Leo’s advise about dating and sex are mostly aimed towards man

[Lyubov]

I’m going to go off again and say any of you who are struggling to date in one of these countries 

USA, UK, Canada, Australia 

Should just leave for a better country: 
Argentina, Colombia, Brasil, Russia, Belarus, Thailand, Indonesia, etc… (there are more). Even Central Europe, Spain, Mexico, Eastern Europe, South Korea, are huge steps up. 

It is very difficult to meet women who will value you in the USA if you living as an isolated incel on the autism spectrum, adhd, etc. it’s a nuanced topic but you’re much better going abroad and you will see what it means to actually have a woman value you, and that can kick start a ton of momentum to resolve all those inner issues. 

I can write up a guide for anyone interested on this. Don’t waste your time in USA, it’s a losing game for the vast majority of you. Unless you’re already really extroverted and know how to pull and have a lifestyle or network that allows you to, don’t bother building it in the USA it’s far too expensive and the dating market is awful. 

If you’re looking for a spiral tier 2 life partner though I personally believe my above advice matters less since by just walking your tier 2 path you will attract them along the way, however I don’t really go about dating like this. I look for beauty and then compatibility. It may be different for many seekers or people going deep in their spirituality here but I enjoy a relationship for what it is and as long as the sex is good, she’s beautiful,  and we share the same interests for travel, and she’s an honest communicator who is loving and charming, I’m set. I’m not looking for something philosophically deep in my relationships. That’s what this forum is for, that’s what books are for. 

Edited September 27 by Lyubov

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, PenguinPablo said:

Well can you elaborate because evolutionary psychology indicates otherwise...

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.

[bambi]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

I disagree with this. Women may end up dating or being in romantic partnerships with people equally matched, but this isnt attraction.

Most people from both sexes arent with their most attractive spouse. This becuase the factors considered for long term partnership are much more comprehensive then mere attraction

[Emerald]

21 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Yes, yes, yes, yes. All others too, but these are the ones I relate with 100%. I will say though, that it all depends on the approach. I can tell the ones that approach multiple women just for the sake of approaching or if they are approaching me because they really are into what they see. Personality usually comes later as no one really knows what you're like until they've at least gotten to know you a bit. 

What I can sense, though, is if a guy has gotten to know you a bit first on a platonic level (without coming on to you sexually or even being too aggressively flirtatious in the beginning) and then asks you out. Shows he's not just about sex and wants to get to know you more. I ignore just about every guy that cat calls, have pick-up lines, especially if they are corny and generic, and the ones that asks me if I have a boyfriend or if i'm married first thing out of his mouth. I also ignore guys when the first thing out of his mouth is of a sexual nature. 

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.

[CARDOZZO]

@Emerald

Assuming that man and woman are deeply similar (education, financial status, resources) in our present era.

What are essential factors to being on a relationship?

What is the point of being with someone besides survival needs?

If you can solve your survival needs without a serious relationship - what are the fundamental things that keep people on a relationship?

Edited September 27 by CARDOZZO

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, bambi said:

I disagree with this. Women may end up dating or being in romantic partnerships with people equally matched, but this isnt attraction.

Most people from both sexes arent with their most attractive spouse. This becuase the factors considered for long term partnership are much more comprehensive then mere attraction

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.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

@Emerald

Assuming that man and woman are deeply similar (education, financial status, resources) in our present era.

What are essential factors to being on a relationship?

What is the point of being with someone besides survival needs?

If you can solve your survival needs without a serious relationship - what are the fundamental things that keep people on a relationship?

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. 

[Ulax]

I feel when it comes to dating advice people should take advice from people of the same sex.

Aside from foundational things like working on trauma and attachment style.

[bambi]

52 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

No it has nothing to do with logic.

Attraction simply isnt a choice. Its just that most partners are having more depth then surface level attraction qualities when it comes to long term partner choices.

Gender is a false dichotmy here too, both sexes equally comprimise on surface level attraction mechanisms vs long term relationship compatability. Most men are not dating supermodels for example

Your view is incredibly myopic and archaic in my opinion. Its rife with arbitrary gender dynamcis and fallacious thinking

You speak in broad general gender categories that are highly innaccurate, and you arent seemingly aware of the heuristical errors implicit in your paradigm.

Both sexes i.e. humans in general are making complex and unique choices based on their situation, personality, value profile etc in  partners for long term relationships that supercede initial and surface level attraction. You are totally ignorant to the subconcious compromises both sexes are making within the romantic and sexual field.

I would urge you to reconsider your prevalant and ultimately flawed binary dichotomies and sweeping gender heuristics when it comes to sexuality. Becoming more open minded in this regard will allow you to see more nuance, complexity, diversity and ultimately an accurate depiction of reality

[jjer94]

After lurking on this thread, I thought I'd throw in my two cents as a short, average-looking, broke, kind of effeminate dude. 

On a more macrocosmic level — the statistics don't lie. The majority of men under age 30 are single. Many of them have checked out of the dating game altogether and instead have opted to date their right hand and the computer screen. I've met some of these men. Their reasons for checking out are manyfold and multi-factorial. Richard Reeves does a good job of describing many of these factors, including women academically outperforming men. 

Emerald claimed that most women are equally attracted to men at their level*, which according to Reeves and most evolutionary psychologists needs an asterisk:  *or slightly above. They say, women like to look up to their man, whether financially, physically, intellectually, or otherwise. Red/black pillers say the same thing and use the term "hypergamy" to describe that phenomenon. 

A difficulty for us men is that the modern dating scene (dating apps especially) highlight the shallow things (i.e. height, financial status, looks, etc.) and don't do a good job of emphasizing the foundational things that are way more important for a healthy, mature relationship (i.e. shared values, compatibility, etc.). A lot of us get lost in the losing — the lack of replies, the rejections, etc. — and then we turn to the red pill ideologies to self-soothe and direct our resentments outward. I think that's a valid thing the women on this thread emphasize: Directing our resentments and blame towards women doesn't help the situation and ironically makes us less attractive as a potential romantic partner. 

In my experience, the kernel of truth in all of the red pill stuff is that on the surface, we are biological beings, and a lot of the shallow factors like height and status will get us in the door for dating. Where red pill falls short is that they don't teach you how to sustain a healthy, mature relationship. They don't teach you how to keep the fish happy, only how to catch the fish. They don't talk about the supremely nuanced world of compatibility. They don't tell you that you can bypass a lot of the shallowness of dating by building friendships with the opposite sex, joining meet-ups, following your purpose and meeting people along the way, etc. 

My personal experience has equally validated and invalidated the mens' perspective. On the one hand, I've dated some women who have blatantly told me that I'm not masculine enough for them, and have gone on to choose someone else who's taller and "more confident." On the other hand, I have dated women who say that what they appreciate the most about me is that I feel things deeply and make an effort to actually see and understand them on an emotional level. Nothing about the money I make, or my height, or my looks. 

So I think there's validity in both what the women and the men are saying on this thread. When it comes to dating advice for women though...it's probably a good idea to get that from a woman 

 

Edited September 27 by jjer94

[AION]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

So true. 
 

Women’s god is her emotions. 
 

And men’s god is logic. 

That is the biggest insight in game. If you can create the right emotions with her you can do everything with her. 
 

The thing is that most guys are overly logic and misread stats like 20:80 rule. They are also bad at managing their own emotions so it is really a bridge to far for them to be able to influence a girl’s emotion. 
 

You can basically be ok on paper as a guy but if you stir up the wrong emotions with her you are done.  There are guys out there who go on a drink with a girl in a restaurant and end up in the bathroom with her. You can’t logic your way into short term or long term relationship. The only way it will work if a woman is at the end of her fertile years and she get’s desperate. In that case she will go for the logical choice of a guy to date. 

[Flint]

On 24/9/2024 at 7:24 PM, Emerald said:

• Develop a distaste for immature men who base their self-worth off of how good they are with women. Get really sensitive to these vibes, so that you can sort them right away as they won't feel contented with themselves if they aren't getting lots of validation from lots of women.

Would you actually have any tips for guys who struggle to detach their self-worth from how attractive/desirable they feel to women ?

I imagine to some extent it's normal to feel good whenever you're liked and you're desired, but then ideally none of your self-worth as a man would be linked to how well you perform with women. Basing your entire self-worth on it is another thing entirely of course, but regardless society always telling you that you're worth is how much you earn and how hot of a girl you can get doesn't really help in that regard.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Flint said:

Would you actually have any tips for guys who struggle to detach their self-worth from how attractive/desirable they feel to women ?

I imagine to some extent it's normal to feel good whenever you're liked and you're desired, but then ideally none of your self-worth as a man would be linked to how well you perform with women. Basing your entire self-worth on it is another thing entirely of course, but regardless society always telling you that you're worth is how much you earn and how hot of a girl you can get doesn't really help in that regard.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

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.

 

[bambi]

57 minutes ago, AION said:

So true. 
 

Women’s god is her emotions. 
 

And men’s god is logic. 

That is the biggest insight in game. If you can create the right emotions with her you can do everything with her. 
 

The thing is that most guys are overly logic and misread stats like 20:80 rule. They are also bad at managing their own emotions so it is really a bridge to far for them to be able to influence a girl’s emotion. 
 

You can basically be ok on paper as a guy but if you stir up the wrong emotions with her you are done.  There are guys out there who go on a drink with a girl in a restaurant and end up in the bathroom with her. You can’t logic your way into short term or long term relationship. The only way it will work if a woman is at the end of her fertile years and she get’s desperate. In that case she will go for the logical choice of a guy to date. 

This is so deeply flawed and closed minded its pitiful humans are thinking like this in the 21st centure. Do not let Emerland corrupt you

If you seriously think 'all women are emotional, all men are logical' you are so deeply conditoned and full of stereotypical thinking, you have many years of healing ahead of you.

Heres some of the issues you and Emerald are facing:

1. Overgenerazing and stereotyping based on gender
2. Essentialism - reducing men and women down to fundementally different qualities, which counters most modern research. And misses the complexity of what influences, men wome, stereotype and cultural conditioning
3. False dichotomy of emotions and logic, as though theyre mutual exclsuive
4. Ignorance to the impact of social conditioning effect your views
5. Ignorance to gender diversity and the wide spectrum of personalities that make up male and females
6. Fallacious thinking -> false attribution as percieved correlation as causation
7. Ignorance of modern research -> most modern reasearch shows women can excel in areas of logic, science, STEM etc etc. And men can posses high degrees of empathy. All the traits are prevelant across genders, they are mainly gender agnostic

The thinking and attitudes displayed in this thread are archaic and ultimately constrcuted from bias and ignorance

Edited September 27 by bambi

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, bambi said:

No it has nothing to do with logic.

Attraction simply isnt a choice. Its just that most partners are having more depth then surface level attraction qualities when it comes to long term partner choices.

Gender is a false dichotmy here too, both sexes equally comprimise on surface level attraction mechanisms vs long term relationship compatability. Most men are not dating supermodels for example

Your view is incredibly myopic and archaic in my opinion. Its rife with arbitrary gender dynamcis and fallacious thinking

You speak in broad general gender categories that are highly innaccurate, and you arent seemingly aware of the heuristical errors implicit in your paradigm.

Both sexes i.e. humans in general are making complex and unique choices based on their situation, personality, value profile etc in  partners for long term relationships that supercede initial and surface level attraction. You are totally ignorant to the subconcious compromises both sexes are making within the romantic and sexual field.

I would urge you to reconsider your prevalant and ultimately flawed binary dichotomies and sweeping gender heuristics when it comes to sexuality. Becoming more open minded in this regard will allow you to see more nuance, complexity, diversity and ultimately an accurate depiction of reality

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. 

[bambi]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

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. 

You are not understanding what I am saying. 

Let me try to be more clear:

1. Your whole gender dynamic perspective is totally flawed. This rhetoric of women are x and men are y is incorrect and is a false dichotomy
2. Humans in general have preferences and criteria that are unique to the individual. But all humans are comrpomising to some degrees some of the time with all relaitonships. I cant see how you are struggling to see this.
3. Whatever generalised anecdotes you can make are not helpful and are ultimately not useful to anyone. They tell you nothing about yourself or any individual that is interesitng or meaningful.

Even within your biological paradigm, all studies are showing that women still have selection criteria: hypergamy, so the rhetoric that women are natural and organically selecting partners is no more true then saying so for men. Both sexes have unconcious selection criteria derived mainly from survival instincts but this criteria is mutable as most modern studies are showing.

This means the only thing you can say is: women or men have tended to in the past chose partners based on x according to yz studies. But the reasons for any choice are complex, unknown, hypothetical, and seemingly mutable to varying to degrees in modern emergent trends.

However when factoring in levels of psychological development, surival security, individual differences/preferences,  whilst controlling for societal conditioning and influence, the spectrum is hugely diverse

[Leo Gura]

Girls are attracted to the top 20% of men, and men are attracted to the top 20% of girls.

The problem is the self-biased way men see this situation.

Edited September 27 by Leo Gura

[AION]

@bambi do you ever have experience with dating? If so how much?

[Schizophonia]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Girls are attracted to the top 20% of men, and men are attracted to the top 20% of girls.

The problem is the self-biased way men see this situation.

Where does that come from ?

[bambi]

Just now, AION said:

@bambi do you ever have experience with dating? If so how much?

I would say Im near the top percentile in this regard