Critique of The Rational Male and Red Pill Ideology

[Federico del pueblo]

@Knowledge Hoarder

Next to these more universal attractors there is also such a thing as compatibility.

If you're an atheist and she's a fundementalist christian, then it doesn't matter how attractive you are, it's still not gonna work out. And there are many more things like this.

So whilst you may put your dick in a h0t girl even though she is a crack addict, because you just want to fuck, it probably won't work the other way around.

Also you've probably never seen someone with 10/10 game. This is very rare. Don't underestimate how hard it is to get there. It goes way beyond just having confidence and humor.

So if you really could witness a guy with 10/10 game you would realize that it doesn't nearly take 100 approaches for him to attract a girl enough to have sex with him. That's a ridiculous number.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

If attraction triggers are so objective as you claim, how come then a guy, who has every single one of those qualities, isn't able to attract 100% of the women?

The human mind is complicated and fuzzy. Nothing is 100% in this domain.

You can't attract 100% of women simply because most of them are already fucking someone else. And you are very shy of all those qualities. If you had all those qualities and you were around single women, you would attract so many of them you wouldn't have enough time to fuck them all.

Quote

Because I know for sure, that if my dick gets hard for an attractive woman, it's gonna get hard for every other attractive women. So that's clearly objective.

This is question begging because you already assume attraction with the concept "attractive woman".

If a woman gets wet for an attractive man, she's also going to get wet for every other attractive man.

The only difference is what counts as "attractive" for men and for women.

Until the point where the woman gets attached to you, her mind does not care about you as a person. You are disposable to her and any other guy of similar sexual value will do. Once she's attached, then she will only want you. But this happens after the fact, after sex.

[mmKay]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Til the point where the woman gets attached to you, her mind does not care about you as a person. You are disposable to her and any other guy of similar sexual value will do. Once she's attached, then she will only want you. But this happens after the fact, after sex.

Would you like to share your thoughts about the psychology of " having a crush"? 

Imo there can exist a degree of attachment even before sex, as a kind of obsession. 

As a guy I've experienced Oneitis a few times, and the best way of describing it it would be almost some sort of OCD , where you can't get someone off your mind and you struggle to be yourself when you're with them. 

I can imagine girls also crush on guys but I can't tell to what degree . 

Kinda funny feeling. After all this time of consciousness work I cant manage yo shake it off . It's like a really strong primal instinct. Only replacing her with a different girk works. 

Or maybe it's just me and I inherited the simp gene ?

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Women are also attracted to very predictable things like humor, confidence, leadership, status, vocal tone, eye contact, etc.

Which is why game works on women so well.

Your attraction is not as special as you think. It's just that the female mind subjectivizes the attraction as something super special and exclusive for that one guy. But the truth is, it could have been any guy similar to him. The uniquness of the guy is irrelevant. Of course the woman will tell herself otherwise.

There are objective components to female sexuality. And if a man develops along the lines of these components, he will have more mass appeal.

But as you know, this is no guaranteer of attraction even if you max out on these components. So you can't guarantee attraction because game will only work on maximizing that which is objective, which is a smaller component of female sexuality compared to the subjective component.

On the whole, there is an inherent subjectivity to female sexuality. This means that if two men who are identical in every way (including personality) a given woman will be able to see they are objectively equally attractive or unattractive. But subjectively, the same woman could be super hot and bothered for one guy and feel nothing for the other.

And it isn't about female sexuality being "special". It's just different than male sexuality. 

Also, the hyper-subjecification of a particular man can cause distortions in the reality of things. It's the "rose colored glasses" phenomenon, which women are particularly susceptible to BECAUSE of the subjective nature of our sexuality.

We can see the God in a man who is objectively pretty awful. 

And we may begin to feel like we can't get our relationship needs met by anyone else, when that's absolutely not true. For every women, there are probably close to 250 million suitable male partners on the planet that they'd be equally happy with. 

But that's not the way the female sexuality works. It's very subjective... so it will FEEL like the man is the one and only. And that's a feature... not a bug.

It's just important to do some doublethink and also logically understand that this "one and only" idea is illusory.... but not to let that logical awareness get in the way of the arational instinctual "one and only" fantasy part of the pair bonding process.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Emerald

[Gesundheit2]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

objective, which is a smaller component of female sexuality compared to the subjective component.

Lol.

[Emerald]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If a woman gets wet for an attractive man, she's also going to get wet for every other attractive man.

If I'm in a sexual scenario with an objectively attractive man, surely I will have that response. And this is the objective element of my sexuality at work.

Yet again, I could get wet in a sexual scenario to a random guy who's a solid 4 on all levels whom I also have zero feelings for.

So, I don't know if vaginal lubrication of any given woman is the most objective measure of male attractiveness. It's really just what the female body does when it's gearing up to get pregnant. At that point, the body knows sperm is sperm is sperm is sperm.

The thing is, for me, the desire for sex isn't very strong by itself without the subjective component attached to it. And I'm going to guess from observation that this is true for most women.

It's not to say that random sex by itself is totally unmagnetic to women. It's just a medium risk, medium/low reward activity. So, it's pretty lukewarm... even if the guy is good in bed. 

So even the most objectively attractive man won't necessarily compel me to want to sleep with him, if I'm not invested in him in a deeper and more personal level.

But sure... if I am really lonely, I might bite and I'm sure I could have a good time with him. But that bonding experience probably won't happen no matter how objectively attractive the guy is because you can't really rush that. 

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Until the point where the woman gets attached to you, her mind does not care about you as a person. You are disposable to her and any other guy of similar sexual value will do. Once she's attached, then she will only want you. But this happens after the fact, after sex.

I have had several one-night stands and not gotten attached, even in the slightest. Random sex doesn't make me feel closer to a man.

And every man I've ever gotten attached to, I was attached to before the sex happened from interacting with him in more platonic contexts.

My hypothesis, at least with myself, is that if i have sex before I get attached that there probably won't be enough tension to sustain my interest enough for deeper bonding to happen. Basically, you start on a high note and there's nowhere to go but down. 

Now, sex DOES deepen the bond exponentially if I'm already attached.

But if I have no attachment and I have sex, it's not going to magically make an attachment arise. Oxytocin isn't that strong of a drug if you have such little attachment in the first place. 

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, blueberries said:

@Emerald I don't think I've ever heard someone articulate female attraction and sexuality as well as you did in this thread, I agree with everything you said. I rarely feel represented by how female sexuality is portrayed/explained, even by other women, but this really hits the nail on the head.

I'm surprised to see so many people misunderstanding or disagreeing.

Thank you! 

It's quite common for guys on here to fight me tooth and nail on these matters... especially ones who are into pick-up or have been into pick-up before.

And the reason why is because pick-up was what saved them from being in over their head with women.

Many of the guys on this forum were virgins until they found pick up. 

And learning about pick-up and 'information' about female sexuality, has been a way for them to address the surface level problem of "I can't get women to sleep with me" without dealing with the root problem of "I have low self-esteem and thus feel like no woman will ever really love and accept me as I am."

If you'll notice, most men on this forum are dealing with deep insecurities about their own lovability. That's why they're here and seeking personal development. They sense that they're unlovable and trying to fix themselves so that they become more lovable. And this is unconscious, so many men are doing this through the lens of pick-up and getting female validation through sex without being aware that that's what they're seeking.

And so, if they can "solve" female sexuality once and for all in a very objective, formulaic, and repeatable way...  it gives them a the illusion of being able to always be one step ahead of women in the understanding of female sexuality and to never feel vulnerable or unlovable again.

The sense of ultimate leverage over female sexuality and love can help them ALWAYS avoid the pain associated with the feeling that no woman will really ever love them.

And so, it's threatening to them when I actually share the non-linear (and more loving) nature of the real thing... because the deeper element of female sexuality isn't as user friendly and objective as the things they believe. It isn't a consistent machine.

But for these men to believe me is to allow themselves to feel beyond their depths and out of control again. And they care much more about being in control and being invulnerable than they actually care about truth. And that's why I'm so persistent.

It's a much more empowering story to imagine that men who learn these things will just be able to push the right buttons and pull the right levers that will work in a universal and objective way.

So men who do pick-up have to be focused on the objective element of female attraction... which does help them some. There are objective components to female sexuality.

But the deeper and more subjective element of female sexuality (which is the dominant part) is not user friendly at all because it's so intuitively searching for its match physically, psychologically, emotionally, and on so many levels.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Emerald

[Federico del pueblo]

@Emerald

Well I for myself am very aware of my deeper insecurities and I work on all of them but still also study and apply "game".

The thing is if you have ever developed some kind of severe emotional hang up around women and sexuality, then there is a lot that you lack, because your insecurities will have stopped you from making experiences which would have helped to develop your social skills and your ability to relate to women "the natural way".

I personally find pick up in it's original form to be full of toxic advice, exaggerations, generalizations and so on, but it's not like either you do pick up or "just be yourself".

There is more mature dating advice out there too and everyone has to do his own work to separate the weed from the chaff.

And honestly all of the information about social dynamics is superbly helpful and I would not want to miss out on it.

Also consider how many guys are out there who also have insecurities and don't study game/dating advice/pick up and then can only meet like 2 - 3 girls per year and after a few years eventually end up in an unfulfilling relationship, with jealousy games and constant drama.

I mean look, it is easy for you girls to say: "ha look at all of these insecure boys who have to study pick up to get good with us haha, how pathetic" but have you ever really looked at this whole thing from the male perspective?

And I mean this like Leo explains in his video "what if reality is nothing but perspective", so you would really have to imagine being a man who's had his trauma and now wants to get better with women, do you not think you would want to study a little bit about social dynamics, flirtation and so on? (but ofc also about overcoming trauma, changing beliefs etc.).

If I was a hot girl I also wouldn't study "how to pick up guys the easy way", it wouldn't be necessary. If you're the one who regularly gets approached, who has the privilege to reject a lot of guys because there will always be more, then there is nothing for you to study and then you become more concerned about how to have the best possible relationship.

 

[Gesundheit2]

@Emerald Pick up advice works on creating the subjective attraction as well, it's called building rapport (early phase attraction) and attachment (later on).

Female sexuality is not so sophisticated; A low consciousness self construct that responds positively when stimulated right, and otherwise negatively. That is all. 99% of the times unconsciously so.

By the way, subjective vs. objective is a duality you're creating. It doesn't really exist, except in your mind.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Federico del pueblo said:

@Emerald

Well I for myself am very aware of my deeper insecurities and I work on all of them but still also study and apply "game".

The thing is if you have ever developed some kind of severe emotional hang up around women and sexuality, then there is a lot that you lack, because your insecurities will have stopped you from making experiences which would have helped to develop your social skills and your ability to relate to women "the natural way".

I personally find pick up in it's original form to be full of toxic advice, exaggerations, generalizations and so on, but it's not like either you do pick up or "just be yourself".

There is more mature dating advice out there too and everyone has to do his own work to separate the weed from the chaff.

And honestly all of the information about social dynamics is superbly helpful and I would not want to miss out on it.

Also consider how many guys are out there who also have insecurities and don't study game/dating advice/pick up and then can only meet like 2 - 3 girls per year and after a few years eventually end up in an unfulfilling relationship, with jealousy games and constant drama.

I mean look, it is easy for you girls to say: "ha look at all of these insecure boys who have to study pick up to get good with us haha, how pathetic" but have you ever really looked at this whole thing from the male perspective?

And I mean this like Leo explains in his video "what if reality is nothing but perspective", so you would really have to imagine being a man who's had his trauma and now wants to get better with women, do you not think you would want to study a little bit about social dynamics, flirtation and so on? (but ofc also about overcoming trauma, changing beliefs etc.).

If I was a hot girl I also wouldn't study "how to pick up guys the easy way", it wouldn't be necessary. If you're the one who regularly gets approached, who has the privilege to reject a lot of guys because there will always be more, then there is nothing for you to study and then you become more concerned about how to have the best possible relationship.

 

See, I don't have any issue with pick-up. I'm 100% sure that if I were a man, I would practice it and try to get good at it. I'm sure that it works for getting laid and meeting women. 

But I would hope that I'd be receptive enough to recognize that pick-up is only presenting me with partial truths and that I'd still be curious enough and brave enough to embrace the mystery and explore deeper into the enigma of human sexuality without everything needing to be so practical, logical, and user-friendly.

Also, I'm not calling anyone pathetic. Read back my post from before. It is very neutral and not meant as a condemnation... just an observation. Any way that a person is is always them doing their best. And if I were them, I'd think and feel the same way. So, this is literally me looking from the male perspective.

There is a religion of masculinity that men are expected to adhere to to prove their worth and it makes sense that there would be so much male insecurity. The constant messaging is "be this particular kind of man or you're worthless." And that narrative enforces the idea that women's opinions are going to determine your worth. So, I'm sure I'd be very nervous to speak to women to. The story just adds too much in the way of high stakes because women become these goddesses on a pedestal judging objective male worth. 

And I'm telling you that it IS a very deeply engrained archetypal story... but it is a story none-the-less. And there's a lot of mercy to be had for insecure men from listening to the truths that I share.... because female sexuality isn't that objective or ruthless. There will be women who will love you and accept you exactly as you are.

But I am saying that insecurity is why a lot of men aren't really receptive to really learning about female sexuality at a deeper level, which is what I'm presenting to you. To learn these things is scary to them because they feel out of control. And if they're out of control, they can't avoid the vulnerabilities of having that insecurity triggered.

When there is insecurity and a proposed solution to that insecurity (like pick up presents), then there comes to be an attachment to that viewpoint. And anything that contradicts it will be resisted against. And I was just explaining to the previous poster on here why so many men on the forum are so much in resistance to the truths that I'm sharing. She said she didn't understand why, so I told her.

 

[Emerald]

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Emerald Pick up advice works on creating the subjective attraction as well, it's called building rapport (early phase attraction) and attachment (later on).

Female sexuality is not so sophisticated; A low consciousness self construct that responds positively when stimulated right, and otherwise negatively. That is all. 99% of the times unconsciously so.

By the way, subjective vs. objective is a duality you're creating. It doesn't really exist, except in your mind.

The man's core personality (and that alone) is what works with subjective attraction and bonding. And there is nothing you can do to change your personality in any real way... nor should you try to.

If you're TRULY building rapport, that means that you're showing your authentic personality to her in hopes that there will be chemistry. And there is nothing objective about that process.

The subjective element of attraction will make it to where your core personality will be attractive to some women and not others as just a matter of chemistry or lack-thereof. 

And it doesn't matter what you do to increase your objective level of attraction. Even if you max yourself out on all levels of objective attractiveness... if it isn't a match, then it isn't a match.

And you could try to leverage as much as you want, and it's not going to change. It's not machine-like in how it works. 

And she'll be able to feel the chemistry or lack-thereof if she's in tune with her femininity.

This is why pick up just tells you to move on. But they just attribute her lack of interest to other factors. But it's because, even a pick-up master is still going to get 4 no's for every 1 yes.... and that's a very generous estimate. And the reason why that is, is because feminine sexuality is subjective. 

The techniques and all the stuff you learn with pick up only works on the objective components of female sexuality. But that's not most women's dominant mode in searching for relationship. The subjective feels so much better and more meaningful. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Emerald

[Federico del pueblo]

@Emerald

Ok, got you.

Though, if there is nothing a guy could do to affect this subjective part of her sexuality, well, then there really is nothing to do.

So it's still the best thing to do to meet as many women as you can, to find the one(s) who are a match for you.

Though I'm not too sure about the core personality thing...what is a personality anyway? Isn't this just a mental construction of our mind? I would assume that I now have a different personality compared to when I was 12, right?

Also don't you think that the more serious methodologies of personal development are designed to help you changing aspects of your personality? Why else would it be called personal development?

So e.g. if someone overcomes a trauma or has a transcendental experience, or changes a negative core belief, don't you think that this will change your core personality?

 

[Gesundheit2]

@Emerald You're basically just saying that it's impossible to attract all women. Well, duh. It's fruitless to even attempt that. Everyone is different, and no one can cater to everyone.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with the relative importance you're attributing to the objective attraction in comparison with the subjective. You're saying the subjective attraction rules and dictates female sexuality, and you're marginalizing the objective as secondary. It's like saying the conscious mind rules and dictates the subconscious mind. Well, it might do for highly conscious people, but only slightly. And for the majority of people, it doesn't do anything at all. In fact, it only reinforces the objective as absolute truth.

You might be relatively highly conscious among women right now after years of experience, and you might have gained a little bit more quality control over your sexual choices, so your subjective attraction might be able to override the objective, at least sometimes. But most women are unconscious as fuck, and they are deeply enslaved by their subconscious mind, which is why they make bad choices all the time. No intuition and no being in touch with feminine core works. Unconscious human is still unconscious human.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

It's not machine-like in how it works.

Machines are harder to hack. Women are biased because they want to be hacked. They co-operate 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, blueberries said:

Yeah that makes sense, this forum has definitely been an eye-opener for me! I guess a lot of this is also quite counterintuitive and contradictory since women still experience objective attraction and many of them like "alpha male" characteristics, it's just that these things are only part of the equation and don't guarantee attraction. 

There are definitely objective components woven into female sexuality. I can say that I tend to want the men I'm interested in to orient to me in that kind of "alpha" way. But I don't become attracted based primarily on that. Like it would turn me on if the guy I already liked expressed himself that way. But if a guy just behaves that way it doesn't guarantee attraction.

If you lined up every guy I've ever rejected and every guy I've ever been involved with or had a crush on, you'd definitely find some patterns, but there's no way that the guys I was attracted to are more objectively desirable.

Same

And if I understand correctly, you're also saying that men can use their feminine energy by choosing a partner based on subjective qualities, and women can lead by their masculine energy and select someone based on objective qualities. So it's not like this is clear-cut.

Everything is on a spectrum. So, there will be some women who are more masculine/objective in their attractions and men who are more feminine/subjective in their attractions. But generally speaking, male sexuality is more objective and female sexuality is more subjective. But everyone has both objective and subjective components.

What do you think about females and female-oriented media portraying female sexuality in a way that doesn't actually represent most females? I used to read girly/teen magazines growing up, and they sexualized men to the point where I used to worry I was asexual because I never looked at guys/pictures of guys and felt a strong physical attraction, which I thought I should. And other women have shared that same experience.

Yeah... I remember there was a scene in the original Pokemon series back in the late 90s. And there was a flash of scene where one of the members of Team Rocket was fantasizing and had a bunch of members of the opposite sex serving them at the pool side. And I can't recall if it was James with a bunch of bikini-clad women or Jesse with a bunch of guys in speedos. But I do remember (at age 10) that it set off this chain reaction in my mind.

And I would try to imagine myself at the side of a pool surrounded by a bunch of attractive guys in speedos while they bring me drinks and give me massages. And I was trying to get something out of it. But I was surprised at how unexciting it was...

And I was REALLY obsessed with sex at that age. I was like Beevis and Butthead about everything even remotely sexual.

Like EVERYTHING (even the smallest things) excited me beyond the moon. Like I recall reading my girlscout manual at age 9 and getting super turned on reading some VERY dry information about puberty and the menstrual cycles. Like I'd lock myself in my closet just to read it and feel turned on.

So, that's just for contrast. 

And then there would be like Chipendales dancer kind of guys on a tv program, I'd look at and just be like "meh." And I was very curious how I could be attracted to guys, but how the hot male model guys wouldn't cause any reaction for me. I would have far more of an excited reaction to seeing scantily clad women, though I generally prefer men. And it wasn't so much confusing because I knew I was attracted to guys as I was very precocious in that way. But it was curious that the "hot guy" imagery didn't really do anything for me.

I've also noticed that women often loudly say they want a man who is tall/rich/muscular etc, yet when I look at the men my female friends actually get involved with, they don't tend to choose men with those attributes (even though they could). Or girls hype their friends up to go for millionaires with six packs and feel disappointed when that friend ends up with a guy they don't perceive as "good enough" for her, but they don't follow their own advice.

Maybe it's partly a backlash against the previous narrative that women are only allowed to like guys for their "personality" or "sense of humor" and not for their appearance or wealth. So now we feel we should go in the opposite direction, even if we don't want to?

The way I see this is that the latter is a way to try to feel empowered by doing the same thing to men that men do to women. And there is an objective component to female sexuality so some women are really geared into things like that. But for the women in the first example, when push comes to shove, they just really like a guy for who he is. So, the objective element doesn't get in the way of their subjective element.

But then there's lots of women who (like in the second example) get stuck in their masculine/objective mode and they create a laundry list of different traits that men must possess. And then, of course, no man really fits the list. And it's all too logical and forced. So, it gets in the way of the intuitive subjective drive and they end up having a hard time finding the "perfect" guy because they're just in their head making lists of pros and cons and not in their heart making real connections. 

 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

this is no guaranteer of attraction even if you max out on these components. So you can't guarantee attractio

Nothing ever guarantees attraction with anyone.

Just because a girl has big tits does not guarantee attraction either.

Humans are complicated.

But there are very predictable patterns and trends.

The human mind is not stupid. It assesses sexual value holistically, so it cannot be fooled by any one single factor. It would be too easy to game otherwise.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Federico del pueblo said:

@Emerald

Ok, got you.

Though, if there is nothing a guy could do to affect this subjective part of her sexuality, well, then there really is nothing to do.

So it's still the best thing to do to meet as many women as you can, to find the one(s) who are a match for you.

Though I'm not too sure about the core personality thing...what is a personality anyway? Isn't this just a mental construction of our mind? I would assume that I now have a different personality compared to when I was 12, right?

Also don't you think that the more serious methodologies of personal development are designed to help you changing aspects of your personality? Why else would it be called personal development?

So e.g. if someone overcomes a trauma or has a transcendental experience, or changes a negative core belief, don't you think that this will change your core personality?

 

Yes, there is nothing to do with the subjective part of female sexuality other than to be yourself. 

There are ways to impact the objective part of female sexuality to spark attraction and avoid dealbreakers. So, that's has some leverage to work with. And I think it's wise to do so.

But yes... meeting lots of women is a man's best bet. It's the soundest strategy with the least amount of gamble. 

But the personality is and isn't a construct.

It is a construct in the sense that even your body and reality itself is a construct.

But in a more terrestrial sense... if by personality, you mean the Ego... the Ego is basically the idea of ourselves. It's the parameters with which we define the self.

But the personality in the sense that I mean, it is not the Ego.

It's just the qualities of a given being. So, I mean personality as being more analogous to the word "nature". And that is something that's just inherent to you.

For example, if you look at a given dog or cat... it may not have an ego. But it does have a personality. There is a nature inherent to every being that is beyond conceptualization and beyond conditionings/influences.

The same way that a person's face just looks the way it does... the personality just is the way it is. And you can transcend your Ego but still have that personality. Like, if you look at enlightened people like Adyashanti and Sadhguru... they still have a personality, even if they have no Ego.

And as a mom, I can tell you that both of my children were born with fully formed personalities... the same personalities that they have to this day. 

So in terms of changing your core personality it's 100% impossible to do. And people who believe you can change it are 100x more deluded than people who think gay conversion camp could turn someone straight. And a person would be very unwise to try to change their core personality.

A geranium will never become a daffodil. And a daffodil will never become a daisy. 

Personal development is about working with what you have. 

[Federico del pueblo]

@Emerald

Interesting.

Do you believe that whether or not somebody is evil (like a murderer) is in their nature/core personality or more of a learned pattern i.e. an ego thing?

 

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Nothing every guarantees attraction with anyone.

Just because a girl has big tits does not guarantee attraction either.

Humans are complicated.

But there are very predictable patterns and trends.

That's true. There is a subjective component to all human sexuality, just as there is an objective component.

But let's be real here. Male sexuality and female sexuality are different. 

And male sexuality is much more influenced by objective factors, while female sexuality is more influenced by subjective factors.

If a woman is between the ages of 18 and 25, has symmetrical features, oval face shape, large eyes, full lips, and a .6 waist to hip ratio most men will be attracted to her. It's objective.

But if you take a charismatic, confident, classically handsome man with a great job and all the fixins... most women still won't be into him, even if they recognize him as objectively attractive.

But of course, men need a leverage point with how to attract women, so they have to work on the objective elements of male attractiveness. The subjective can't be worked on or improved. It just is what it is. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

But if you take a charismatic, confident, classically handsome man with a great job and all the fixins... most women still won't be into him

Of course they will.

Open a fake dating profile, post that in the profile, and you will have chicks begging for dates. I've actually done it.

A dude can get laid from status alone in the same way that a chick can get laid from "symmetrical features, oval face shape, large eyes, full lips, and a .6 waist to hip ratio".

[aurum]

On 8/29/2021 at 2:45 AM, Emerald said:

But women who orient to their sexuality in a masculine way will only be tuned into status and if the guy is the alpha. And they will be unlikely to find a good relationship.

A corollary to this would be that men who are seeking a good relationship are shooting themselves in the foot by trying so hard to obtain status. If you project all this status as a man, then you are likely only to attract women who appreciate status, and therefore who are in their masculine.

Or to put it in spiral dynamics terms, Orange attracts Orange.

It does seem to me that a healthy balance exists, and that women do appreciate more objective attraction triggers to a certain degree. But at a certain point you have to let that go.