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

[Davino]

13 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I think it depends on the woman. 

Exactly so, values are individualistic. Men have discovered broad value patterns to get laid and make a relationship work.

Imo, emotions for women and perceived beauty for men, are pretty consistent values at one degree or the other.

[bambi]

12 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Well.. The truth is a bit harsh. 

If you ask ladies on the street what kind of a man they will eventually pick if they can get a chance, they will all pick the hottest, tallest, smartest, richest guy out of the crowd even if they don't have much value to provide themselves. Women date up, men date down. This is a well known fact. Women have their eyes set on the prize if they let their inner feminine be completely free. Women usually settle for a low value man when they can't get their hands on a high value guy and when they are lazy or they have low self esteem so they settle for something less as a matter of subconscious compromise. Yet if given all the feminine joy and freedom in the world, a woman will find herself happier with a richer smarter high character high value man. This is female psychology and female nature. In fact often women regret dating low value men and having wasted their precious time over them. A woman who is highly conscious of her own value wants to screen a guy for value in a man. Theres nothing manipulative about this, she wants to eventually ensure she has the best Dad for her potential children and a great caregiver husband. Women are wired to select a good mate unless she is steeped in unhealthy patterns. I think you got my point. 

LOL Emerald is going to puke when she sees this

[Davino]

20 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok when you put it like that. But these guys seem to make it look as if she's screening for a provider and a protector and a CEO at every level, stage and situation in her life. 

That's so masculine! I would never dare to corrupt the feminine in such a way

[NoSelfSelf]

57 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I think we're over using the phrase "high-value", or it means different things to different people. 

Its marketing scheme

[r0ckyreed]

Guys and ladies. Watch the video below from 1:40 and then contemplate this: Why do women expect guys to initiate and make the first move? She is simply testing how masculine you are. The woman in the video even says that the kind of man she is looking for is the kind who would approach her and take initiative. Of course women are attracted to strength/confidence. If a guy is too feminine and doesn’t approach, he won’t get a girlfriend unless you are lucky, which has happened to me in all my relationships. I can count 2 times where it was a woman who approached me. One initiated making out and the other one wanted to take me home.

 

Edited October 2 by r0ckyreed

[Etherial Cat]

Attraction isn’t static, nor does it maintain the same intensity over time. It’s more like the visual representation of a Fibonacci sequence—starting small and unfolding outward with increasing complexity and depth. Initially, I might be drawn to someone based on their outward characteristics, but at that stage, the attraction is shallow and fragile. I understand that a person is much more than these surface traits. What truly captivates me lies in a deeper, more subjective level of attraction—one that reveals itself as I get to know them on a more profound level.

Continuing with the Fibonacci sequence metaphor, the initial attraction often remains shallow and fragile. Many times, the sequence never fully unfolds outward, because its progression depends on a delicate balance—an uninterrupted flow of resonance and connection on a deeper, existential level. Any disruption, whether it's a deal breaker, a lack of mutual understanding, or the emergence of disgust, can completely halt the process. When this happens, the attraction remains incomplete, or in some cases, the sequence breaks entirely.

Moreover, the more a woman knows herself, the more deeply this Fibonacci-like process of attraction and connection can unfold, expanding outward and going straight to her heart in an ever-deepening, more satisfying way. This shift often diminishes the importance of purely objective attraction, as the true appeal lies in the man’s way of being. Self-awareness increases her capacity to explore the deeper layers of a relationship, creating a longing to know another person with the same depth and understanding.

This is why quick, game-like approaches to seduction fall short. You’re aware of everything else that needs to unfold naturally for the attraction to deepen—to reach that warm, fuzzy feeling that only comes from recognizing that the other person has the ability to truly touch your core. It’s not just about superficial traits but rather those deeper characteristics that reveal themselves over time and make someone a suitable partner for you.

And what I enjoy most is observing subtle clues about his personality when he’s not aware I’m watching. It’s in those moments that I discover sincere traits, actions, and decisions that reveal his true nature—choices made not to impress, but simply because that’s how his decision-making process works, guided by his genuine self.

[AION]

@bambi read the room 

[Spiritual Warfare]

 

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

2) Women still play games and withhold sex after obvious attraction.

I'm sure that does happen for immature women (and/or women with attachment issues) who try to play 4-d chess and engage in manipulation games if she feels that the guy is pulling away or something. So, she withholds affection to manipulate the guy into putting in effort to remedy the issue because it makes her feel more secure in the connection. 

But this is just immature behavior, and ultimately would backfire as a mechanism for testing and sorting men. And that's because men with lower self-esteem will be the ones that stick around, where men who have a higher self-esteem will be repelled.

So, if it is a sorting mechanism... then it's one that backfires and produces the opposite results to creating a securely attached healthy relationship with a functional partner. 

And you will end up attracting less mature partners and scaring off more mature men who are willing to walk away if they're not being treated well.

Or conversely, if a woman isn't wanting to have sex with a guy over a long period of time (which can appear from the outside like she's withholding sex deliberately as a game), there's usually some other relationship issue that's getting in the way of opening up. 

And example would be lack of non-sexual affectionate touch from her partner. Another would be if sex starts to be seen as a chore that she's expected to do for him as opposed to something that she enjoys. Or another could be if the guy is mean or callous towards her. Or it could also be a lack of communication and intimacy. Or if sex is approached only from a male-centric lens, and she doesn't get anything she wants out of sex and it begins to feel like an unfair deal. 

If these things happen, the thought of sex with this partner just starts to feel like nails on a chalkboard. And there will be this deep aversion that has lots of unpleasant emotions like anger and powerlessness.

[CARDOZZO]

@bambi @Emerald

Thanks for your opinions  

It helped me a lot.

[CARDOZZO]

One thing that helped me a lot with daygame is a concept called "excess potential" by Vadim Zeland.

"Excess potentials are created in a variety of ways, but in this case we will be discussing one specific kind: the energy of elevated importance. This excess potential arises when you give an artificially inflated importance to one subject over everything else."

Play with abandon, effortless power, power x force.

[Schizophonia]

Die and retry 

[gettoefl]

7 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

OK. This is what happenes

Don't have sex too quickly or he won't respect you, don't give it up too easily make him wait awhile, 

Men: She's easy and gave it up quickly, I didn't even have to work for it. Ilm bored with this pussy, gotta go hunt for a hot one. Women: Hi. Screens for status incase he leaves her impregnated. Men: She's playing games and won't give it up, she's being deceptive by protecting herself. Dunno, seems a bit chaotic. Why bother.

Good distinction:

Games = unconscious, I don't know i am doing it

Game = conscious, I am jailbreaking games

The name of the game, is to understand, your own games, and then their games

That's how you game the system and gain the prize and end the games

[gettoefl]

6 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

We probably need to describe what high-value means, because I think that's where the discrepancy lies sometimes.

Is a player high-value. Is a nice guy, a rich guy, a protector, a provider, a guy with a steady income, a business, has status, or what, what makes a guy high-value. I think it depends on the woman. 

The question is, Does he bring games or does he bring game? And how do I tell? 

I better understand my games before I try to see their game/games

That's the name of the game, see above

Edited October 2 by gettoefl

[Tenebroso]

1 hour ago, CARDOZZO said:

One thing that helped me a lot with daygame is a concept called "excess potential" by Vadim Zeland.

"Excess potentials are created in a variety of ways, but in this case we will be discussing one specific kind: the energy of elevated importance. This excess potential arises when you give an artificially inflated importance to one subject over everything else."

Play with abandon, effortless power, power x force.

This could be a post in itself, applying Reality Transurfing to dating. Maybe excess potentials explains why men less concerned with being a good man or doing the right thing do so well with women. The lack of importance but it's hard to fake that kind of non neediness.

[Basman]

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

He's not taking out of his ass either.

For men's pragmatic purposes, the things that he's learned will give a guy enough know-how to interact with and attract women... in lieu of deeper feelings of shame that might get in the way.

The reality is that, if you can interact with women in a way that shows you have objectively valued qualities, you will be more successful with women. And more women will be attracted to you if you possess more attractive qualities than if you don't.

But the issue is in believing that, just because these things that he's learned from dating experts work for him practically that he has an accurate understanding of how female sexuality and attraction really works subjectively.

And he makes tons of assumptions about how women are operating that fit as a puzzle piece into his pragmatic operating system regarding women... but that are totally off from how women are really operating.

And this leads to a lot of false conclusions about how women experience men they're attracted to... which leads to inaccurate narratives that produce shame in men.

If men have an understanding of women that works in real life than that understanding must be true, otherwise it wouldn't work. Like if your understanding of carpentry does not result in a house than you don't understand carpentry. Its senseless to argue with a carpenter on a fundamental level about houses when he has built hundreds of houses already.

I suspect that there is degree where attraction feels different to women than to men but feelings don't necessarily equate to reality. Something can feel one way but in reality be a completely different way. A man can feel "just right" to a woman but that doesn't mean that there isn't cold survival incentives driving their feelings. Its not a coincidence either that women that feel attractive to men are usually fertile and young.

I don't think men need to understand the entirety of womanhood anyway, like no red blooded male needs to understand how women menstruate. Most women don't really care what it is like to be man either and that is fair.

What about these kind of discussions makes you so mad anyway? I always see you writing walls of text whenever there is talk about how women work. Do you think your above being an animal?

[r0ckyreed]

What do you all think of The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar? She talks about all the ways women manipulate men and talks about the manipulations of the dark feminine.

Edited October 2 by r0ckyreed

[CARDOZZO]

1 hour ago, Tenebroso said:

This could be a post in itself, applying Reality Transurfing to dating. Maybe excess potentials explains why men less concerned with being a good man or doing the right thing do so well with women. The lack of importance but it's hard to fake that kind of non neediness.

Sure.

They are just who they are, no shame, no standards - I am a human therefore I deserve my needs met.

They just relate to woman as walking to get a cup of water.

Normal, easy, no effort, no emotional desperation.

You can't get what you put on a pedestal. 

Reality is so fucking weird/paradoxical.

They train people to become obsessed with intense force and effort like slaves.

Change Paradigm, Change Results.

 

 

[CARDOZZO]

This is eye-opening:

 

[bambi]

16 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

This is eye-opening:

 

What about this was eye opening for you, out of interest?