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

[Tenebroso]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

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.

What are these predictable conditions men should learn if they want to be more successful with women?

If women's sexuality is so subjective, abstract and dynamic then why do some men manage to sleep with so many women that they lose count, can get into a relationship whenever they want, while other guys are seemingly invisible or repellent to women?

If female sexuality is as you describe then there shouldn't be such a discrepancy between the sex/love life across the spectrum of men. Clearly attraction is not evenly distributed, there must be something those other guys have that makes them so successful with women.

At university my flatmate was one of those guys, seeing about 7 women at once to the point they were fighting over him.

[RendHeaven]

9 minutes ago, Tenebroso said:

If women's sexuality is so subjective, abstract and dynamic then why do some men manage to sleep with so many women that they lose count, can get into a relationship whenever they want, while other guys are seemingly invisible or repellent to women?

"c-c-cuz all those girls are TRAUMATIZED SLUTS and these so-called "successful guys" are just MANIPULATING THESE POOR WOMEN'S TRAUMAS!"

- intelligent, spiritual girls who insist that attraction is a mystical, anarchistic free-for-all, and refuse to admit that some guys are simply sexier than others.

[Tenebroso]

On 28/09/2024 at 1:32 PM, CARDOZZO said:

Woman doesn't understand what it is to be rejected again and again and again and again - after these rejections, you start feeling like a piece of shit and you have to do mental gymnastics to not hate women. 

They don't understand what it is to be invisible. 

They don't get it. It doesn't compute to majority of them.

THIS

[Tenebroso]

On 26/09/2024 at 8:49 PM, Princess Arabia said:

@TenebrosoI have seen from you time and time again from your comments that there is something inside of you that subconsciously don't want to be in a relationship with women.

I want nothing more. I love women.

[Emerald]

46 minutes ago, Tenebroso said:

What are these predictable conditions men should learn if they want to be more successful with women?

If women's sexuality is so subjective, abstract and dynamic then why do some men manage to sleep with so many women that they lose count, can get into a relationship whenever they want, while other guys are seemingly invisible or repellent to women?

If female sexuality is as you describe then there shouldn't be such a discrepancy between the sex/love life across the spectrum of men. Clearly attraction is not evenly distributed, there must be something those other guys have that makes them so successful with women.

At university my flatmate was one of those guys, seeing about 7 women at once to the point they were fighting over him.

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.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

"c-c-cuz all those girls are TRAUMATIZED SLUTS and these so-called "successful guys" are just MANIPULATING THESE POOR WOMEN'S TRAUMAS!"

- intelligent, spiritual girls who insist that attraction is a mystical, anarchistic free-for-all, and refuse to admit that some guys are simply sexier than others.

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.

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

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.

t'was a parody, I understand what you're saying

[Alexop]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm just gonna keep quiet.

Figure it out for yourselves.

I am tired of explaining harsh truths to people only to have them get upset at me.

I am amazed at your patience man. I spend 1 hour reading what people write and close the forum tab in disappointment. You are a hero!

Edited September 30 by Alexop

[AION]

@Emerald it is not a numbers game. I know guys who approach a lot and can’t get a gf or even a date. It is either genetics/looks or their mindset/vibe that fucks them up. 
 

Numbers game is just a part of it. Having good bait to catch fish, that is all about. Because if you don’t have good bait it doesn’t matter how many times you throw out the line. 

Edited September 30 by AION

[gettoefl]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

 

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.

A man strategizes on what he wants and what means everything to him. His needs are all taken care of. He will choose among 1000s of possibles and narrow it down. Looks are the primal barometer for him. She, meanwhile, needs to think about her future, her finances, her family, her nuptials, her children both present and future and if she says maybe how this man will impact all that. Looks are icing on the cake. His needs are to have a full stomach and then empty loins. If he's hungry he'll go round his mum's first. Tomorrow is not a big deal. Me Tarzan, you Jane.

Edited September 30 by gettoefl

[Princess Arabia]

10 hours ago, Tenebroso said:

I want nothing more. I love women.

I can tell from your online presence here that plenty of women would find you attractive. I'm not sure what you look like, but that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm speaking more about your personality. Not the constant words you use to demean yourself and the insecurities you bring forth in your line of questionings, etc, Take all that away, and your presence here is one of a respectable, kind-hearted gentleman that can attract a woman who will appreciate those qualities in a man. 

You don't speak down on women, you just express what you've noticed in their tendencies and the type of men you see they usually go for. If you didn't care, you wouldn't care. Anyone who can read/see behind the lines can sense this. I very rarely look at what's been put in front of me, what's staring me in the face visually; I can look pass the obvious and see what's in inside the package and what that package is really made of without too much effort; and with you, i can easily tell you are made of what women, a true woman, would appreciate, love and wish for in a man. It takes a woman of caliber to really appreciate a guy like you.

So, I encourage you to stop seeing with your eyes and start seeing with your heart because it knows best. The outside world is filled with chaos and madness and insanity; don't fall for it. It is not the true picture of what really is. What is, is what your mind makes of what you see. You have the power to interpret what you see however you like and that makes up who you are. So, start to see things differently and you will start to see different things.

Edited September 30 by Princess Arabia

[CARDOZZO]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

I can tell from your online presence here that plenty of women would find you attractive. I'm not sure what you look like, but that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm speaking more about your personality. Not the constant words you use to demean yourself and the insecurities you bring forth in your line of questionings, etc, Take all that away, and your presence here is one of a respectable, kind-hearted gentleman that can attract a woman who will appreciate those qualities in a man. 

You don't speak down on women, you just express what you've noticed in their tendencies and the type of men you see they usually go for. If you didn't care, you wouldn't care. Anyone who can read/see behind the lines can sense this. I very rarely look at what's been put in front of me, what's staring me in the face visually; I can look pass the obvious and see what's in inside the package and what that package is really made of without too much effort; and with you, i can easily tell you are made of what women, a true woman, would appreciate, love and wish for in a man. It takes a woman of caliber to really appreciate a guy like you.

So, I encourage you to stop seeing with your eyes and start seeing with your heart because it knows best. The outside world is filled with chaos and madness and insanity; don't fall for it. It is not the true picture of what really is. What is, is what your mind makes of what you see. You have the power to interpret what you see however you like and that makes up who you are. So, start to see things differently and you will start to see different things.

Great feedback. 

@Tenebroso Heal your shame. That's it.

Develop yourself, go to the gym, love yourself, talk to women.

This can help: https://www.youtube.com/@jordanthornton

 

 

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, AION said:

@Emerald it is not a numbers game. I know guys who approach a lot and can’t get a gf or even a date. It is either genetics/looks or their mindset/vibe that fucks them up. 

Numbers game is just a part of it. Having good bait to catch fish, that is all about. Because if you don’t have good bait it doesn’t matter how many times you throw out the line. 

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.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Emerald Its numbers game also if i play Lebron james one on one ,mybe on trillion try he breaks his legs and i score.If women gives opportunity to a loser with no game, that guy should wear a condom suit the rest of time with her 😂

Edited September 30 by NoSelfSelf

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, gettoefl said:

A man strategizes on what he wants and what means everything to him. His needs are all taken care of. He will choose among 1000s of possibles and narrow it down. Looks are the primal barometer for him. She, meanwhile, needs to think about her future, her finances, her family, her nuptials, her children both present and future and if she says maybe how this man will impact all that. Looks are icing on the cake. His needs are to have a full stomach and then empty loins. If he's hungry he'll go round his mum's first. Tomorrow is not a big deal. Me Tarzan, you Jane.

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. 

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Emerald Its numbers game also if i play Lebron james one on one ,mybe on trillion try he breaks his legs and i score.If women gives opportunity to a loser with no game, that guy should wear a condom suit the rest of time with her 😂

I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied that some men are more attractive to women than others in terms of looks or social acuity. 

Some sales people are better than others too.

But sales is still a numbers game at the end of the day. And if you're not putting in the numbers, you won't be successful.

Edited September 30 by Emerald

[NoSelfSelf]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied that some men are more attractive to women than others in terms of looks or social acuity. 

Some sales people are better than others too.

But sales is still a numbers game at the end of the day. And if you're not putting in the numbers, you won't be successful.

Its about the mans mind that counts the most, crunching numbers are for those who think with their dick.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

Its about the mans mind that counts the most, crunching numbers are for those who think with their dick.

Sure, that's undoubtedly true that the mind matters more than other factors. If a guy is up in his head and terrified to talk to women, that's not going to help him as that will scare women off.

But cold approach specifically is a numbers game, just like cold outreach in sales is a numbers game.

You'll get lots of nos, but the occasional yes. That's the way it goes with cold approach because most women aren't very receptive to cold approach. And that's especially true with day game in grocery stores and stuff like that.

But pick up and cold approach is just about applying sales principles to dating. That's why pick up artists even use terms like "closing" because they are operating off of a sales-based paradigm.

And with sales, the numbers count. 

[NoSelfSelf]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

Sure, that's undoubtedly true that the mind matters more than other factors. If a guy is up in his head and terrified to talk to women, that's not going to help him as that will scare women off.

But cold approach specifically is a numbers game, just like cold outreach in sales is a numbers game.

You'll get lots of nos, but the occasional yes. That's the way it goes with cold approach because most women aren't very receptive to cold approach. And that's especially true with day game in grocery stores and stuff like that.

But pick up and cold approach is just about applying sales principles to dating. That's why pick up artists even use terms like "closing" because they are operating off of a sales-based paradigm.

And with sales, the numbers count. 

Pick up to me is a clown show,if one has to talk to 1000 women to get a yes, hes doing something wrong period.

[Keryo Koffa]

1 minute ago, NoSelfSelf said:

Pick up to me is a clown show,if one has to talk to 1000 women to get a yes, hes doing something wrong period.

😁

Edited September 30 by Keryo Koffa