mildly physically attractive but are not that into. But for men... who have scarcer options, have no physical consequences for sex, and whose gametes are abundant and last their entire lives... it's fine if sex and love are separate. And while that separation can cause problems where he will have sex with women he's mildly attracted and doesn't have romantic feelings for to and potentially lead her on... it actually works well for longterm commitment. When love and sex come separately for a man, he can commit to loving his wife in a way where his sex drive takes the backseat... and it's more about supporting her and cultivating the relationship. But it's very confusing when a guy is very excited about sex but isn't motivated by love, from an inexperienced woman's perspective. It took me a long time to really understand how it worked. And it takes a bit of understanding to get, "Just because he repeatedly sleeps with me and wants to spend time with me, doesn't mean that he's interested in progressing things." So, while men do need to understand that most women who get involved in FWB situations are lying to themselves about it being casual... The main responsibility for learning that is the woman who must learn how to sort better. And that means realizing that 99 times out of 100, things never change. And then asking and answering honestly, "If nothing ever changed about this relationship dynamic, would I be able to be content longterm?" And if the answer is "No"... it's time to break it off. It's also why I recommend that women not do anything to try to "earn" his affection. Just do what feels good to her... not because she's trying to "sweeten herself up" to make herself easier and more appealing the guy. So, I'd tell women... don't ever try to deliberately woo a man. That means, don't cook for him, clean for him, please him, have sex with him, dress up for him, impress him, stroke his ego, or anything like that for the sake of wooing him. Instead, only do what's pleasing to yourself and pour into yourself... and then give him space to pour into you and earn your affections. This will sort out low-investment men who aren't looking to love her, as they will fall away. But it also gives high-investment men who are really interested the space to woo her and get the satisfaction of earning her admiration. So, yes... men are somewhat responsible here. But it's also on women to say no to low quality male attention.

I also believe it's at least some version of this list.

I'm moreso talking about one-night stands, when I was talking about that "sizable minority of women want casual sex". It's like... "It's a wild night at this concert/bar/rave/party... and I want to have sex with someone." Many women wouldn't do this. But a sizable minority of women would just to go with the excitement of the party. Probably half of women have done that at some point in their lives. But I don't think that very many women at all are actually looking for FWB or repeat casual sex or situationships. It's maybe a longterm solution to loneliness or a desire that things will become more serious over time. The issue is that that doesn't happen with men who are looking for FWB and casual sex. So, a lot of women can end up in a situation/FWB situation and hoping that he develops feelings for her and wants to commit to her. But that hardly ever happens. So, I tend to find that many men and some women can be open to casual sex on a one-night-stand. And I find that men tend to like FWB, because it gives him consistent, low-effort, easy-going access to sex and the girlfriend treatment with a woman he's friends with and is physically attracted to... but who he isn't interested in pursuing in any kind of serious romantic way. So, it meets many of his needs without requiring commitment and vulnerability from him, as he's not in love with the woman and he knows he never will be. But for women in FWB situationships, it's often, "If I like him enough to repeatedly have sex with him, I love him and want to be his partner and I want to be mutually in love." But she may lie to herself because she doesn't want to admit that the dynamic is going nowhere, and say, "FWB is what I'm really looking for. So, I'm totally cool with this." So, usually women will not repeatedly have casual sex with a man unless she just loves sex, is very lonely,... or (most often) is wanting something deeper with that particular guy and just hoping the sex means something or that he'll eventually fall for her. And this is one of the reasons why sorting is VERY important for women. There are a ton of men who would be very open to FWB... and can contently stay for years and years in that dynamic because it meets many of his needs. But there are almost no women who thrive and feel held in that kind of dynamic. So, it's important to sort out guys who "Aren't interested in putting labels on anything" or who "Aren't looking for anything serious" or any of the other indicators that he's open for FWB but not open for anything deeper.

Yes. That's my point. A lot of the things that are relevant in men's dating strategies don't apply to women. So, 2s and 3s (and probably even 1s) will have plenty of options to strike a good match, even though they're unattractive. And most romantic partners are at about the same level of attractiveness. That's why attraction isn't women's bottleneck. I'm saying that approaches on the street come with added risks. Plus, the guy is most likely doing pick-up, and his paradigm may be a liability. So, I do treat street-approaches all purely as spam attention, even if there are a few earnest ones in there. It's just unnecessary risk, when you have plenty of other more familiar options. My issue is the type of paradigm locks that guys who engage with that kind of content end up in. These pick-up paradigm locks tend to transform men into poor options as long-term partners for women. And it can end up stunting their level of maturity, as they can optimize themselves for greater approach conversions... and not towards becoming a great person. But I get that it may increase his casual sex results in the short term. And that may feel like an improvement. That's the tricky part. It's similar to how a woman might experience more male attention by coming across as cheaper in certain ways. And a woman who develops herself only in relation to what maximizes male attention and validation, is going to stunt her own growth. And she may not be very attractive for a discerning man or as a longterm partner. I call this "checkbox mentality". And it's something that men and women with an avoidant attachment style tend to do when looking for partners, to avoid actually settling on one. They come up with a list so long and so specific. And they logically assess their prospects based off of the checkboxes on the list, and they toss them out if they don't fit the checkboxes. But this is just a common strategy for avoidants. It's not actually developing the skill of sorting well. In my experience as a woman, when I'm attracted to a man... it's almost like a specific man is a combination of flavors (I sense these emotionally). And some of those flavors are pleasant (like sweetness) and others of those flavors are disgusting (like bitterness, sourness, saltiness, and spiciness). And when I'm interacting with a man, I'm sensing his unique "flavor profile"... which is always a combo of both pleasant and disgusting flavors. And as my palate has grown more refined and my selection standards have gotten more honed in, I've learned to differentiate whether the disgust signals add or detract from the quality of the "dish". So, sometimes there are clearer dealbreakers that don't require a very sophisticated palate. (Like, if the guy has a history of violence, just sort him) But in other ways, it's just taking in the "flavor profile" of people (even for friendships) on a holistic level, and asking "Does this flavor enhance my life or detract from it?" And for romantic relationships specifically... "Could I live contently with this person for a long time?" and "If I had kids with this person, would I regret that they were my children's father?" So, sorting well with high standards and high refinement isn't about a wishlist of ideal qualities. It's about refining your palate to understand holistically and intuitively who belongs in your life and who does not.