0
   

A personal blog with information from all over the place to help me clear my mind

 
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 11:18 am
@Apothecary,
If there is an escalation of aggression, wouldn't you want people not hit you exactly because you're a woman? I know you want, that's why you mention domestic abuse as an issue. Yeah, "but there is such thing as domestic abuse!" you are talking about the exceptions, I'm talking about the general rule. Now, we haven't managed to convince 100% of men that hitting women is bad because it hurts them, but using domestic abuse as a counter-argument to this isn't really a counter-argument. Men in general don't hit women, because they are women, if you as a woman manage to marry someone who beats you, I'm sorry but the vast majority of men and the partiarchy can't be held responsable. Just like you aren't responsable for all women.

Not even sure why you are so strong on disagreeing with this, I thought you'd be happy that women have privilege somewhere. Maybe because stuff like: "Men are using glvoes with women. Exactly because they are women. This is true both in physical fights and business department. It's not about how you want to be treated, it's about the fact that you treated better. Women can get away with far more than men can simply because they are women. But if you want to 'be a man', 'be the alpha', the insert adjective here. At some point a man is going to be like 'gloves off' and knock her out, either physically or metaphorically in the business enviroment. That is the real ring that the women were unaware of, simply because they are women. It comes like such a big shock to them and 'the business world is so ruthless', but for men it's just normal" don't get in line with the victim mentality? how can you be a victim if you get special treatment? well, both can happen. You can have an advantage in one area, disadvantage in one area, we play different games.

It's always funny to men when a crazy feminist oversteps the line because of her privilege (most women wouldn't have the courage to do that if they didn't know men can't hit them because they are women) to get their "rights" unaware of their "privilege", piss off men past the boiling point the gloves are off, and when they get the same treatment men get from men in a similar situation and start complaining that "men bad", "patriarchy".

Equality isn't what they expected apparently. In general, that is what happens, not making things black&white but as a general rule. Heck, men may even stop fights because "there are girls here" without being attracted to any of them. Are you aware of any of that? Can you point out to a moment when that happened? My guess is no because you didn't notice, it's an unspoken rule. Or abstain from speaking crude or rudely to each other because "there are girls here". Can you? probably not. Because privilege is invisible to those who have it. But I can remember a lot of moments when I had, when we all cooled down because girls were around and we wanted to be nice in front of them, when we would abstain from speaking badly because girls were around, etc. And I'm not the only man with this experience, some men on this exact topic have hinted to the same thing. Heck, I'd pick to be treated with gloves like women if I could, would have saved me from being engaged some fights because some idiot didn't like X. As a man, your dad teaches you to defend yourself, because you have to, you physically have to fight at some point, and out of no fault of your own, do they teach you that as a woman? I wonder why.

I've seen men jumping to fights out of the stupidest things making you roll your eyes.

Women are physically assaulted under a lot of circumstances, not just because they act like entitled Karens. Those other circumstances being domestic abuse:

So whose fault is women being with partners who beat them? Society? If we talk about a place in the world with forced marriage like parts of Africa, Middle East and India I'm 100% with you here, society is at fault. But in the west, can you make the same argument that society is at fault? where men and women can marry and date whoever they want and it's their choice. Women have to agree to date men, women have to agree to marry men, etc. They can easily say no and avoid these people (there are cases of stalkers but those are rare, most domestic abuse it's not stalkers, there you can make the case of no fault of their own, but it's a minority). Not all men are aggressive brutes, but if you only date aggressive brutes, that's no fault of the majority of men or even the patriarchy.

All genders have bad apples. If you only pick the bad apples it's really no one's fault but your own. It's not like a serial killer killed you in the middle of the street and you had 0% control over it. Or how is the patriarchy responsible for you only picking the men that are bad?

Heck, I saw a funny video recently: There was this leftist vegan girl who said she always had bad boy types, and she just couldn't conceive a child (willingly), and then she met this guy and she wasn't into him at all (soft friendly guy, smallish too), until she later decided she wanted to try it anyway and eventually got the much wanted child with her openly alt-right man. And then a comedian said: officially they are leftist vegan 'goody goody' girls, but at the same time (when they are horny esp) they want misogynistic bad men.

Whose fault was that that woman was senseless lol? She's probably going to be just another victim of domestic abuse, but hey, she likes bad boys. This exact woman was of the opinion in the future there would be only nerdy men. The comedian was like: all this violence its disgusting... f*** me! Like "yeah, you're a bad boy, and I generally don't like that, but I just make an exception for you, your violence disgusts me, want to screw around?".

When it comes to her declarations, the comedian was like: at least there would be world peace (as a joke), it was always the ambitious (and good looking acceptably) men causing ruckus. But when it comes to her actions, they couldn't be further away from her principles. I get that she was an extreme slave to her emotion, but at the same time, that's her responsability as well. But yeah, go ahead and say "these women are extreme slaves to their emotion" despite the obivous, even partially mentioning that you get insane raging fumes. Some would even insist that "they are normal and just like other women" and I'm like doubt. "I'm not like those girls who fall for bad boys, sure we are all unique but we share so many similarities".

One thing I've noticed personally is with appearances. Women go on and on about liking clean shaven men per example. But in reality (esp when horny) they actually like scruffy looking men.

You can make the case that this is just 1 example, and you're right.

But I have another one, one that I witnessed personally not from a funny video:

I was at a bar, and there was this barista who would keep being hit on by drunk men (you've probably seen the movies, exactly like that). They would tell her "hey beautiful" or try to be funny but in a domineering kind of way with smugging jokes of superiority, trying to impress her I assume. I didn't care. I had a girlfriend, I did not are about hitting on her, I was only there for a drink.

So eventually I ended up talking to her, not sure how it happened but I didn't make an advance towards it. Probably because I was the only guy in that bar who wasn't trying to hit on her, can't tell.

She told me how annoyed she was with the men that night, how they tried to approach her with cringy stuff like that instead of just behaving nicely and respectfully to her. And how she used to be in a toxic relationship for 4 years, with an ex that was abusive, saying that she "doesn't know what she saw in that man, but found it hard to let go once she was already in the relationship" and after she did, she was shocked to see that other men were actually very nice and respectful to her. She was very hot by the way, worth pointing this out, but you probably guessed it from the "audience". She would even pay the bills for her abusive boyfriend and he would keep abusing her, treating her terribly, but she didn't want to, but she liked it, she was such a fool, but now she is over that, now she got her own self-respect, now she knows what respect is, now she only wants to date nice and respectful men. Men who treat her respectfully, who are very nice with her.

I felt sorry for her and was glad she got out of that abusive relationship.

I should also mention that she was a very delicate girl, didn't fit in there.

And then a guy I knew came to the bar, a bad boy type. Pretty shitty person overall to be honest. I was at a table with her, she rose up to get some drinks for the costumers, that guy came next to me and asked me "is she your girlfriend? no", "are you hitting on her? no", "okay". And then she come back and that guy was still there, and she started talking with her, and then he started flirting with her. She was lovestuck. It was so dead obvious, she had a type, that type. The way she would look at him and was fascinated by him.

I was right next to them, but at the same time, what was happening was dead obvious to the whole bar. At one point she got outside to pick up some stuff. Then the whole bar started looking at that guy and be like "what are you doing man, are you hitting on our barista?", "if I can do it, why not?", "leave her to us man, find someone else, don't corrupt her", "she is already corrupted bro, what fault do I have if she falls for me?". When she came back everything was silence.

She is a really nice girl, kind, respectful, but her tastes in men? couldn't have been worse even if she tried. So whose fault is it? The only difference between this guy and the rest of the bar was that this guy was better looking.

Talking in general about these things, I would say the responsability is on women, it's difficult to say "oppression" when you are at fault:

I wouldn't say "fault" but I would say "responsability". It's not like they did this with intention or they wanted to do this to be their "fault".

I would argue is it the woman's responsability for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, because she is the one that ends up suffering. The man just came & went, he's probably doing fine. It's the ones who suffer that have to be careful.

If you walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood and end up getting robbed. It's the robber's fault for robbing you or your own responsability for putting yourself in that position to begin with? of course it's the robber's fault, but at the same time we have to consider that the roober just came & went, he's probably doing fine right now. While you are the one who ended up suffering. And you have your share of blame for walking at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood.

If you were robbed in the middle of the daylight on the street you can make a case for 0% your fault, but 3 AM bad neighbourhood, I have a hard time not seeing a part of blame in you too this time.

You can't expect robbers not to rob, but you can expect yourself not to walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, you have a responsability there. You can blame it on him, and it's clearly his fault, but it will not change much, and you are the one who ended up suffering.

I think it's rather dumb to try to control other people than try to control yourself in these scenarios.

By "responsability" I mostly mean "the actor that could have avoided it", because if we use fault in a traditional sense the answer is dead obvious the robber. But at the same time, you can't expect robbers not to rob. It's the one who will end up suffering who has the responsability to avoid it therefore "blame" although objectively is not really their fault as they are not the perpetrator, but they put themselves in that position and it was their responsability to avoid it. And yes, sometimes it's innevitable or impossible to predict, I agree, but most of the time it's not. Sometimes it's just bad luck, most of the times it's not.

Why is this relevant? Because based on our perception, our interpretation of data, we offer solutions, and those solutions can vary, they can be more or less effective:

What is your solution to this? what do you expect to be made about this?

Make women earn less? men make not beat women? make men earn more?

Almost all of these cares are exactly like the barista's case. Because most of those abusive guys who end up with women who earn more than them, are those bad boy guys who are parasitic but women stay with them because they are attracted to them and love that.

Or do you think they were very nice and respectful men, like the man from 50 shades of grey, must be good looking to and know how to treat women right, and then suddenly one day a switch went off and he became this abusive terrible husband that she had no idea of and couldn't recognise?

So what do you want to be done about this? teach women not to pick abusive men? or teach men to be nice to women even harder?

How do you deal with robbery? teach people not to put themselves into positions of getting robbed? or teach robbers not to rob even harder?

I can guarantee you, you can make a worldwide campaign about "DO NOT ROB PEOPLE!" there will still be robbers, because, guess what, those robbers don't care about those "don't rob" campaigns. If the victim comes, they take the victim.

Taking the responsability off of the robbed it's really a dumb thing to do, because he was the one who could have avoided it. In most cases.

So "women get abused, men bad!", not all kids of men bad, the ones you pick men bad. A campaign to "stop abuse" would hardly have any effect, because abusers know exactly what they are doing, it's not like they suddenly wake up one day and are like "I was wrong wrong? I didn't knew it! damn, thanks to this ad now I know it!".

But marginalization. That would work. If those men would have no female victims because of their abusive ways. Because that would work and women would avoid them. We would have less domestic abusive cases.

But there are some women who want a bad boy who is aggressive militaristic even openly alt-right in some cases, but not be bad with them. It's like wanting a anaconda for a pet and expect him not to eat you. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

But I get the sense (could be wrong) that you come from the position of "women are the victim! men should be better!", I'm more like "women are the victim! women should avoid it!". If anything, an efficient solution would be directed towards that, making women less likely to fall prey to these kinds of men, not expecting bad men to be bad men, because bad people will always exist, no matter how much you campaign it.

When feminists complain about domestic abuse they come from the position that men should be better. It's not men they should be working with, it's women, as pointed here ^. "Look what men do?", more like "look what women do? getting with all these men".

And yes, there are some few cases where the man is really sneaky and the woman could have seen it coming, but even then she could leave him right after finding out. But in general, in those cases with the woman being lovestruck by a parasite, that man is full of red flags, red flags bigger than the flag of China, the woman just couldn't see it or didn't want to see it because she loves him.

In high school, who gets all the girls? The jocks or the nerds? the nerds are better boyfriends on paper. The world is just an extension of that.

I've seen my share of nice guys who would make great boyfriends on paper, they have good paying jobs, are nice, are decent, and respectful. But couldn't get a girlfriend. As well as of a**h***s who would make terrible boyfriends, husbands, everything, yet have tons of women to pick from. And often take advantage of that, at the cost of the woman.

The jocks are usually way better looking than the nerds. And in personality they are more dynamic were as the nerds are more nice and quiet and in their place. They are dynamic where as the other is more of the traditional boyfriend which chocolate and such, bringing gifts like flowers & chocolate and love. So you could say that looks matter more than character. Who decides that? the women who pick them.

You grow up with a female-predominated enviroment around you, they teach you feminist stuff, you grow up frustrated because whatever you do is not working:

You don't look as cool as you want to do and repress that part of yourself, so repressed inferiority complex towards other men.

You don't get female attention maybe friendzone as best because you're such a nice female guy but don't make them feel emotions, so repressed sexual impulses.

You are not competitive enough so you don't survive in a work enviroment without the boost of 'treat her nicer because she's a woman', so fail at work due to lack of competitiveness.

You are a people pleaser and that's a good thing to some extent to have a good soul and a good heart as that purity and joy can infect the other person, but the heathly limit is do good to yourself without hurting others, do good to others without hurting yourself, which you don't have because you were raised by women and women are naturally more people pleasing than men because they are biologically wired to raise an infant, and that 'people pleasing' behavior may work for a woman because people including dating prospects are expecting a woman to be 'nice' and 'self-sacrifcing' on some extent so it's just 'what a woman does' so it's very understandable and people appreciate you for it, but being a people pleser as a man just screams 'weak' and 'not a dating partner because you're not strong and can't stand up for you' as a man you're sure expected to be 'nice as in inviting but principled not people pleasing', sure you can absolutely be with kind people who hug each other at the start of the party that have decency, but you can't be do good to others while hurting yourself and have it appreciated like women, so you get frustrated because of the way you're treated.

We are dealt a different stack of cards. So a man learning exclusively from a woman will likely end up a frustrated man who fails in life and the best case scenario he becomes a simp or a radical feminist while worst case scenario he becomes a serial killer or school shooters. It's never people who are content in life that do this.

In other words, which parts of this you find wrong and why?

There was another speech from Jordan Peterson that discussed that part.

I don't remember that speech that well but it went something like this: A lot of guys who are on women's march of hardcore feminists and are overly sympathetic are actually quite predatory. Their psychology is 'maybe if I am on their side they will sleep with me'.

Which is the absolutely wost way to go, you should go the opposite direction, making yourself attractive by being more masculine and attractive to women, heck a woman can be attracted to you even if she disagrees with you, or especially if she disagrees with you, there's emotions in that disagreement, and shows you are principled, that you have your own ideas and don't try to patter her or raise her on a pedestal but treat her like a normal person.

At the same time, overly "macho" or "manly" are usually compensating men. Knowing deep inside that they lack masculinity so they need to compensate it with a big outward appearance. Maybe they have a big truck, a sleveless shirt and overall a more crude voice to apperar more masculine. While masculine men feel less insecure about their masculinity therefore they feel more comfortable bringing up their feminine side, including empathy.

For a masculine man who isn't compensating, their feminine side works in contrast with their masculine side. They have both. They don't feel ashamed to bring up their feminine side because they already feel they have their masculine side to back them up so they don't feel in danger of appearing "overly-feminine" if they express their feminine side like liking cats or liking cookies.

Usually, when one gender is too much in one direction, they are usually compensating.

There was another study about this, I'm trying to remember it but I can't.

Feminine traits are seen as weak, dysfunctional, and undesirable in men.

Being disarming in order to avoid physical harm is a better strategy than being intimidating for women. According to a psychologist (no, not Jordan Peterson, but I wouldn't doubt if he made a more similar case) women are more manipulative by their nature. More in-tune with social roles and social dynamics than men. Because men learned to rely on strength, women learned to rely on connections. As said originally, we play different games.

Women are more manipulative in that specific sense. Because they are more in tune with social roles and social dynamics than men. They have learned to rely on connections to "get their job done". Being sneaky about it if you well. Were as men rely on strength.

They hate a man and want them out of their company? They aren't going to use physical strength or intimation to get things done. That won't work. They are going to use relations, connection. Maybe talk with a co-worked about how bad they are, spreading a rumor, telling their boss, even being a snitch about it, making something up. Using connections to get things done, using their influence, women are way better at this game than men are.

Heck, now that I write about it, I know a woman in real life who is the very embodiment of that. She would make the protagonists of Mean Girls blush (didn't watch it, but know it's very popular with women, was told the summary of the plot). At the same time, I can't think of a single man I know that is nowhere anywhere close to her skill. And yes I know this is an isolated example, but this is more like an appendic than the main thing of this point.

Guess you could say that women's bad side are more Mean Girls where as men are more intimidating and aggressive.

THE CHAD EXPERIENCE 5DC:

I'm good at spells, it's ok.
Start singing. And express yourself.
When it's time to study study.
Get to the computer and be serious about it. Browse c and all.

People want to be looked at with love.

The real enemy is fear.

You just got to make your work, do your job.

And then you can be content.

Learn how to play people.

To have more initiative "want to".

Be smart, be efficient, that's what job recruiters expect of you.

And take initiative. People like people who take initiative.

How can we create a better and well functioning society?

Common causes. People with a common cause united. (Football, it, gym, etc) common cause, common purpose.

Lean your trade. There is plenty of course online. Then you can do lots of stuff. But learn your trade. Learn the mechanism.

To tease is to annoy, like annoy really hard, find a weak spot and annoy (exploit) it (flat, white).

Jokes can be made rather slowly. Drags you down into house while he isn't showing it.

About privilege - shouldn't you be happy that treated with gloves? You don't want oppression and turns out not that oppressed. Treat nice to them.

Chad: sharp, loud, confident single-minded. And always supporting you, laughing at your jokes fully, etc. Paying attention to you, making you feel included, etc.

...travel.... see what it's like... that very six day.... night.... thechad5....

Charisma - to attract people with your speech.


More defrosted

More with magic

More with the words at him

Less dull

More arrogant (I'm always on the first place)

More with self-confidence and makinfunofer funny (no pedestal)

(For her it's a world about fun and catering, but also no pedestal look at then down sort of, need to find right balance. Hot bro)
- Play the fool/play the fool
(defrost)

She doesn't look up to you as a man. Doesn't respect you.

You need to learn how to make good jokes and navigate socially.

How to gain respect.

How to attract being the fun side etc. Navigate well.

How to make jokes? Be indirect.



"What are you afraid of me?" (The words at him)

"I'm too much of a wuss and too little attractive".

Afraid of hurt? afraid of hurting? go for it, and see what it happens.


"I'm very proud of you"
"I taught you everything you know"
Bad or good twist: "AAA, you're very happy with the monitor, not me"
"It's ok, broyou is harder to catch the meaning" (insult, but soft)
"Process harder", that's the problem, you process harder now that you don't have the training. You don't have the initiative, you don't have the intuition. To give reply.
Or you have conflicting concepts.

"It doesn't matter what you had, it matters what you are" (insult, but soft)
"Sometimes it's better not to hear"

"You talk for nothing, because usually it's not something new"
Treat then like a child, look at them from above.

You pick on someone, then add the reply. (then beat reply)
"Congratulations, I always believed in you."

Set a day to put your life in place and actually start doing it.

Being with the 3 priorities:
1. Eat
2. Concepts
3. Work
And rework and reconsider what masculinity means and why women love masculine men.

UP TO 8DC, 9DC, FRD. FIX, 6DC 1040M? GTM 2+. SO6, TUE. ONE TK PHONE, ONE TKLIVE AFTRCAR.

To be masculine, not to be men.
"Women like that masculinity, they like that alpha"

It's mostly looks and second place attitude. But attitude matters too.

"I can read a person and tell what they're insecure about and what they want to be reassured about"

Lovebomb - give people compliments, attention, affection.

(, The kind of love that they are looking for - this is the kind of love that they are looking for: giving people compliments, attention, affection)

We make sure, you feel, like you are the most interesting person in the world.

The ego boost they got from these false promises kept them so attached to me, it's such a powerful motivator.

Future fracking gets people so invested and attached.

Leave the door halfway open and play the hot and cold game.

Nobody else releases that highly positive emotion in them, that surge of dopamine.

They will take any sliver of it. The tiniest amount will make them satisfied. And this is how you get them attached to you. (And lower their value)

They will inherently believe that they are of lower value than you, because you are the one who is in control.

What bargaining chip do you have at this point?
---------------------------------------
(My love is sincere. You need to get that feel. How? Personalized stuff and such. A reaction is either positive or negative, if it isn't positive it's negative. Make sure you make positive interactions with people.)
---------------------------------------

WHY WE LOVE:

Why we fall in love with specific people? We tend to fall in love with people who are similar to us.

(fun, engaging, laughing; whether it's dopamine system; or stability, etc, if it's serotonin system)

"Think of reasons to say yes", I call it positive illusions.

Get to know at least some of this people better. The more you get to know somebody, the more you tend to like them.

So if you're risky you like risky people. If you're conservative, you like conservative people.

Why him? why her?

When you love someone everything is special about them.

What you bring to the table? probably the most important question in terms of love. That charm and looks.

I'd be very curious to hear her thoughts on looks and the traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity. Like, people can turn their dating life 90 degrees by working on their looks and developing charisma, having good chemistry and good spirits. You get along nicely. While both can afford to be yourself and are free to be yourself.

It's still looks that's the king.

It's more about being masculine-looking like Andrew Tate, than being masculine.

Masculinity meant masculine looking.

IMMA put my life together, good looks and good chemistry.

Have good looks and good chemistry and tell me you're not able to get a woman.

I won't believe you.
------------
You can see how if you keep going on like this you will lose you philospphy, you need to recalibrate, not expand.

What you bring to the table?

We tend to like similar people, people who are like us.

+++

Part 13 (can be called a new ch, back to it, beauty, lovebomb, the chad, pleasure to be for such a woman, the songs with Valhala and such, the music)

BACK TO IT:

Really good run so far, real gold concepts with all the useful stuff above. About similarities, and high spirits, and laugh, and being similar, being like a mirror, because people like people who are like us. All that dopamine risky and serotonin stuff. As well as looks, how looks matter and are important. As well as being similar in terms of spirit, like good with words and good chemistry, good spirits, good vibes, that's what a good connection looks like. Excitement, wonder, asking, but also fairness, morality. Risky but with fairness and morality and consideration for others. And playing the hot&cold game, not always replying to the last message, etc, but being a good presence to be around by doing all the above stuff with being risky and such. Excited, all around, bring up the joy, bring up the good spirit, laugh, smile, laugh at them, smile at them, always having something to do.

Beauty. This matters, to have beauty.

Both as a man and as a woman.

In fact, I cannot overstate how important this is, it can make or break your life.

Even in the morality test, there was a question about a candidate bring accepted because he is better looking. People are going to have different answers to that, but you can imagine if there weren't different answers as in answers all over the place that question wouldn't be there, people discuss this. This is why beauty is important and I cannot overstate how important it is. Other things are important too, don't get me wrong, but beauty is important, very important.

Fun and high spirit. How to be cool. That's the part I miss. Well, not really, I just described it above, being similar, being like them. Serotonin and dopamine. Being like them in terms of words, in terms of act, etc.

The quote "just - expectation, have a good rime, have fun".
(Like that weeding there. The behavior at a wedding - flawless).

It's not about expectation, it's about being what you have to be, being similar, being risky, behing always smiles high up attitude, being laugh at them, smile at them, laugh with them, ask questions, do something fun. Have a happy hippy yippy vibe. And stay loyal, even if you laugh and smile at them stay loyal. Have fairness and morality and consideration for others.

So fill up with wedding events + socio pth advice. Then the quote and how to be cool advice. (Something more?)

Lovebombing

Lovebombing - go out of your way to do things for them.
-----------------
You really have to lose weight and get good looking if I want to have a chance.
--------------------
You can still get in a situation where she looks at you and admires you.

You don't want to be ignored so change tactics.

Sometimes:

Add short like "exactly"

Or just leave it as that, with her on last reply

Or just leave it blank

Or always find things to keep the conversation going, to be catchy in terms of conversation. If you don't have looks to back it up.

Or ??? I have a lot to learn there.


Probably leave it as it is when the converastion won't go anywhere. Or if your last reply isn't engaging enough to make sure she would reply. Something she would be interested in, she would find fun to read, or fun to know about, fun to rode about. But without being too clinky or cringy.

People who do stupid stuff and still make money are legitimized by the fact that people watch their live.

They are legitimized by their audience that they do something right.

Words at making fun, it's understood by default that they aren't true. No it's not, they need to be more funny than they are hurtful. They need to be so funny that the funny oversteps the hurtful. That's how good teasing works.

Or need to be attacking, but in a smuggish way. As I explained above the difference between bullying & teasing is really just the context. From the outside it looks like the same thing. And with the hat example, that sometimes it's fun to get people to their extreme. It may get them annoyed and attracted to you.

As long as you speak normally, cute, polite, don't insult or don't make fun ar simpatic. You are allowed to make jokes but in the smuggish kind of way. Without being too hurtful, you can be hurtful but not too hurtful, too personal. Just slightly hurtful, slightly personal, and they need to be more funny than they are hurtful or personal. Just barely touching that personal and hurtful side. That's the word, barely touching. Barely touching the personal side and just focusing on the fun side. Like "hey, you're the one with the ad about .... those objects surely proved strong and independent", to make it clear that they are not the target of your joke. This is very important, to make it clear that they are not the target of your joke. Otherwise it will be hurtful.

Teasing makes people feel good. It makes them laugh when bad things are said about them. If they feel hurtful or insulted, it's not teasing, it's too personal, and you get the opposite effect, not making them feel good, not making them laugh when they hear bad things about them because "my god what a good joke".

Put pictures and be creative. For many followers.

10DC10PM:

Tl;dr
It's the Chad that gets the girl.

Not all Chads are bad. Some are good Chads.

But women would prefer a bad Chad than no Chad.

Masculine= nerve to get into. (balls, nerve, to get yourself into a discussion. You see them and you have guts to get yourself into a discussion, normally not in an aggressive way. Nerve to get the initiative and be there present in the moment. Guts to put yourself, in a normal way. Saying what? anything. Guts to put yourself because you want to put yourself and you feel like putting yourself. Maybe add to the converastion or something. Without insecurity, or doubt. Just for the sake of having an interesting discussion and talking to her. Guts to put yourself in a conversation, a conversation isn't hurtful, isn't damaging, it's your atttitude that is, this idea of "nerve to get into" does something to your attitude. Guts to take initiative to be part of the group. Have guts, because gutters win. And if there's a failure? you are still trying, if there is a failure you will see it, the important thing is, you get yourself in a discussion in a normal way not aggressive way. Trying to contribute to the conversation. Guts to put yourself in seme)
It's very important to have guts to put yourself in seme and make it a pleasant conversation for them so they are more likely to say yes.
One they feel good talking to you and enjoying your company.
Because it can very likely be a win, gutters can do it right, gutters can win, if they do it in a normal way. If you do it right, in a normal way. Making them feel pleasant talking to you.
Emotional manipulation? fine. But hurting people? not so much.
Masculine = guts, to put yourself. Ex: return a project, or a card, would you do it or would you not? A masculine man would do it, women appreciate that. Or guys to say you want to have six. Or guts to hit on them, etc.
Guts to put yourself in and interact with them. Without being a ruffian, but by being focused on the "and interact with them" part.
Focus on the main thing being able to interact with them.
Guts to put yourself and interact with them.
(The way you want it, on your terms, but without being a dick about it)
Basically, guts to state what you want. (Six)
And when in the right, guts to pick up a fight if you don't get what you want. (Neighbors dog; return example)

Women love that. That's what Chads do and have.

I don't know how to describe the feel, just look at football fanboys and you'll see it.

Decent men of society. Women want men to be decent men of society, healthy women that is.

Calm, articulate, serious, etc. Nice, soft, blajin, with depth, etc. To have understanding and a good peace of mind with them for a healthy relationship.

But not all.
----
It's a pleasure for a man to be subservient for such a woman.

Can I do that for you? Can I take that for you? Can I bring that for you?

For such a woman. Not for the other types mentioned above.

So he will do it without asking. Again, the woman's behavior matters a lot, it's not only men that's the factor here.

It's simply pleasant to do such things for such a woman, help them, because it feels like it's appreciated and like they deserve it and like they are good women.

Not for the others. The H-S, who usually go for bad boys and end up suffering out of domestic abuser. It's simply not a healthy relationship, but it starts with the woman and the man, it wasn't simply bad luck, there was a decision there.

If you have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like, of course you are going to fall in bad relationships.

-------
I'm saying this as a simple fact, not because I hate women or whatever.

How can facts be sexist? My opinion is women are doing X not women deserve Y. There's a huge difference.
(The continuation is with what's above)
-------------
That feeling of attracted when looking at someone, it's gold.

--------
The character stuff is really a minor stuff. If you get to look like a Chad, things will be so much easier for you, whether you hit on good women or bad women.

MASCULINITY - VALHALA CALLING ME - STRONG, INDEPENDENT, FIERCE, ETC. NO WEAK, NO DOUBT, NOT A DEEP FIELD PIERCING FEELING IN THE SKIN, ETC. BUT STRENGTH, POWER, VALOR, VIKING SONG.

The strength, power and valor and fierceness of mind of that song. That's what masculinity is about. That unshaken feeling of "valhalla calling me", that strong belief, that ode, that power, that no doubt, that "ooooo", that no doubth, that greening the teeths and being ready for a fight. There's strength in that, self-sufficient strength, that's masculinity.

valhalla calling me song - masculinity That's the feeling behind it. The encapsulation of that feeling.

O, ohoho, vallhala calling me.

Or those people wearking a viking tattoo. They can be the encapsulation of that feeling as well. Have you ever seen a fat, overweight guy eating a sandwich by the pool having a viking rune as a tattoo? me neither. The guys I've usually seen wearing that were more or less the encapsulation of a viking. I have rarely seen someone waring a viking tatoo, the logo not the runes, and not being the embodiment of a viking.

Strong, powerful, unflinged, untrenched. With his head cool and in the right place. Attracting by being, rather than by doing or saying.

Attracting because people want to be like him, not because he says or does something. Not with pleaseness and politeness, but his strength of being.

Who used to steal the women of the Saxons, there are records about this, not steal in the sense of kidnap although that sometimes happened, but steal in the sense that women willingly went to them. There are letters between lord's complaining about these things, lol, losing women to vikings because they look better, dress better, take care of their hair, etc, lol.

You're not going to find a fat overweight guy with a hat and glasses but also a viking logo on his hand while eating a hamburger at the pool. With a big belly.
Valhla calling me.

Barbarian and civilized. The most repulsive and the most amiable of manners. All at the same time.

This seem to be the qualities of "masculine men" or "good men". Amiable as in treating people right, but repulsive as having that rough edge of "I do whatever I want".

Wanting to treat people right, to do right to people, to do best to people, to make people feel good with him, to take care of their needs and not bother them. To be polite, to be civilized, to be amiable. But also having his own thing despite trying to remain amiable, having his own spirit. A civilized barbarian.

Not a doubt, not a weakness, but a strength of mind and conjoncture.

Like enjoying his things, but also being amiable. Civilized on the surface, but with rough edges on the inside. Behaving nicely, modestly, willing to behave, willing to appear, but having rough edges inside.

-----------------------
Form a group of friends. Have people to hang out with. To be cool or at least normal, find the closest appropiate to you and talk to them. Put in seme yourself and talk to them, speak normally. After that keep taking, maybe hang out, etc.
You have to be the one who puts into seme, at least originally, at the beginning, a lot, and after that in can grow. Same interests, maybe talk about same interests, or simply about what you're doing, or playing something, doing something, asking for advice, etc. Same interests that they have, or at least interested about them, to develop a cyrcle of friends.
Afterwards, go outside and talk.

Maybe MS too.
Just talk, put in seme, appropiate (to become more appropiate, meaing close to you, appropiate, close)

The charm is appearing everyone to be your friend. Making appearing everyone to be your friend.

+++

PART 14 (a good plan, skill vs mindset, guts, most repulsive and amiable manners) BREAK POINT

Basically: treat people nicely, behave nicely with them, be respectful, talk to them, act like them, and they will like you.

"Good morning" with a nice smile on your face because I try to charm you. I try to make you feel better about me.

And being interested in them, and interested in what they have to say. Charming people.

What a real man is like, super charm. All were discussed. Before that, similars, being similar enough works, etc. How to behave in between and such.

But I feel like I went too much off-track, let's go back to business.

Affirmed into yourself, that's what it means to be a man. I do whatever I want but I'm also nice and helpful. That's what women find attractive.

I do whatever I want because I feel like it and I also have power over it. But I also have love and empathy for you and want to respect you.

Own it. Whatever you do own it. I do it because I want it and I own it.

This combined sense of freedom & responsability is cool.

Freedom that comes from power.

Pleasing people, doing what their heart desires, amazing (like the songs they like, playing the songs they like because you know how they really feel about it, nobody else understands them more but you, giving them great pleasure by playing the songs they like, because you understand them a lot better)

Pleasing people, doing what their heart desires, that's how you get to people, it shows you really know them.

Masculine, strong, fights, women like it. But with a drop of decency.

Or able to switch on and off when wanted. Or when needed.

Like the kind man who is able to stand up for himself, that's what women want.

The kind man who is able to be strong and stand up for himself when needed. The generally sweet and sensitive boy but able to turn it off and get into "masculine, strong, fights" mode when something he cares about is violated. The female gaze's boyish prince charming good looks who is able to protect but also has a sweet sensitive side that not everyone sees.

STRONG BUT SENSITIVE:

Men's issues is often an underrated part in mainstream media. Before Jordan Peterson/Red Pill, the only issue with men's issues is that they can be dangerous/aggressive towards society. They don't care about the men themselves, only what the men can do when they have issues.

I remember a few years back I watched the action hero movie Shazam! and throught the movie I was like "the villain seriously has issues here, he's not a bad person per se, but he was so mistreated that it's clearly why he ended up the way he ended up, clearly there's going to be a redemption ark for him, with the others helping him, figure out his issues, and eventually turn on the good side". Nope. His issues weren't even discussed, despite the movie making it very clear that he was a victim and how he got the issues. Instead he was the average bad guy who got his well-deserved punishment at the end. If instead of a male villain it would have been a female villain, I think the outrage over how unjust this character arc was would cancel the movie.

Imagine Wanda from WandaVision, who is clearly a victim, and bad because of this in the next movie with Dr.Strange, being cast off as an average bad guy villain and then be killed at the end. The outrage of fans would be super great to say at least. At no point mentioning her hummanity or the reason that caused her to go down that route in the first place, despite making it very clear in the WandaVision series. The reasons becoming irrelvant, she's just a bad girl and that's what she is. Killing her would be justice. A lot of people would be mad at this 'justice', concept and this chacter arc, finding it unfair from so many points of view. However, this is exactly what happened with the villain in Shazam! and nobody bat an eye.

I think Jordan Peterson has some good points, and some bad points, and I overall disagree with Red Pill's methods, like "once you work hard enough, you can get any woman you want!", nah, it doesn't work like that. Doesn't even consider the advantage the looks have, or the fact that personality is also an advantage, personality can get you a long way; but personality is a detriment in Red Pill because "women don't like nice and sensitive guys, they like strong aggressive men, capable of violence" to which I disagree. Yes, I see how women may like strong men capable of violence, but I think women like kind violent men. Men who are generally kind, kind people themselves, and sensitive, but at the same time equally capable to be violent when the situation calls out for it, when they are wronged or somebody else is wronged. In other words, I think women like kind violent men in the sense of kind men capable to stand up for themselves and others, capable to take action and stand up for themselves when wronged.

As opposed to men who are just "strong aggressive men, capable of violence" and that's the main thing of their personality, their kindness and sensivity just cast aside not mentioned as important in Red Pill. But rather, not only as not important, but a detriment, because "women don't like nice guys" according to Red Pill. Sure, don't only be nice, be nice and be good looking, and have a good personality. But nice is an important part as well. Niceness alone won't get you tons of women, you need other qualities as well such as good looks and personality as I was saying, but it's definetly a perk. You can do it without kindness, clearly, if you have good looks and a good personality you can be a jerk. But for women with a moral fiber, I think that characters matters as well, to be a good person, to be nice, kind, sensitive, etc. All those things I was talking about.

I think TL;DR, women want a man who is nice but capable of violence.

Like a man who is generally nice, but if your neighbour would beat your dog he would be capable to intervene without much of a fuss and a second thought.

Where the aggression is not the dominant part of this personality, but is part of his personality when needed. If that makes sense.

A good man who will protect but is capable of violence when necessary.

That's what I think women want. And this is the root of the confusion between "nice guy" and "bad boy" in my opinion. They don't want a defenseless nice guy but don't want a guy who is overwhelmingly or predominantly bad boy either. Women in general, because there are exceptions of course.

A man who is generally kind but capable of violence. That's what I think women want, TL;DR.

It's reciprocity. Pragmatism is about reciprocity. A woman likes a man who likes to protect.

What do you have for trade? reciprocity, if you want something, you have to give something in return. The law of the universe. The law of economics.

It's like matter that doesn't die just transforms. It's like money in exchange, if I don't have that reciprocity there, I'm not going to want you, if I have nothing to benefit from here, I won't want you. If you offer nothing of value to me, nothing that I want, nothing that I need, I won't want you. Altruism is a lie.

You want value? give something in return of value, otherwise you have no value.

And you won't get what value in turn you want, because you have nothing of value to return in back.

What do you have to return of value? what benefit or happiness you bring? what feel good you make? to make the return of value worth it for the other person?

It's a trade, life is a trade, we offer good for good, bad for bad. And it somehow sorts itself out.

It's almost transactional. You see that they have personality traits that will benefit you. But then you also want to do things for them to keep those personality traits around.

Because you know in the long run that's more beneficial than not having that person around.

It's almost like going out into the world as somewhat of a ghost and absorbing personalities and emotions from so many different places and then becoming an amalgamation of this idea of who you want to be and who society wants you to be, but you're never really a person, you don't have a very strong sense of identiy.

It's all a trade of value? Always has been. It's reciprocity. I give you something you like, you give me something I like, because you want to keep me around.

There is no such thing as a free launch. Nobody's altruistic, nobody does things purely from altruism. When people hold charity gallas and foundraisers they are doing it for a purpose and often they get a cut. No, I don't do it out of altruism, everybody is out for personal gain, not just sociopaths and narcissists, the fact is that we acknowledge that it's transactional where as empaths do not.

To cultivate charm, not knowing how to react to things or what made people want to be friends with each other or any social normal relationships, learn everything yourself: mirror people, go into different social circles, and pick up traits from basically everyone. Everyone has something to offer. During this mirroring, develop this kind of persona that comes on whenever in public or a different group of friends. Personality changes depending on who you are with.

The way to learn charm is really kind of mirroring others. And looking up at videos of succesful charming people like "who is the most succesful charming people that I know?". So that's really the important thing: mirroring and picking up the examples of who you want to be, just fake it until you make it.

When you first meet people get them to tell you everything about yourself. Tell them nothing about you. People love mistery and they also love talking about themselves.

Once you know enough about them become very passionate about their hobbies, their goals, their dreams, everything. With enough information you can be everyone's soulmate.

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LOOKS:

Looks:

FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS: I think you can reach the point where you like the other person when you can have a lot of "depth" with them. Like a discussion where you really "get" each other. Feelings. This may sound weird, but you know that Taylor Swift song "you belong with me?", pretty much that.

There's a lot of sensitivity there, depth, sincerity. Non-permiscous, with a personality that matches. Again a level of sweetness and even naievity in Taylor Swift case (bf material). But I think it's a beautiful kind of level of sweetness and even naievity. Imagine a genuinely kind person but equally a genuinely militaristic person, seeing a girl and see care for her. "People want to be in it for them" that's the sweet spot. A kind man, will also commit. People want a 5 on 5 relationship but with care, and attraction for that very same reason, goodness of the heart. Personality that matches with similar level of looks. This is what a girl (like Taylor swift) would accept as her boyfriend. "You belong with me". Someone that treats all women with that amount of care and respect.

You could make a "high school clause", with a personality that matches and similar level of looks. But also a bit of depth and care for one another. That love and sweetness for one another, that is what is looked for. (that is what makes bf material) This is not to say that everything that isn't like that is toxic..... but that's how a non-toxic relationship would look like in my opinion.

social intelligence is being better at predicting how other people would feel. Whether you upset someone, etc.

courage

confidence, what is confidence?

communication (having what to talk about)

being funny

teasing

building trust

the OP

trulyLov

(psych advice)

amgydala (cheloo)

very motivational speech

phconcepts

Open your heart and people will like you.

A discussion that came from the heart will touch a lot of people.

Charisma and looks. Charisma is to know how to make atmosphere. There are many ways to be charismatic, such as being able to make and keep a spicy conversation, being able to find and talk about interesting subjects, being able to make jokes and maintain good spirits, and so on.

Charisma is to know how to make yourself likeable. Treat people right and be gentle with them. You also don't have to insist on her. You just have to be great around her.

Make yourself likeable by making the other person feel pleasant around you. Attraction is a feeling.

You can eventually talk about deep stuff, transition from small talk to big talk. Have an honest discussion, share, open your hearts to various things that bothers you or her or talk about various issues in the world or with other people, that is equally interesting, to be emotionally connected with the other person.

Be open to talk about feelings, it doesn't have to be a 2-way discussion. It's a mix of being fun and caring, which is natural for humans, not only in dating but with anyone.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 11:19 am
@Apothecary,
ONLINE DATING:

Online dating is a bit more about looks than real life, because let's be honest, why are you hitting on that girl or boy in the first place online? looks. In real life, you can coincidentally meet people, online, you have to make an active decision to engage with the other. That being said, even online looks aren't everything, that's where communication arrives.

In order to be romantically attracted to a person, you need to know that person at least a little, you cannot like or dislike a person romantically if you don't know that person. You can be attracted physically, which is what happens to one night stands, but you won't be attracted romantically. In order to be attracted romantically you need to know a bit of the personality and character of that person. Character being their morals while personality is everything else, mostly their conversational skills.

Sometimes people are randomly attracted romantically to someone, but for the most part, in my opinion, people won't be romantically attracted to you, you have to make them be attracted to you. There is always the stereotype of the alpha male that makes himself attractive through hard force. I think that leads to a superficial relationship and I don't think all women are interested in that sort of thing, but those that are make it to the media. I think you should make yourself attractive through the softness, playfulness and a bit sneakiness of your heart.

When I say softness of your heart, I mean exactly that. Displaying kindness, showing sensitivity. Women appreciate that. Women like men with kindness and desire to help. Women like men with sensitivity, depth of feeling and a gentle soul. Showing sensitivity is attractive. Don't have the wrong impression that all women want a strong masculine man like Kim Kardashian sort of women make it seem, because not all men are interested only in women with big body parts like Brads and Chads or other types of matcho men. That's romantic attraction through hard force, the alpha male sort of thing, or bad boys, which in my opinion lack any meaningful emotional connection of support and being there for one another.

No, these things don't make you a wuss. Being with the wrong woman and thinking that if you show kindness comes across as weakness is a big mistake. There are women who not only don't see it as weakness, but are attracted by men who show kindness. Men who have compassion, don't want to see others getting hurt. That doesn't mean not to believe in the concept of fairness, that people who did bad things deserve it.

Compassion is what makes a good character, not only to want the best for others and actively encourage them in that direction, but to also appreciate what others do for you and to be grateful for their support. A good character is to treat people right, to not disrespect them, to take into account how other people feel. To have a good soul, want to help and appreciate what others do for you. Girls with sensitivity like polite and respectful men with sensitivity and a gentle soul. Someone loving.

You can simply be polite by asking for permission, "can I come to your place?", "can I do that?", "can I do this?", "do you want me to do that?", or offering to do things for them without them actually asking, like taking the trash or doing the small things, that also counts as being polite. Of course, don't exaggerate with this, there are situations when you don't have to ask for permission, but what I'm trying to say is that being polite by asking for permission can be attractive for it shows common sense and good educaiton. It essentially says that you don't want to bother people, that you're being respectful, taking into account their desires before doing something, and people appreciate that.

Showing sensitivity can be equally attractive through the softness of your heart, it shows depth of feelings, which is something many women find attractive in a romantic partner. You can show sensitivity by listening to music with deep messages, by learning an instrument, by looking at and being fascinated by art, by listening to opera, by being tender and romantic with them, making them unexpected gifts that are very specific.

So you could make yourself attractive through the softness of your heart by showing you have a compassionate character and showing sensitivity. There's something very attractive actually about the exposure of vulerability, to expose your worries, dobuts, fears, it makes people relate to you. But it has to be done in a proper context, like in a one on one serious discussion or something similar. Be open to being vulnerable, it shows you are human and it's not a bad thing. As you can see, you can be romantically attractive while being far from a matcho man.

The second thing I would like to talk about is sneakiness, because I don't want you to get any wrong ideas. When I say sneakiness, I don't mean bad intent, I don't mean doing something that would harm the other person or others. When I say sneakiness I mean don't be completely honest or out in the open. To give an example, let's say you've just met a girl and are madly in love with her. It's probably a bad idea to go to her and tell her that you've just met her and are madly in love with her, it comes across as weird and out of nowhere. So it requires sneakiness not to do that. Sneakiness is not about mean intent, on one level it's about social expectations and being socially appropiate. You can't do everything that crosses your mind.

On the other hand sneakiness is about romantic attractiveness, it's about playing games. Games of gaining and giving interest, games about mirroring the reply times of the other person not to seem too interested yourself, although you are interested, games about making them wait to make them more interested in you and think about you more. Games about giving them some moments of great fun and then some moments of radio silence, so they won't take you for granted. The don't call everyday. You may not like these games but the other person may like it, and sort of force you into it, be moral but also practical, have a morality that also considers practicality. This are only useful before and during the first dates, as you get more familiar with each other and the relationship advances into an actual relationship as opposed to just flirting, you should warm up and drop all these games of initial attraction. When you are in a relationship, you should call everyday and you should respond as soon as you can. Trust becomes the main player then, where as before a relationship, taking and giving interest games is the main player.

There are 2 critical mistakes people make when it comes to playing games: They think they have to "play hard to get" when they meet a person, and they think they have to "play hard to get" when that person opens up to them about their feelings. Both are terrible things to do. Devastating. In the first case, because if you don't talk, how are you going to attract them? How are you going even to speak to each other. It's clear and obvious you have to have a level of interest. Not being completely interested does not mean not being interested at all. In the second case, because the other person, your date, is taking an enormous risk when they open up to you, tell you how they feel, even if they do this by dropping hints, not out in the open, to get some confirmation in the form of another hint. If you play "hard to get" when they open up to you, it's like you giving them a big hit in the head. They are going to hate it. And they are going to hate your for giving them false hopes and not reciprocating their feelings.

When you've just meet them, go out there and talk to them and be interested. When you are actually talking to them, be warm. When they open up to you, reciprocate their feelings. This "playing hard to get" is not about actually acting like you don't want anything to do with them, quite the opposite, be warm with them. It's about taking your time between talking to them, between conversations. It's called interest peaking. If you want, hit on her without hitting on her, without looking like you are hitting on her. But you don't have to be that indirect, you can be direct enough to make it clear although not verbally but behaviorally that they're a romantic interest. And the idea behind interest peaking is the following: Show her some interest and affection, enough to make her respond warmly. Instead of calling her up after 24 hours, ignore her a bit, wait a bit longer. That's the key phrase: wait a bit longer. Then show interest again. When you ignore her, you actually make her think of you. The more she thinks of you, the more she wants to see you again. When she sees you and has a great time with you, she feels great, when she doesn't see you and seems like you ignore her, she feels terrible, this emotional rollercoaster of feeling great with him terrible like I'm feeling ignored is what makes her addicted to you. The more she goes on emotional rollercoaster the more she is addirected to you. Until she opens up to you or you see that she likes you enough to open up to her yourself.

Of course, you can choose to ignore all this sneakiness part. But at least drop hints to see whether she is interested. What you can't ignore is the fact that you have to take it slowly, even if you don't like the idea of waiting to peak her interest. You can probably see how telling her how much you like them before even having a date can have the opposite effect. It comes out of nowhere, therefore it's weird. You have to take the progress of the relationship slowly. First, take the initiative to talk to her. Then, don't ask for a date until you're mildly familiar with each other. If she already makes it clear that she likes you, you can tell her you like her too. If she doesn't, don't tell her either but try to gain her romantic attraction. Then, when you are dating each other, try to kiss her, afterwards you can tell her how much you like her and such.

Make sure the date is romantic, women love that, nothing over the top, but something beautiful. It doesn't have to be anything over the top, romance can be in the small moments. When you think she's ready and would want it, ask her to be your girlfriend, afterwards telling her how you feel is always safe game, you are past the taking and giving interest phase and are into the trusting relationship phase. But don't exaggerate with it once every 2 hours. And as I said previously, weird are the things that come out of nowhere, a little bit of weird can be okay, too much weird is not okay.

The third one would be playfulness, the playfulness of your heart. Which as the name implies, requires having a playful personality. It's about having fun with each other. It's the reason she wants to talk to you in the first place and not anyone else, because she has fun when she is talking to you, she feels good. Therefore she is interested. Which is a form of romantic attraction. People who get along very easily and are happy with each other can easily form a romantic emotional connection.

This playfulness is what people are doing when they are trying to be charming, to make the other person have fun when talking to them and as a consequence be romantically interested in them. There is more than one way to make the other person have fun when talking to you: find a subject they enjoy, talk about interesting stuff you are both fascinated about, talk about common interests like certain movies or hobbies you like. The core idea of the playfulness of your heart is to make the conversation fun for her. Do not force yourself too hard, you may risk coming across as too much, too forced. You don't have to be playful all the time, not every converastion has to be a bliss, sometimes you can talk about serious stuff, sometimes you can talk about nothing, simply have nothing to say and looking for subjects. But you need to have playfulness some of the time, playfulness is what keeps a discussion from being boring, like a trip in a car.

Of course you won't feel like being playful all the time, and you don't need to be playful all the time. When you don't feel like it, simply don't be. Of course, not if this is your first interaction with her or him, but if you are already talking for a while, it's okay not to be in tip top condition all the time. You don't have to be entertained all the time, you can talk about serious stuff, have a serious discussion, you can be kindered spirits, open your hearts to various that bothers you or her or talk about various issues in the world or with other people, that is equally interesting, to be emotionally connected with the other person.

It's a mix of being fun and caring, which is natural for humans, not only in dating but with anyone. Sometimes we have fun and laugh moments, other times we have serious discussions with deep introspection and emotional support, both get us closer to each other. Making them emotionally invested in you by offering them pleasant memories and a deep connection.

But how do you show the playfulness of your heart in practice? Simple, have a good attitude that would lift people up, we create good vibes around us. It counts as being charming. Have a friendly attitude who charges others with a positive energy. Be someone who has a generally positive attitude, not being a complainer. Not necessarly a idealistic attitude, as that would mean "only good things will happen to me", which is false. Bad things will happen, let's be realistic. But a positive attitude where you don't fight against your true desires, being social and laughing and smiling. Nothing over the top. You don't demoralize yourself and moralize others. It makes people feel good. It creates good vibes around us. Attitude is contagious, it can either make people feel energized or downed, depending on the attitude of those arounds them. We transfer and adopt attitudes. And I think an attitude that makes people around you feel moralized and uplifted can make you more likeable and attractive. On the opposite side of the spectrum, people who complain a lot about everything, will only transfer a downer energy, and people won't like it.

How to go and talk to her? Part of what makes you not being a creep, beside the girl's actual interest in you. If she likes you, anything is you do is cute, even if objectively that would be creepy. But when you barely know each other, it's early to say that she likes you. You have to make her like you. As I pointed out before, things that come out of nowhere are weird. Therefore, in order not to be weird you have to find a pretext, and excuse for why you are talking to her. It can be any excuse as long as its plausible. You can also do it without that and just simply go and talk to her, it's a bit weirder but not weird enough to be considered creppy because this gets practiced a lot.

What about the conversation? The conversation can be about anything you're mutually interested in. If you're not mutually interested in anything ask her about her interests until you find out. You can make conversation about anything around you as long as you make the converation fun for her. I have already discussed a bit above about conversation. The idea is more about how you both feel rather than what you are talking about. You should both feel positive emotions: amused, interested, fascinated, engaged. In this case, your attitude plays a bigger role than what you are actually taking about.

It's about the energy you give to other people. Which is about the energy you have. When I say energy, I really mean attitude. This is why, sadly, when you feel sad you have a harder time being attractive. Which makes people sad that they can't be attractive less likely to be attractive, in a cruel plot of fate. You can take comfort in the fact that it's okay to be sad, you don't have to be happy all the time, you don't have to be liked only when you are happy all the time. You are an individual and come with the whole pack of good and bad. This of course doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to improve yourself, but whoever only likes the good part of you, doesn't like you, you as a whole, the whole person. In fact, it's when someone likes you when you're sad that an emotional connection of trust is made.

What about jokes? Obviously, jokes are an important part of having fun with each other. The more fun she has the better she feels and the more likely she is to say yes to you, to accept your requests for a date or other things. There was saying "if you want her to like you, make her laugh", that's the short way to put it. You can do any kind of joke, everything is okay as long as you two laugh and have a good time. It's also important to be able to be each other around each other, to be able to express yourselves, to not feel restricted or controlled, for this someone has to make the first step, a small step, and maybe the other will follow, when he does, keep going and so on.

Back to the jokes. As I said, you can make any kind of jokes. My favourites are self-humor, dissing myself in a fun way with a tone that gives it away that I'm joking, and absurdity, making fun of things that make no sense, the humor being in their very absurdity. As well as sarcasm, implying the opposite of what is obvious. Irony, when someone gets what they deserve, sort of. Don't try to joke when you don't feel like it, if you don't have the tonality to back if up, if you really don't feel like it, it will come across as forced. As said above, you don't have to be playful all the time, it's okay not to be. Some girls like to be made fun of, some do not, it's up to you to find out which is which. But in both cases, you don't have to do teasing if you don't want to. But if you want to tease them, keep it respectful, it's very important to be funny not insulting, if you're insulting them and not making them laugh that's not good. It's about that joke spirit not about something that crosses the line.

How can you tease them respectfully then? It's very hard to make a general case example of teasing, because it's something that happens in the moment and is about the person or the cirumstances, it's something specific, hard to recreate in a void enviroment. But there's a simple way to make sure whether that teasing is respectful, if that teasing would have been applied to you, it would not offend you even a bit. You would know that it's a joke and you would have understood the joke. That's the idea of teasing, not that something bad isn't said, because something bad is said, but that you can be fairly certain that the person who you are teasing knows that it's a joke and understands it as a joke, that they are not offended by it. Eventually, you can ask them to make sure. Do my jokes offend you? If they do, please tell me, I don't want to offend you but sometimes I may cross the line without being aware of it. They may appreciate the gesture.

And there is one more thing, showing your dedicated attention to her, that is probably the most romantic one yet, and the most romantically attractive - giving specific gifts that are very particular to her. Why? You could buy her a bag of flowers, that doesn't really say much, you could buy that bag of flowers to anyone and from the store next door. But try to give her a personalized T-shirt, that already shows special attention in her, you could not have given that personalized T-shirt to anyone else, your interest is specifically in her, and that is very romantic.

Get her a gift that says something about her, that celebrates her, that is very romantic. It has to be specific and particular to her. That gets people's attention. Doing the unexpected gets people's attention.

The same is true for anything else, for example a love declaration. If you make her a love declaration and it feels like you could have read the exact same declaration to any other girls, it's not very romantic because it's not very specific and particular to her.

But there's an even more romantically attractive move that is above giving specific gifts that are very particular to her -> finding an unmet need and filling it in a way that has never been done before.

We all have needs, things that we want in life, not necessarly in dating, but everywhere. Imagine if someone comes and fills one of those needs. He guesses your need the fills it. How would you be? You would be like "wow, this guy is something". Because when not only he guessed what your need is but also filled it, it made you feel understood.

And there's something very powerful about feeling understood. We would like people to understand us, not only date interests, but people in general. And when someone comes and guesses then fills one of our needs not related to dating, it's hard not to feel amazed. It's not only the filling of the need itself which makes people happy to begin with. But the fact that it sends a message. A message like: "don't change a thing, you are perfect as you are. And my job, is to help the world recognize the perfection that I see". I like you just the way you are, I appreciate you just the way you are. It's not about trying to improve them, but about showing them that you appreciate them, and making it about them, not you. A gesture that would truly show them you care, a gesture that would touch her, specifically and particullary made for her.

Wouldn't you want to be in a relationship with someone who has shown that he cares about you in such great lenghts? Not told as an idea, not guessed as a concept, that you see him as an okay buy, but someone that has shown it. When someone fills one of your needs this way, you know that person likes you a lot. I think everyone wants to have someone who likes us a lot, that we also like, but for the most part we cannot be sure whether that other person truly likes us a lot or just says so, and we are also afraid of actually telling people that we like them a lot out of fear of being rejected or feeling exposed. But this, this is showing you like them a lot in a specific and particular way.

If you can't guess it, how do you find an unmet need of the other person? talk to them, and have one of those serious discussions about life. Even if they have told you, going to great lengths to fill out one of their needs and make them happy is still an attractive move that signals care about the other person. We want someone who cares about us, not just says it, but means it, someone that we also like.

Life is a transaction, you can get what you want from life, but you have to be able to give something in return and you need to give it first. In order to get what you want from life, you need to make the world the right offer so that it will give you the things that you want.

In summary, what makes a person romantically attractive?

In order to be attracted romantically you need to know a bit of the personality and character of that person. Character being their morals while personality is everything else, mostly their conversational skills.

People won't be romantically attracted to you, you have to make them be attracted to you.

There is always the stereotype of the alpha male that makes himself attractive through hard force.

Make yourself attractive through the softness, playfulness and a bit sneakiness of your heart.

Displaying kindness, showing sensitivity. Women appreciate that. Women like men with kindness and desire to help.

There are women who not only don't see it as weakness, but are attracted by men who show kindness. Men who have compassion, don't want to see others getting hurt.

Compassion is what makes a good character, not only to want the best for others and actively encourage them in that direction, but to also appreciate what others do for you and to be grateful for their support.

You can simply be polite by asking for permission or offering to do things for them without them actually asking, like taking the trash or doing the small things. It essentially says that you don't want to bother people, that you're being respectful, taking into account their desires before doing something, and people appreciate that.

Showing sensitivity can be equally attractive through the softness of your heart, it shows depth of feelings, which is something many women find attractive in a romantic partner.

You could make yourself attractive through the softness of your heart by showing you have a compassionate character and showing sensitivity.

There's something very attractive actually about the exposure of vulerability, to expose your worries, dobuts, fears, it makes people relate to you. But it has to be done in a proper context, like in a one on one serious discussion or something similar.

On the other hand sneakiness is about romantic attractiveness, it's about playing games.

Games of gaining and giving interest, games about mirroring the reply times of the other person not to seem too interested yourself, although you are interested.

This are only useful before and during the first dates, as you get more familiar with each other and the relationship advances into an actual relationship as opposed to just flirting, you should warm up and drop all these games of initial attraction.

There are 2 critical mistakes people make when it comes to playing games: They think they have to "play hard to get" when they meet a person, and they think they have to "play hard to get" when that person opens up to them about their feelings. Both are terrible things to do.

It's clear and obvious you have to have a level of interest. Not being completely interested does not mean not being interested at all

When you've just meet them, go out there and talk to them and be interested. When you are actually talking to them, be warm. When they open up to you, reciprocate their feelings.

Show her some interest and affection, enough to make her respond warmly. Instead of calling her up after 24 hours, ignore her a bit, wait a bit longer.

Of course, you can choose to ignore all this sneakiness part. But at least drop hints to see whether she is interested.

You can probably see how telling her how much you like them before even having a date can have the opposite effect. It comes out of nowhere, therefore it's weird.

Make sure the date is romantic, women love that, nothing over the top, but something beautiful. It doesn't have to be anything over the top, romance can be in the small moments.

The third one would be playfulness, the playfulness of your heart. Which as the name implies, requires having a playful personality. It's about having fun with each other.

People who get along very easily and are happy with each other can easily form a romantic emotional connection.

There is more than one way to make the other person have fun when talking to you: find a subject they enjoy, talk about interesting stuff you are both fascinated about, talk about common interests like certain movies or hobbies you like.

The core idea of the playfulness of your heart is to make the conversation fun for her.

You don't have to be playful all the time, not every converastion has to be a bliss, sometimes you can talk about serious stuff, sometimes you can talk about nothing, simply have nothing to say and looking for subjects.

You don't have to be entertained all the time, you can talk about serious stuff, have a serious discussion, you can be kindered spirits, open your hearts to various that bothers you or her or talk about various issues in the world or with other people, that is equally interesting, to be emotionally connected with the other person.

It's a mix of being fun and caring, which is natural for humans, not only in dating but with anyone. Sometimes we have fun and laugh moments, other times we have serious discussions with deep introspection and emotional support, both get us closer to each other.

Have a good attitude that would lift people up, we create good vibes around us. It counts as being charming. Have a friendly attitude who charges others with a positive energy. Be someone who has a generally positive attitude, not being a complainer.

You don't demoralize yourself and moralize others. It makes people feel good. It creates good vibes around us.

When you barely know each other, it's early to say that she likes you. You have to make her like you. As I pointed out before, things that come out of nowhere are weird.

In order not to be weird you have to find a pretext, and excuse for why you are talking to her. - It can be any excuse as long as its plausible.

The conversation can be about anything you're mutually interested in. If you're not mutually interested in anything ask her about her interests until you find out.

You can make conversation about anything around you as long as you make the converation fun for her.

The idea is more about how you both feel rather than what you are talking about. In this case, your attitude plays a bigger role than what you are actually taking about.

You can take comfort in the fact that it's okay to be sad, you don't have to be happy all the time, you don't have to be liked only when you are happy all the time.

The more fun she has the better she feels and the more likely she is to say yes to you, to accept your requests for a date or other things.

There was saying "if you want her to like you, make her laugh", that's the short way to put it.

You can do any kind of joke, everything is okay as long as you two laugh and have a good time. It's also important to be able to be each other around each other, to be able to express yourselves, to not feel restricted or controlled.

You can make any kind of jokes. Such as: self-humor, and absurdity, making fun of things that make no sense, sarcasm, irony, etc.

You don't have to do teasing if you don't want to. But if you want to tease them, keep it respectful, it's very important to be funny not insulting.

There's a simple way to make sure whether that teasing is respectful, if that teasing would have been applied to you, it would not offend you even a bit. You would know that it's a joke and you would have understood the joke.

Eventually, you can ask them to make sure. Do my jokes offend you? If they do, please tell me, I don't want to offend you but sometimes I may cross the line without being aware of it.

They may appreciate the gesture.

That is probably the most romantic one yet, and the most romantically attractive - giving specific gifts that are very particular to her.

A personalized T-shirt, that already shows special attention in her, you could not have given that personalized T-shirt to anyone else, your interest is specifically in her, and that is very romantic.

Get her a gift that says something about her, that celebrates her, that is very romantic. It has to be specific and particular to her. That gets people's attention.

If you make her a love declaration and it feels like you could have read the exact same declaration to any other girls, it's not very romantic because it's not very specific and particular to her.

There's an even more romantically attractive move that is above giving specific gifts that are very particular to her, finding an unmet need and filling it in a way that has never been done before.

We all have needs, things that we want in life, imagine if someone comes and fills one of those needs. You would be like "wow, this guy is something". Because when not only he guessed what your need is but also filled it, it made you feel understood.

There's something very powerful about feeling understood. We would like people to understand us, not only date interests, but people in general.

It's not only the filling of the need itself which makes people happy to begin with. But the fact that it sends a message. A message like: "don't change a thing, you are perfect as you are.

And my job, is to help the world recognize the perfection that I see".

I like you just the way you are, I appreciate you just the way you are. It's not about trying to improve them, but about showing them that you appreciate them, and making it about them, not you.

Wouldn't you want to be in a relationship with someone who has shown that he cares about you in such great lenghts? When someone fills one of your needs this way, you know that person likes you a lot.

If you can't guess it, how do you find an unmet need of the other person? talk to them, and have one of those serious discussions about life.

Going to great lengths to fill out one of their needs and make them happy is still an attractive move that signals care about the other person. We want someone who cares about us, not just says it, but means it, someone that we also like.

Life is a transaction, you can get what you want from life, but you have to be able to give something in return and you need to give it first.

OTHERS:

"Ah, that was all it took, that was all it took to find the ideal concept" (when YOU would find only one concept, only one like that would help you all the time and make you confident no worries)

"That was all it took, all it took was this specific concept for me to be confident"

I innundated my brain with positive thoughts.

I have no pretentions for someone to feel. I would be happy for you.

They love me because I showed them mankind.

They knew that I would make their days better when I went there.

As I know her she will not have very honest relationships.

"Yes, that's the right message, now I get it".

"Yes, that's it, that's the mindset that works" like the 7. Or in the 20s old, when you have one concept that clears up all the fog. One concept that figures everything out and makes you more attractive.


That have spirit fun.

"Haha" - "how pathetic, wow, can't believe you'd make fun of that"
"Haha" - "I'm a little annoyed by you, you bragger"
Win the teasing and you will become attractive.
The latter touched a nerve.

Open-minded, not closed minded, consider every possibly.

You need to have purpose in life.

Show your heart, show your soul, show your interests, in an easy and fun way.

Love, beauty, care, this is my things. That sensitivity and fun as well as showing your interest.
As a man, to be good in a fight, is essential. Rather than my mother cries your mother cries. No fear.

If you need help, call me.
If you need someone to talk about this, you know where to find me, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Best way is not to impose, but to create an option.

A good plan:

The comfort zone to understand how to be organized and consistent. (That our brain always wants the easy route, easiest thing you can do in the moment, not the hardest thing that will actually give you benefits)

Courage and facing your fears whether it's fear of rejection or whatever. That you have to do it even if you aren't 100% sure you will succeed. (You have to do your best even when there's no 100% success rate for the sake of doing your best and actually doing something.

Motivational stuff I said there that really motivated me.

New motivation, work on that, fully work on that, even if there is no 100% chance you will succeed. Work it for the sake of working it and completing it.

It's not just courage but it's also expertise that matter, but first you get courage to do it and complete it 100% then you get expertise.


To be good for everyone.

Be more organized & do your job - all you need to succeed.

You are not good enough? You have to become good enough. Better looking and such, to be wanted. (I could never know if those feelings are real, the female gaze). The good looking guys are the ones getting flirty with the girls. When hot there's a little flirting and feelings involved.

When resuming: Talk about feminist double standard hipocrisy. They say the want the weak femboy but go for the masculine man. And then they become single moms. They are sexually attracted to the alpha males but want men to be weak, to be beta, to be bad, but they won't sleep with those men, they will sleep with the alpha, they will sleep with the strong dominant man who has 20 other options end up getting used and left then becomes a single mom and complains that all men are the same. No, not all men are the same, you just make bad choices in terms of men, which suits those men, you stupidity, they do it because it works, for you and for the other 20 girls they are dating because they have options. Only you think it's special, for then it's just another Thursday, because you have preferences, well, they have preferences too, and you are not one of them. It's not the fault of all men that you preferences suck, and it's a good thing that you preferences suck because once you get to the top of being strong alpha dominant good enough there will be a line of 20 girls just like you who think it's all special just because they like you and have these preferences that every girl has. It's not magic, it's just simple, it's just women's preferences. Not what they say they do, but what they actually do, and we work by that.

And as pointed out above, you can never truly tell, you can never tell for sure who loves you and who does not. That's why a relationship needs to develop with choosing signals and mixed signals and such. Heck, if you don't reply to a girl right away and you ignore her she is going to be way more attracted to you than if you were all over her place and all over her face. It's just how women work, despite women themselves claiming otherwise that's what we can tell from the other end, from the receiving end of a woman's affection, we can tell what works of them, even if they may not like it. And in fact it would be stupid of you not to do what works just because women are offended by it. They are offended by it but do it anyway, so who is the bigger fool here? Her for lying to herself and having double standards hypocrisy? Or you for not following what works but instead following what she tells you it works but doesn't actually work on her? Follow what works king, be the alpha strong dominant man, be the strong man with 20 women who doesn't know what kind of woman to pick from, be the one with the options, not the picked one. And sometimes ignoring her and not being all over her place and her face will work in your favor, it's just how women work, despite them hating it, it's just what they respond to. Don't have the player hate the game. Men wouldn't have done this if women were interested in the femboy, but they aren't, they are actually interested in and want to sleep with the men they say on paper that they hate, lol. Not going to conform to your double standard hipocrisy, but going to conform to what actually works on you, the strong dominant alpha man, not what you say it works on you "women want to be treated with respect", lol, the friendzone is full of men who treated women with respect, stop being hypocrites and say what you actually want. You want someone to be good enough for you, not the femboy, you want a man who ignores you that you have to chase, not the other way around, it's just what works on you.

Men have to be masculine, women have to be feminine, that's why they work so well together, they complement each other. A relationship between a masculine man and a masculine woman wouldn't work. Nor a relationship between a feminine man and a feminine woman. And women aren't attracted to that, to feminine men, they want strong independent alpha dominant men. Feminists say that want that but they don't, they still screw the alpha who has 20 other options because they are attracted to then. There good alpha and and bad alpha, they go for the bad alpha with 20 other options and think it's special because they have preferences, and then they get burned as the alpha moves on, and then they end up single moms, and then they join feminist groups and say all men are the same, out of their own dumbass fault. They want men to be less aggressive and more fat and more skinny and more femboy so that they won't be threatened, but they won't date the less aggressive, the fat, the skinny and the femboy. No, they will date the alpha. They want the kids with the alpha not the other way around. This is why it's worth to apply what works on them, and not what they say they works on them, it's not a great area, and these are 2 different things. Men are masculine, women are feminine, this is why they work so well together, they fit together, they fix together.

SKILL VS MINDSET:

The skill may play some influence, but it's the mindset that makes or breaks a game.

It's not about mindset, it's about skill.

It's not about mindset, it's about skill.

It's not about mindset, it's about skill.

The skill makes or breaks the difference.

Skill makes or breaks a game. (Attitude matters, but skill too, more)

One more point for skill.

If you want to be attractive, you want to have some willpower (for Monday, for the end goal, even if you won't see it)

.... can to win. To be on the first place. Play for place one. Play for place 1.


Don't be moddy. Be descorcate.
Appeal to people's values.
I need to be more aware of how people feel, need to reread and recap.

Be goth, it's an easy solution to everything.

I am the ultimate mastermind, be like it.

If you don't get emotional manipulation, you will never get what you want.

"But what man what, what do I have, I why can't I to..."

"I wish I would have made better decisions ", make better decisions, now.

Super soft people. Love them.

Make your own life. Stop complaining others.

"But what man what, what do I have, I why can't I to..."

I want to feel loved. We all do.

"But what man what, what do I have, I why can't I to..."

It doesn't matter, you have to ask again, it doesn't matter you have to pretend. You have to pretend you don't know, that's the ideea.

The idea is to say something to sound interested. 5-8 days.

"I don't even know if I ever wanted to do something with her, a home, because I felt like it's on the red wire", because I felt like I had options.

"I don't even know if", because I felt like I had options.

VALHALA:

The last big revelation, men are masculine, women are feminine.


Valhalla calling me song - masculinity
(Viking tatoo) Or those who wear viking tatoo, I have rarely seen someone waring a viking tatoo, the logo not the runes, and not being the embodiment of a viking. (Who used to steal the women of the Saxons, there are records about this, not steal in the sense of kidnap although that sometimes happened, but steal in the sense that women willingly went to them. There are letters between lord's complaining about these things, lol, losing women to vikings because they look better, dress better, take care of their hair, etc, lol)
You're not going to find a fat overweight guy with scăpa de cap pentru apa and glasses but also a viking logo on his hand while eating a hamburger at the pool. With a big belly.
Valhla calling me.

Barbarian and civilized. The most repulsive and the most amiable of manners. All at the same time.

To;Dr
It's the Chad that gets the girl.

Not all Chads are bad. Some are good Chads.

But women would prefer a bad Chad than no Chad.

Masculine= guts to go in.
Masculine = guts, to put yourself. Ex: return a project, or a card, would you do it or would you not? A masculine man would do it, women appreciate that. Or guys to say you want to have six. Or guts to hit on them, etc.
Guts to go in and interact with them.
Guts to put yourself and interact with them.
(The way you want it, on your terms, but without being a dick about it)
Basically, guts to state what you want. (Six)
And when in the right, guts to pick up a fight if you don't get what you want. (Neighbors dog; return example)

Women love that. That's what Chads do and have.

I don't know how to describe the feel, just look at football fanboys and you'll see it.

Decent men of society. Women want men to be decent men of society, healthy women that is.

Calm, articulate, serious, etc. Nice, soft, blajin, with depth, etc. To have understanding and a good peace of mind with them for a healthy relationship.

But not all.
----
It's a pleasure for a man to be subservient for such a woman.

Can I do that for you? Can I take that for you? Can I bring that for you?

For such a woman. Not for the other types mentioned above.

So he will do it without asking. Again, the woman's behavior matters a lot, it's not only men that's the factor here.

It's simply pleasant to do such things for such a woman, help them, because it feels like it's appreciated and like they deserve it and like they are good women.

Not for the others. The H-S, who usually go for bad boys and end up suffering out of domestic abuser. It's simply not a healthy relationship, but it starts with the woman and the man, it wasn't simply bad luck, there was a decision there.

If you have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like, of course you are going to fall in bad relationships.

-------
AT THE START



-------------
That feeling of attracted when looking at someone, it's gold.

--------
The character stuff is really a minor stuff. If you get to look like a Chad, things will be so much easier for you, whether you hit on good women or bad women.

WHAT IS COOL - APPROPIATE BUT DIFFERENT:

What is cool? Cool is what other people accept, the norm, also what makes you unique from everyone else.

Things that diverge from the norm seem more cool that those that conform.

When it diverges from the norm seems more cool, when it looks different.

Divergence from the norm shows autonomy. Autonomy is an ability and willingness to follow your own course rather than conform to the wishes and expectations of society, of authority figures even friends and families. Being different is autonomus, and being autonomus is cool. Positioning yourself as an outsider is cool.

So autonomy is cool. But not all autonomy behaviors are cool. For example not wearing pants. Is autonomus, but not cool. In order for a behavior to seem cool it needs to be appropiate given the situation. Diverging slightly from the norm is cool, slightly but not too much.

"We write songs that feel right to us"

DRK HOW TO BE FUN PART:

HOW TO BE A COOL GUY FOR HER:

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

THE SIMP IDEA, DOES OR DOESN'T WORK:

RAJ'S ART OF SEDUCTION SUMMARY:

SOME OLD BELIEFS ABOUT MEN & WOMEN:

HOW TO GET ALONG IN SPITE OF YOUR DIFFERENCES & SOLVE CONFLICT:

A FEW SCATTERED BELIEFS:

RAJ'S ART OF SECUDTION:

GREENE'S ART OF SEDUCTION:
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 12:43 pm
@Apothecary,
++++++Bolded Intro, Recap.

PART 15 (a new ch, socipath, confused mind, how not date, friend or unpaid therapist, how to date men, confused 14 20 dc, what would it take to fall in love seriously wow, )

A SOCIOPATH'S EXPERIENCE

This was a video about how to pick up men...

I have nothing against videos on how to pick up women or videos on how to pick up men. But man, what she describes, it's dark. I won't deny that it works, but it's dark.

The non-ironic textbook definition of manipulation. Scary to see how deep she can go.

But respect and human decency? seriously? I won't deny that it's important. To give the one you love your attention.

But if respect and human decency was all it took white knights would be sinking with women. While the jocks' dating life would be drier than the Texan desert.

But experience tells both of us this is not how it works.

She is a really good sociopath and made a case that she got men by behaving "the nice way" without offering them sex to still have power. Or as she puts it:

She starts with - Lovebomb - give people compliments, attention, affection.

The kind of love that they are looking for - this is the kind of love that they are looking for: giving people compliments, attention, affection.

We make sure, you feel, like you are the most interesting person in the world.


And then when all that attention is done she moves on to phase 2 which is future faking:

The ego boost they got from these false promises kept them so attached to me, it's such a powerful motivator.

Future fracking gets people so invested and attached.


And then she plays the hot and cold game to remind him of the "good time" and gain power, gain control.

Leave the door halfway open and play the hot and cold game.

Nobody else releases that highly positive emotion in them, that surge of dopamine.

They will take any sliver of it. The tiniest amount will make them satisfied. And this is how you get them attached to you. (And lower their value)

They will inherently believe that they are of lower value than you, because you are the one who is in control.

What bargaining chip do you have at this point?


If someone would do this to me, I don't think I will be able to resist, which makes her even more scary to me. You could make the case that her manipulation was an enchanced and cold calucated version of "respect and human decency" but in small dosage.

But male-to-female manipulation doesn't require that much finesse. She's a non-ironically mastermind. But most men manipulating women aren't mastermind most of the time, must of the time they're a brute. And it's all because women love that masculinity. That "strong, dominant, powerful man", who can be in charge of the converastion and always say the right things, looks like a Chad and has the heets from her, would do anything for her.

Women love masculine men and end up suffering because jocks they like are more masculine than the nerds.

Jocks who treat them wrong, nerds who treat them right. Does that mean we should all stop being masculine? no.

This is what women do, you can use that in your advantage or not.

You can use that to protect yourself or not.

Give people attention, be thoughtful with them.

Women love seeing and being with handsome masculine men. But we should also learn to spot bad apples from those masculine men, because not all masculine men are bad, but there are masculine.

There are masculine men who are bad and take advantage of women. Because they like them and they know that. The f***boys and such.

What I mean to say, her version of female-to-male manipulation was an enchanced and cold calucated version of "respect and human decency", a tactic that already works with men. Women being submissive, being nice, giving you attention, all that good stuff. Until it stops, that's where her plan comes in. But male-to-female manipulation is not going to be some enchanced and cold calucated version of "respect and human decency", because it's not a tactic that already works with women, but rather, an enchanced version of the f***boy, a tactic that works with women. This is why most male-to-female manipulators are not masterminds like this woman but simply brutes. Where as she was more crafty and had to be a sociopath to go all this way and be successful. A male-to-female manipulation just has to be a strong brute, but I also acknowledge that male-to-female manipulators sociopaths do exist.

Point is, I wonder what would a male sociopath say about male-to-female manipulation? what would his tactics be different from this woman if any at all? my guess is that they would be very different because men and women respond to different things.

She already used the things that men do find attractive to get with the men she wants. The idea was there, she just extrapolated it. I don't think her male counterpart would use what you describe as many do find attractive "respect and human decency", to do exactly what she does but opposite-gender. Because it doesn't work that way. . Attraction is more sensual.

Couldn't find a male counterpart interview to that. But I found her video talking about attraction to sociopath.

She argues that one of the biggest selling point is their charm.

GAY BF FALLOUT

Let's be analytical about this, shall we?

Since he's your best friend I'm going to assume he is "safe gay", normally I would doubt that but in this case I consider it safe. Why would he go out of his way to tell your other friends you had no time? As in him, rather than you telling them "I had no time"? jealous, that's why. He said no, but clearly has a problem. Hey, at least you're wanted, for your company.

This is very strange "he is no longer comfortable hanging out with me alone whereas before we used to hangout alone", this doesn't explain a jealousy that you no longer have time for him but rather an attraction to you. Well well, so he has changed priorities. He feels betrayed for some reason.

I'm going to use my analytical mind. Maybe he is by and attracted to you? why else have this behavior? from a detached POV it kind of makes sense. Shorter version is: he has no reason to act the way he has, unless he feels like he has lost something from you, which is more than your friendly affection.

Maybe he is bi and wanted something more? and is mad that he can't get something more anymore? Yeah, you didn't hang out like you used to, but why a relationship? why a relationship? why would a relationship change anything? as opposed to, another friend for example? And you offered him his time, and he refused it, so maybe that's not it. Probably not good with words so he stays shut down, but maybe he's afraid to say it.

G GHOST ME

Ok, so you have good chemistry, good spirits.

You get along nicely. But also, you don't?

WHY DO WE BECOME ATTRACTED TO AN FALL IN LOVE WITH SPECIFIC PEOPLE - HELLEN 12DC

What a wise woman. Really good insight.

"Think of reasons to say yes", I call it positive illusions.

Get to know at least some of this people better. The more you get to know somebody, the more you tend to like them.

So if you're risky you like risky people. If you're conservative, you like conservative people.

Why him? why her?

When you love someone everything is special about them.

What you bring to the table? probably the most important question in terms of love. That charm and looks.

I'd be very curious to hear her thoughts on looks and the traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity. Like, people can turn their dating life 90 degrees by working on their looks and developing charisma, having good chemistry and good spirits. You get along nicely. While both can afford to be yourself and are free to be yourself.

It's still looks that's the king.

It's more about being masculine-looking like Andrew Tate, than being masculine.

Masculinity meant masculine looking.

IMMA put my life together, good looks and good chemistry.

Have good looks and good chemistry and tell me you're not able to get a woman.

I won't believe you.

A CONFUSED MIND - THINK OBSESSIVELY

Thinking obsessively? yep, you're in love.

Did you eat too much? or not eat at all because you were thinking about her? could be signs of it. Not eating because you're so much thinking about her and are infatuated with her.

We all have a conscious and subconscious list of things we want in a parter, when we find something we want it just "clicks", even if we are not consciously aware of it. (Dr. Helen Fisher not personal opinion here)

I understand the reasons you don't wish to reveal of why a relationship between you and her and her possible, however, I want you to consider that exploring the cause of your grief is one of the best ways towards healing, at the same time, we are complete strangers here, I don't know who you are and will very likely never meet you in my life, and if I do I won't know it's you. It's a safe place here.

Glad to hear you've maxed out in basically everything in life.

Why do you believe that your body is not going to make a difference? why do you believe that anything else hasn't made a difference so far? This is going to be a deep question, answer as thoroughly as possible: what is it that you feel that you lack?

Yes, dating apps suck. You are going to find the worst kind of males/females in there. Sure, there are exceptions, but 10% good men/women and 90% trash men/women doesn't make for a good dating market does it? I suggest you meet people in person, get to know them, without romantic interest at first, and in about 2-3 weeks ask them out.

If you got to know each other a little for 2-3 weeks it means you are already comfortable with each other by that time. Maybe text once every 2-3 days and talk about something you're both interested in or what have both of you done lately. What did you do recently, what did she do recently. And if you feel like it, go deep like religion, money, justice, etc. Don't be too dogmatic but don't be to agreeable either, stand by your opinion but don't shove it down someone's throat like they are supposed to believe that thing just because you do. Seek to have a productive discussion. And honest if possible, don't go for trying to "get them" or something but rather get yourself to know their POV and them to know your POV. It's this exchange and healthy debate that draws people together. I think this, I think that, well, let's see why.

But if you see that they are dogmatic about it, drop it. Don't want to touch someone else's sensitive subject. It's not good for your relationship as a dating prospect.

As in, you see they are very religious, don't be anti-religious. You see they are very left-wing/right-wing, don't be the opposite. In general, I would recommend staying away from people with extreme views, but if you like them and want to date them, just don't overwhelmingly disagree with them if you still want them to see you as a dating prospect. You can sure disagree and ask questions, but at least somewhat agree with them. At least somewhat be on their side if you want them to like you. Dogmatic people can't take a debate in disagreemnt well. But, if they're very open-minded, ignore all of that, these are the best people to have, you can talk about anything with no judgement.

I just want to say you're an amazing dude.

You have all this baggage: My guess is that all of this feeling comes from years of being bullied, traumatic events, public humiliation, feeling worthless and my MDD which i'm not fixing with SSRIs because i don't want to rely on medication and risk the permanent side effects.

And yet, you manage to create a company.

Congrats, you're an amazing dude my man!

1) You don't do it until you do it. There's no point reading theory about "kissing" if the moment comes, you just do it. There's going to be a first time for anything, there's no way you can skip a first time, nada, zero. It's like me asking you "how do I start my own company?" because I don't want to feel the anxiety I feel the first time I create my own company? no matter what you tell me, I'll feel it, because it's my first time. This is normal, get over it, and do it even with the anxiety. So how did you move on / fix it? by moving on and doing with without trying to fix anything, by taking a leap of faith.

2) Peace, comfort, fun moments, being open with someone I care about, having a best friend that I also sleep with. A lot of benefits. It also depends what's your type, I'm more into nurturing women, you know, the kind of women that look "motherly", the kinds that would not dance at a party but rather stay in the corner. You may be into party women, or bossy women, or women who are wild and will book a ticket to a plane because they feel like it, or hippy happy women who smile all the time and always have something to say. I always like the latter as a friend, they are great to be around, but there just isn't that attraction there, never gets more superifical than friendship, I tried with one in high school, but I supposed I need something more than that, which is why I think that my type is "motherly women", but you may have a different type, who knows. Like, I like animals but don't like infants, but when a woman expresses care towards an animal or an infant she is 10x more attractive to me, I don't know what there's about that or what attracts me about that, I don't control that it just happens to me. Being that stability, nurturing, it's sort of attractive to me. But you may have different types, so find your type and then you may find what do you want out of a relationship. For me I think it's trust, that's number one, trust that you have someone there for you, trust that you have someone that is always on your team, trust you have someone nurturing that will help you no matter what.

Heck, if I were to call my girlfriend and tell her "I killed a man" I think there's a 90% chance she would say "where do we hide the body"? And I would do the same for her.

I'm not planning to kill everyone, it's a figure of speech, you get what I mean.

3) I think it's a matter of confidence on your part, you lack conviction because you've never experienced it. Now I'm not going to say to you "you need more conviction" or "you need to say it with conviction" because you can't. What I suggest you though, is never read/listen to only 1 person. Read/listen to multiple people and make up your own mind, that's the best way to grow. Listen to right-wing like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson, listen to feminists, listen to a sociopath her name is Kanika Batra on Youtube and gives dating "advice", this is my personal opinion but "if that manipulation can even be called advice". Listen to the red pill, listen to the blue pill, listen to the black pill. Seriously, listen to a lot of people and make up your own mind. You be the judge, it's the best way to grow. So in this department I have only one advice for you - you be the judge.

Listen to a lot of people, but you be the judge.

4) Yes, absolutely. It helps you vent even if you don't solve the issue.

And you may actually solve the issue, who knows.

5) No. But this is a sign that you are inexperienced in dating. Which, let's be real, you are. This is not a bad thing, heck, even the word "amateur" means someone who "taking part in an activity for pleasure and not as a job", it comes from comes from “amatore”, Latin for “lover”. It means “someone who does something for love rather than money” or “someone motivated by love rather than money”.

Heck, if anything "amateur" is a compliment, but people use it as an insult these days.

You'll get the hang of it, don't worry. Nobody is born learned.

Yeah, I could see how not physically meeting women could be a problem. But for those that you do physically meet, you go and talk to them. Introduce yourself, and carry a conversation. Nothing romantic. And then if you want, hit them up on Whatsapp or Facebook, nothing romantic, just talk about work or that thing you have in common or random stuff like what have you been doing recently. If you end up liking this person then you can make your move in 2-3 weeks after the first contact. If you don't end up liking this person then move on.

It's also worth pointing out that in real life (as opposed to the internet) people will give choosing signals to the ones they like, after they got to know them and become more comfortable with each other. You got to market yourself, make yourself a good deal for them, but without being arrogant, just have value and be yourself.

Here, from another topic where I talked about the signals:

A BACKTRACK:

Thank you Mr.G, let's try something that isn't sarcasm and may actually help OP.

As Mr.G sarcastically points out, money is a no-no.

If you attract with money you'll end up an ATM. I see in the culture today the beleif that 'women attract with looks, men attract with money'. Which I think it's completely wrong, it's actually 'women attract with looks, men attract with looks'.

You attract with what you are, you don't attract with what you have, if she's not attracted to you but your belongings, she's not attracted to you, she's attracted to what you have. I'm not talking about the cases where a rich guy wants some sleeping around and uses money to get a one night stand. If you want one night stands it's 100% legit to use money to get you where you want to go, not paying for hookers but use money to impress.

But I'm talking about the cases where a guy wants something with depth, a genuine relationship with care and sensitivity but pours a lot of money in. That's where you end up losing with the money strategy. And yes, paying for the first date is usually the nice thing to do as a guy, although in my experience the biggest indicator to see whether a girl is genuinely interested in me is whether she is or is not financially invested. It's not about the sum, it's about the fact that if she is not financially interested in the relationship, she is not interested in the relationship.

It's because that communicates interest. So investment of a woman in you financially speaking can be a big indicator of interest, if not the biggest. This is why whether she pays for things on the 3rd date is important. If a girl likes a guy, she is willing to financially invest in him. Not for the sake of the money but for the sake of this. If a girl finds you attractive and puts money on the table, you know she is genuinely interested.

You can see if a woman likes you if she's financially invested in you, because then she sees you as a long-term financial investment, not just someone to be used. In reverse-gender scenario, I don't think that works the same way because (a) men are expected to pay. And (b) men are willing to financially invest even when they don't really care about the woman and just wants to sleep around with her. As a woman, you just have to select the quality one, by that I mean morally.

There's plenty of guys trying to do that. To lead with money. Rather than with themselves. But remember, rabbits can have one human who feeds them and one human who they like best. The same is true for humans. Maybe those guys are thinking that if he just puts enough money, maybe she will love him. Doesn't work like that. We don't love people simply because they do just too many good enough things for us. - You attract with what you are. How they feel around you. Handsome. Personality. And character.

Just doing good stuff for her and hoping it will work, doesn't work like that, you need to be attractive yourself, with what you are. You need to attract as in pull towards you. Not with what you have, or with what you do, meaning too many services that will end up with her appreciating it but her not wanting you for it. And yes, you can see this coming, I bet the man who ended up in a relationship with a gold digger saw the signs but he ignored them or he just didn't care about them, the fact that the woman didn't love him, because he was too busy simping.

If I feel good with this man, I'm attracted to him. If I don't feel good with this man, I'm not attracted to him. Simple as that. How many money you pour in is irrelevant.

If you are almost broke and she feels great with you - she might be willing to financially invest in you yourself.
If you are rich but she's not attracted to you at all meaning she doesn't like your personality at all and your looks are terrible - if she's not a gold digger, she just leaves, if she is a good digger, she hooks up with you but while thinking of others.

So, I don't want to say that "money don't matter at all" because that's not the case, they do matter to some level but that level is not much, you can have all the money in the world and not make a woman want you or no money in the world and make a woman want you, so in general, I would say money is a non-factor.

Clearly, she will consider money on some level, that you're not broke, but that's about it I think, depending on how much she is attracted to you. Money is clearly a bonus, status, but is not nearly a big enough of a bonus in my opinion as people make it up to be. Because in the case of money or leading exclusively with money - she doesn't like you, she likes your money. We are willing to trade feeling great for money.

Like: "hey, he may not have that much money, but I feel great with him, so it doesn't matter".

Attraction matters. That's the point.

There's plenty of "nice guys" posts like this:
The meme (I can't find it) whent something like this:
"There is a guy in my DM's that's just a little too nice and he seems boring" -> Clown level 1.
"I found an exiciting guy who is great at sex and makes me feel dangerous" -> Clown level 2.
"We didn't use contraceptives and now I am pregnant with the baby of a guy who won't return my phone calls or texts" -> Clown level 3.
"All men should have mandatory vasectomies" -> Clown level 4.

Typical "nice guys" post. To be read incel.

What these guys miss is that, they are really like:
I'm a guy who is bitter about women - clown stage 1.
Women like dangerous guys with strength and I'm neither - clown stage 2.
Women like handsome men even if they have some bad qualities and I'm ugly - clown stage 3.
I'm actually envious of that guy who slept with that woman and avoided that nice guy with no good/attractive qualities like me so I'm going to be bitter about it and make a post about it - clown stage 4.

You see the problem? You want to be that guy? be that guy. But you can't. And that's what really annoys you, that's what you're really bitter about, that you aren't good enough, that you can't be as good as that guy. Not about the injustice done to that woman or that woman's double standards.

They are really just bitter about women and that's their way to justify their bitterness. Attraction matters, and they just missed that part.
Women like a good looking man. A hot sexy man. And they are neither, so they are bitter about that, therefore the stereotype.

Completely oblivious to the fact that attraction matters and they are simply, plainly put, not attractive.
This is what they lack, this is what they miss.
If you can't feel emotions with another person, you aren't going to be interested. No matter how much of a good person they are.
This guy wasn't truly a good person, but I'm saying in the case of genuinely good persons.

A relationship isn't charity. You aren't in a relationship with someone because you feel 'charitable', you are in a relationship with someone because you feel good with them.

Do similar hobbies or interests matter? in my experience, nope. Not at all. Nada. Zero.

What matters is that I feel good around my dating prospect. If I feel good around them, everything is perfect.

If the communication is fun and pleasant, everything is perfect.

I enjoy at a person to have what to talk with her. To mulate yourself on things. Ok, don't talk with me about particles accelerator. But to have what to talk about.

Other than that, they can have whatever hobbies they want to have, I don't think they are a must. As long as it's not doing drugs or being a serial killer, I don't care if they have either 0 or 100 hobbies if I enjoy talking to them.

But let's talk about OP's main point - choosing signals. Usually, I would say that if a girl gave choosing signals you'll know it. But, it also depends who well you know each other. As people may be shy or awkward at the beginning. And as people get to know you they become more playful and open. They become more carefree with you and can afford doing more stuff with you.

Because they know you better now.

I don't think it's a sudden change, I think it's normal to become more playful as you get to know people, because you become more comfortable around them.

As you get to know people, you become more comfortable around them and so you become more playful with them.

Think of your boss, an acquaintance you've known for 2 weeks and a friend you've known for 2 years. Why are you more open and comfortable an playful around the friend you know for 2 years? because you know them for longer and are used to them.

These things develop naturally in my opinion, as you get to know the person, but if it doesn't, there are ways to "accelerate it" so to speak:

Make a point that when talking to someone always: Laugh and smile and be polite. If you laugh and smile when talking with someone, other people are going to laugh and smile with you.

You won't insntatly become more open and comfortable with that person if you laugh and smile and are polite, but it's definetly going to help you getting to know them faster, breaking that barrier faster and being more open and comfortable faster.

Laugh and smile for the attitude, and I'm including polite because people have feelings, caring about feelings. If you take care of their feelings, are comfortable and aware of the way you make them feel, not trying to push their buttons to hard and always trying to shoothe them, to be on their team, they will open up after and you will establish a connection faster.

Like, heck, if you are extra-polite with people you buy stuff from, without sounding weak (please is okay), you may have an increase change of them giving you an extra because you talked nicely to them. We appreciate people who talk nicely to us and people who take care of our feelings (are you okay?) and people who are on our team.

Like always seeking the avoidance of hurting people's feelings and having decency and stuff like that. Sure you can bring up your "mean" side but bring it up as a joke. Don't be rough or angry in general. Instead, to be a bit of polite and helpful. To make people appreciate you.

Heck, even if you're angry inside because you have a terrible day and just want to punch everything. Always have a good cover. Always seem moral. Because people will judge you for it. You need to seem moral, not angry. Do you think that if you're angry and break a table people are going to trust you more? they won't. You won't connect with them, and may make them trust you less.

The most important thing is that people feel good with one another. If I feel good with this man, I'm attracted to him. If I don't feel good with this man, I'm not attracted to him. Simple as that.

How many money you pour in is irrelevant. If you are almost broke and she feels great with you, she might be willing to financially invest in you yourself. If you are rich but she's not attracted to you at all meaning, she doesn't like your personality at all and your looks are terrible, if she's not a gold digger, she just leaves, if she is a good digger, she hooks up with you but while thinking of others. So feelings, how people feel around you, is very important.

We are willing to trade feeling great for money.

A good mindset when talking to someone is "I'm trying to get along and have a great time with this person" or "Let's do something fun. I know I will go there and it will be fun".

And if they try to do the same great, if they don't also great. Like the "tip for tat" strategy, you start with the positive and see how that other person beahves, if they do the same great, if they don't, change your strategy as in your behavior.

Getting along means if I sit a certain way, like with my leg above, and you don't like it, you feel bothered for it for some reason, I bring it down, without any questions, because I try to get along with you, and because it's no big deal.

It's not like you're asking me to do 50 push-ups or sit up this whole interview, althought I would do that for you wink wink. It's the little things that you have to compromise to get along with the other person.
It's no big deal for me, sitting with the leg like that, but it seems to be bothering you, so I take it down. A compromise to get along, being attentive of the other person's feelings and trying to have a good time.

Again, it's not weak or wussy because you're not going to unreasoalnable extremes to try to get along. It's just a leg, not sitting up the whole interview or doing 50 pushups.
It's a whole discussion where the line between reasonable and unrealsoanble extremes is, but that's the base of getting along, doing compromise to be attentive to the other person. If you feel they do the same.
Because if they don't, they are not doing any compromise to get along, and you're just being used, then you're just a doormat. And then you shouldn't but be a little bit more.. sticky, a little bit more set in your ways, a bit more like a pillar.
You have to compormise both for this to work, you can't be always the one in a losing situation, always the one being attentive while they are being unattentive.

TLDR - I compromise to try to make you feel better. I compromise to try to make you feel accomodated and taken into account. Not ignored. I think these are the basis of a healthy relationship, small, reasonable, compromises. You don't like the way I sit? fine, I'll change it, no questions asked, just because it makes you feel uncomfortable I'll change it, just becaue it makes you feel like you don't want it, because it's no big deal to me.

You got to make the discussion interesting. You can make an interesting discusion out of everything. That's a perk, but you're not crazy if you're not doing that, it's a perk if it is not a red flag if it isn't. (if nothing comes to your hear, think of storytelling, ask them what they are doing, ask them about something they are doing, try to make a joke as in something ridiculous about the enviroment, or a sarcasm meaning the opposite of what you say or something clearly not true, think of a topic or people around your enviroment and ask them about that, think about your recent experiences or their recent experiences and ask them about that, or find something funny to do, something amusing - that's how you're being entertaining, try to interact with them above all else, try to connect with them, to be there with them, you don't have to be pink all the time, but in the early stages of a relationship, it's kind of important you are)

Hot and sensitive. That's what women want, hot and sensitive. Like a work of art. Like Loki. Hot and sensitive. With a soul. But also hot.

Any interaction is either positive or negative, there is no neutral. So make sure there are positive ones, give people a good time talking to you. At work. At home. In your life. In dating.

This is key - give people a good time talking to you.

Basically, make people feel good talking to you, make people have a good feeling after talking to you. You can have fun, and sensitivity and for work politeness there to make that happen, and impress people. Leave a positive interaction overall. It's very important and will help you a lot in life.

How can I give this person a good time talking to me? what can I do or say to give this person a good time talking to me?

Basically: make them feel good when talking to you.

Being emotionally aware of how people feel, that helps a lot.

How people must feel, because you can never truly tell how they feel.

And try to validate those feelings. Not to dismiss them or get into conflict with them unless for good reason (the kind violent man; kind man in general, capable of violence when necessary; w want that).

Hey, he feels like that, I better do that, because I try to make him feel good.

Like at a stage, don't make her feel bad. And always have a "good cover", yes, that's what was it it about, all those behavioraial thing, always having a good cover, how to always have a good cover? how to predict so well and make sure that you don't want to do bad you seem like good, like there is nothing there to accuse you of - that's key, there is nothing there to accuse you of. That's what a good cover is. looking good. seeming good. That's the importance of being decent. Taking care of other people's feelings, and making them feel comfortable.

Now that we got that out of the way with becoming closer to her being important and then she will give you choosing signals. What are those signals?

To clarify: she might like you. But if she's shy and doesn't know you she might give 0% signals even though she likes you. She might even be rude or avoidant out of fear. Depends from woman to woman.

But when she got to know you and you are already familiar with each other - the signals are dead obvious:

She touches her hair, plays with her hair when talking to you.

Her head is tilted slightly to the right or left, it's not straight up.

She tries to psysically touch you in "random encounters", things that are not needed for but you know it's there.

She looks at you longer than usual, or longer than it's supposed to be.

She looks at you when you are not looking and then look back at whatever you were doing.

You walk pass her, she does or says something to get your attention, even making a simple comment now and there, just to talk to you even if for seconds. Even random stuff like "that box must be really heavy" or "I know you're sleepy" counts, because it's all about getting your attention and getting to talk to you.

She texts you first. (might also be friendzony)

She makes an effort to continue the conversation. (might also be friendzony)

She adds a lot of 'y' like 'heyyyyyy" ("hey" or "heyy" doesn't count, "heyyy" is in the middle could be either way but more than 3 y-s it's a dead obvious "notice me!")

She gives you compliments.

She is attentive of you, always listening when you have something to say.

She laughs at your jokes even if they are bad (she laughs or feels amused even when no one else is laughing at your jokes, that's how you can tell they are bad)

She might be nervous around you (avoid eye contact, messing with her fair, face; this one is with ?! she might be nervous around you because she likes you, or she might want to be left alone)

She is very comfortable with you being very close to her, witin her private space, like within an arm's length of her body (this is a big one, when you are that close to her, does he makes effort to avoid it? like her body language pulling away, just likes it and stays there, or even more it's her who makes the effort to have her body as close to you as possible. Easiest way is to look at her torso when she is close to you within that private space of arm's length, does her torso face away from you, normal unmoved unbothered like or even pulling towards you trying to move towards you? it's a big tell whether she feels comfortable with you in her private space)

She remembers things you've told her. Even things that you might have forgotten.

You catch her starting at you.

She makes time for you.

She goes out of her way to be with you.

She tries to let you know indirectly that she's single.

She copies your movements and gestures.

She asks you for help on silly little things.

She opens up to you and encourages you to do the same.

She's letting you see her dorky goofy side.


Really, once you get familiar and can be relatively open with each other, it becomes so easy you won't even need a checklist for it, it would be obvious.

Your truly,

The H.

HOW NOT TO DATE WOMEN:

1. Ok, WTF, is this something that actually happened to you?
2. Ok, the nice guy saying he just wants to be friends but then turns out he liked you all along.
3. Yes....
4. lol
5. I think the best response it's "that's fine" and leave. Yeah, he doesn't mean it, you're right, but what else is he supposed to say? No, I hate it? Seems like the decent diplomatic option.
6. Didn't she just say she doesn't need you?
7. Wait, I did 10 good things for a woman, why don't I have sex? Isn't this how this is supposed to work?
8. Well, actually do tell her that you're not going to help then, so she can know what she's dealing with an leave ASAP
9. Fair.

I was expecting something more... not totally creepy like:
1. "wear a red shirt"
2. "have a hair that compliments your body"
3. "dress with a personality"
4. "ask her about herself and about what you know she is interested in"
5. "You can probably notice in the other person's behavior whether they are trying to hit on you or are not interested. You can drop small hints of compliments or going out to see whether the other person's reaction is laughter, smile, acknowledgement or they simply ignores it or denies it, but without making it clear you like them. People light up when they talk about subjects that fascinate them or someone they like."
6. "There are ways to figure out whether someone likes you before asking for a date or during a relationship, by noticing their level of interest in you. They will give choosing signals if they like you."
7. "Being good looking is important. But so is being able to connect on more than a physical level. To be a pleasant presence. A good presence. To make a conversation interesting and talk about hobbies or about yourself. You can always just talk basic stuff: where are you from, family, friends, job, recently watched moves, recent news, light hearted jokes, etc."
8. "Be open with your issues and compassionate. I think it's hard to someone to be light-hearted and have fun when she's depressed, which is another reason she may consider himself less attractive than you. You have to show her that she's wrong, that you like her in spite of that. Maybe she isn't sure the feeling is mutual, since you may be very fun and light-hearted while he isn't."
9. "Looks matter, no matter how overly idealistic some people try to be, they are actually wrong, that's why the vast majority of people take care of their looks and image. Character and personality matter too, but the first thing you see about a person and are attracted about is looks. Other things matter, such as having a fun and pleasant conversation with that person, to talk about interesting stuff you both enjoy. This is about personality and your own compatibility."
10. "If you want to approach someone and get them interested in you, you have to be the one dominating the conversation. By that I mean directing and redirecting the conversation, keeping the conversation alive."

Stuff like that.

You know why this works? because there are women who give the benefit of the doubt to behavior like that. Like, "on a first date she instinctively turns away every time you try to kiss her", what the heck is the benefit of the doubt in this case? He didn't see you didn't want it?

Normally I would tell someone "don't be afraid, go for it, be bold, if you doubt yourself too much, eventually you will be and say nothing, you will cancel yourself too much because you feel your interal core is ugly" but this ^ is not bold. This is abusive. The guys whose internal core is ugly are naturally very bold, they don't need to learn this, because shyness comes from shame, and shame is awareness of social clues.

However, I have to wonder what is your motivation for posting this.

I suppose you want less men to act in that creppy way. But the thing is, it's not that those men don't know they are creppy, it's that those men - know they are creepy, they just don't care.

And it may have worked with some women, that's why they keep doing it.

They do it because it's a behavior that works, it might not have worked for you, but it has worked for others. They know it's creepy and bad but at the same time know it works in some cases.

Woman leans back and doesn't want to kiss them? yeah, that woman in particular may not want to kiss them, but others will. His "insistance" will not work all the time, but will work sometimes. Best thing to do is to avoid these creeps and teach women to avoid these creeps and pick some better mates.

What about how to date women? It's not enough that you don't know the negatives, you have to know the positives. "How to start a car? don't hit it with a hammer", now you know what not to do, but doesn't help you figuring out the best way to start a car either.

FRIEND OR UNPAID THERAPIST

O: You know, I can't even take this as a joke. Attitudes like this is why damaged people end up in relationships with each other, and then people have the temerity to attack them for being in an "unhealthy relationship" with their problems bouncing off each other and stuff. Saying they shouldn't do that and stuff; while also being the people who rejected them in the first place.

I think what OP means is that women want a friend in the friendzone to be her couch therapist and not date him, but he finds her attractive and wants to date her.

Well, it's the dude's fault for not leaving.

You know "women get the alpha, not the beta", the classic.

My answer to OP is that:

One of the most popular yet wrong dating advice is "be an alpha, the leader of the pack, the most aggressive brute, don't be a beta, weak, submissive, always under the heel, that's how you get women", there's a fair amount of people who believe that, that you got to be quote "the man". I don't only think that that's not how it works, that people are not divided into alpha and beta, but also that they concepts of alpha and beta are flawed that they are not a correct alpha and beta as far as alpha and beta are concerned. Without any kind of mocking, not only I think it's bad but also doesn't work.

Seeing through the lens of "alpha - beta" instead of just getting emotionally close to the person & getting good looking is just bad.

I mean look Corey who is giving dating advice. He preaches being an "alpha" but the way he talks and carries himself, is the way he himself would describe as "beta". I'm not saying about his looks, but the way he comes across as that old teacher in school that you couldn't wait for the hour to pass. I don't think he 'scores' anything with that "hello kids" approach.

And yes, some of the metods of that do have some merit, about 20%. The rest are just straight up bad. And they ignore the most human part of the interaction. The one that is actually the soul of the interaction. Instead of talking to a person, another individual, and having a good time. You have to complete all these checklists of dos and don'ts which are mostly bad. I'm not saying improvement doesn't exist. I'm saying his methods are not an improvement and it's not suppoed to be work.

And where are the results for that? or red pill, as they are probably the same. From what I've seen, red pill is mostly made out of people who want to get a date but are kind of weird exactly because of red pill advices. In their case, practice won't work no matter how they try because they already start with bad red pill advice, instead of treating people like people, they have this sort of mechanical approah independent on the other person. If red pill was full of people who would brag about their 'body count' a case could be made for it's efficiency, but it's not, instead it's full of scammers.

I don't believe those "alpha" and "beta" concepts as true.

In fact, I think being the alpha male ugga bugga always aggressive, dominant in the sense of tyranical, always showing off and always up for a fight with "lesser men" will get you a certain kind of women. Just not quality women in my opinion. Women value sensitivity, in men included, and they just want to be with someone they like and have a good time with, and I don't mean have a good time in a sexual way but understanding one another, clicking, having common values, having what to talk about.

They don't want or need the strongest or the most dominant man in the room. They do want some "manliness" but not even 50% to the extent that the "alpha male" red pill version would have you believe. They want confident men who can lead, who can take initiative and say what stuff to do (asking not imposing) as well as carry the conversation, men who can take initiative and "play the atmosphere", not men who can beat up anyone in the room. In fact, I had women tell me that they don't like overly ripped guys, the typical alpha male type, because they seem more likely to cheat and less likely to commit to them. Which is a human thing to do and to say, especially as a woman, you want a relationship, someone you feel good with and know will commit to you. Men in my opinion are more likely to jump from a relationship to the next while women more likely to commit, on average. But they are right about the alpha in terms of social value, popularity, etc.

Women want to be interacted with.

Women don't want to be kept in a corner and done nothing with, women want to be interacted with, to engage with them, to talk with them, to touch them, to take initiative with them.

As for the beta, while being weak and submissive is a bad thing. Or being people pleasing always agreeing not having a spine. Like Marshmello from the song & Marshmello & Anne-Marie - FRIENDS. Where he should just stand up and go. Or stop literally cleaning up after her. Ask her directly if she wants to be with him, directly but nicely not alpha-male aggressive, if she says not fine he leaves. Be a little more decisive and out there with conviction and initiative. Everything else is kind of crap.

Women don't want a weak-willed "beta" man, yet want someone a bit more imposing, a bit more defintive, someone who can make a decision and take action, a bit of a leader, a coordonator, and somone they can have fun with. Someone who is actually willing to boldly interact with them and direct as in sort of control be in charge of the conversation, that's not beta. Even when dating, the man is expected to prepare for the date and basically "plan" the date. Same goes to conversation and interacting with them. But they don't want a ugga bugga alpha matcho man either. People want to see the human on the other side, they want to see what you feel, what you are like, what you like and enjoy and what you don't, how you see life, what visions and beliefs you have, what you feel like, what you value, what you care about, they want to see depth, seeing what you are like is interacting with another person and you don't do that through beta or alpha approach but by being yourself and being attentive towards them. And some traits of the stereotypical beta are actually more attractive than some traits of the stereotypical alpha.

The ideal woman for men is attractive, men care a lot more about looks than women, and her personality is "not like the other girls" but "one of the boys". Women on the other hand still value attractiveness as much as men but other things matter too. For women, the sensitivty and care of a man is more important because they are looking for paternal investment, or potential for paternal investment to be more exact. That's not to say women go around thinking "will this be a good father?", likely it doesn't even cross their mind, but they do care whether the man is the protecting and nurturing type who will commit, they have that under the radar while men are very unlikely to think of judge in their attractiveness "will this make a good mother?" as in looking for potential for paternal investment.

Men look for sex. Women look for a father.

For women, the ideal male while still attractive is more of a "boyish prince charming" type of good looks. Not beta but not alpha either. He also has a sweet sensitive side, not alpha. He has outwards strength that he displays to the rest of the world, which signalsthat he can protect. But he is on the nurturing side and can take care of them as well.

Basically:

Prince charming type of looks

Sensitive

Outwards strength he displays to world meaning he can protect (so a bit of manly there, pure sensitive is not attractive)

Nurturing (basically sensitive for others)


As Andrew Tate puts it "a man needs to be able to kill a man and take care of a baby in the same day".

I think the reason for this is biological. For men, parental investment for a woman is a given, it's biology, she has to. For women, parental investment for a man is not a given, he can literally sleep with her and go, so she has to make sure she finds someone with nurturing qualities who will stick around. Men can sleep with whoever they want and still easily reproduce, so they can easily play the numbers' game. Women can only get pregnant a few times in her life and has to invest in her child, so she has no time for low quality counterfit genes so she's being very picky on who is worthy. Men, generally look for phsyical health indicators. Women, generally look for characteristics that aid in parental investment. Men prioritize in themselves: health, resoureces, mates. Women prioritize in themselves: independence, sustainability, tenderness.

So yeah, alpha, beta, bad. The best thing to do is have a human interaction, meaning treating the other person like another human, and see how it goes from there.

HOW TO DATE MEN - 13 DC

Well, kind of like rule 17.

Yeah, if you look at men like ATM machines, eventually men who really want a good relationship are going to leave you because they don't want to be your ATM machine. While men who just see you as a sex doll are going to stay because "hey, we're only paying a few money for sex". So yeah, it's the perfect way to only select for a**h***s.

Very well said about "the passive element", it's always "look what happened to me" rather than "I made it happen".

Maybe try to pick better men that are not clearly that bad afterwards? I've seen incel forums:

TL-DR:

idle men aren’t good for society: insert mass shooters, gangs, crime, etc.

current society doesn’t care about young males

young males need guardrails and discipline and knowing “how to read a room”, probably more than female peers

online dating is terrible for young men

women tend to judge a man based on his ability to provide resources in the future if she becomes pregnant (men in moms basements don’t offer that)

young men are unemployed and sexless which means they value nothing and a society that values nothing is dangerous

we as a society aren’t addressing this issue well

And the first response:
Society used to address this by allowing young men to form a brotherhood and engage in aggressive but ultimately harmless activities (hunting, wrestling, sports, hard labor on the farm, etc.)

Nowadays a lot of young men have no way to release their physical aggression and not enough good male friends to empathize with them.

My take: Well, you can literally go hunting, wrestling, sports, hard labor on the farm, nobody is stopping you.

Yeah, it's going to be a lot of doomer content here. "Men suck, man have a such a bad hand in life, do you agree? here's a video that proves it".

I was expecting to be horrified, instead I'm just drained. This subreddit just sucks, in a bad way, I can see how men would come to this subreddit and lose all their hope in the future. It's all about complaining "bad me". It's so fatalistic and just patting yourself on the back on your fatalism.

I see this - 12. Don't play the victim card if you want respect - very relatable for women who end up there. Don't play the victim card there, you had agency, it was your decision to be with him.

Qualify&disqualify. Better some cold indifference than desperation. Be like a pillar.



Female influence is not going to teach you how to be a good man, male influence will.

Female influence is only going to teach you how to do things that get you to fail in life, you are going to fail in life, and then be angry about it.

Because what works for women doesn't work for men, and vice-versa, we play different games.

A woman may think "this should work for men" because it clearly worked for her, but no, it won't work for him. Boys need a father, and girls need a mother.

So yeah, as a man, have a male role model. As a woman, have a female role model.

This is why there's a market for Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson and such. And why there's a market for feminists and such.

Because men will know stuff that women won't know, and vice-versa. So they are the best fitted to give advice to men, just like women are best fitted to give advice to women.





You can be flirty like "hey, my cutie".

Greet people. Talk to them. "How are you doing?", "how you've been doing". Don't ignore people.

A CONFUSED MIND 14 + 20 DC:

If your appetite goes to 0, that's a clear sign man. You know what I'm talking about.

You don't have to give up on her, you can alwasys improve yourself. Have you ever been to the gym? As I said, looks is king, also about charisma, what is your charisma according to you? As I said, a relationship is a trade? what do you have to offer? You don't have to be good enough for her, you just have to be cool around her. Charisma is to know how to make yourself likeable. Treat people right and be gentle with them. You also don't have to insist on her. You just have to be great around her. Make yourself likeable by making the other person feel pleasant around you. Attraction is a feeling. You can make yourself likeable to her even if you are with someone else.

Treat people right and be gentle with them. You don't have to insist on her. You just have to be great around her. Make yourself likeable by making the other person feel pleasant around you, make her feel entertained. You can eventually talk about deep stuff, transition from small talk to big talk. Have an honest discussion, share, open your hearts to various things that bothers you or him or talk about various issues in the world or with other people, that is equally interesting, to be emotionally connected with the other person.

As I said above - You don't have to insist on her. You just have to be great around her. Make yourself likeable by making the other person feel pleasant around you, make her feel entertained.
You make her want you by drawing her to you.

I would argue that money and status and looks is not everything. It's having a good heart and a good soul that counts. That purity and joy that come with her, that specific association with her, that magnetic feelings. That joyful when all around her.

That's my take on it. Looks important. But not everything. In finding the right partner. It's having a good heart and a good soul that counts. That purity and joy that come with her.

Looks are very important. But don't focus only on the looks.

Yeah, after reading your post, I had a party with my family, and I realised everyone in my family is attracted to women with very feminine traits, the motherly type, I don't know what to extent this is the case, but I guess you can definetly make the argument that this is genetic, I don't know if it's genetic or everyone around us is like that, but you can clearly make that case.

Absolutely, being listened to, not judged.


How to attract women? First practice practice practice practice. Make yourself look like a fool, you will make sacrifices and fail a lot. Make friends everywhere, expand your social group and make sure that whenever you go out or do something with friends you will encounter people you have not met, very tiring especially for me.

Now, the very first part of attracting women is looks. NOT looking like an actor but looking like you take care of yourself. Clean clothing and shoes, a good haircut and a hint of cologne (smell nice not overly powerful). That is just the first 10 seconds. Then it all comes down to communication. All women like confident men so just talk and LISTEN (eye and maybe physical contact if the body language says so). Change how you talk with them after you find out about their personality.

Treat them as a friend you are flirting with. (This is key)

Now it's different every time, just be good at communicating, confidence and decisiveness. When relationships develops learn what they like and dislike. Don't be afraid to talk about whatever you want to do.

SET YOUR OWN STANDARDS, let them know, soon, you will not tolerate being friend zoned, polyamory, still seeing an ex, ect. It takes a lot of learning about yourself when dating.

Communication, confidence. I have a 3-1 ratio of embarrassing stories for every success story.

Avoid really hot or attractive women for long term relationships.

Just try to find a friend who you can see yourself dating in the future.

You must learn how to filter out women you don't want to be with. This can only be learned from trial and error. Just don't hold on for too long because they "might change". There are a lot of women out there that you don't want to be with, don't waste your time on them.

The goal is to become more comofrtable.

To be a joker, probably a joker.

The function matters in people. The function is the status. And this matters. Like being a cop, etc.

You will never be ready. Start now. If you want to be good at something, you have to pay the price of doing it and not being good at something.

You got to feel the person.
You can be like that.

Meaning, you got to feel how the other person is feeling or how would that person feel, to be convincing.

To be convincing. Ask a question but without it being a question. Question but you add there like the answer would be yes.

You can understand people logically.

Make no big deal out of it, and people won't make a big deal out of it either.

I heard a funny discussion once: "You need a mentally inferior one to support you financially", "I need a poet, an intellectual. Do you think those look at money? Do you think that for those only the money matter? Do you think I was looking at the money?".

It's about the intention you communicate, make yourself understood by people.

Think what they think.

"Find a person to appreciate you as you are".

It's about the energy you have when talking to that person. And the energy that person gives to you. Such a boost of positive energy can really motivat you to do stuff.

"Now I have to finish all of this" that feel, of motivation.

Have a sense of style and develop good looks.

You must not lose your motivation.

i It's important to establish an emotional connection with the other person.

Because people want to know you care about them, people want to be cared for, that's what love is and how they know you're a keeper. People looking for deep connections want someone to be in it for them, not their looks and cars.

Women being loved for their looks is the equivalent of men being loved for their money. Sure, they would appreciate being liked for their looks, but that's not enough, it's superficial. They want to be loved for the person they are, not for the body they have. Not caring about your looks, but caring about the person you are, caring that you feel good, wanting the best for you.

You can do this by being supportive of the other person. Helping them in their time of need. Relationship based on mutual support and reciprocity. As well as on the acceptance of differences.

It's okay to fail. "It's okay to not know. It's okay, a lot of people don't know. A lot of people don't know how relationships work, they just like someone, go along and figure it out on the way, they rush head on"

And whatever you do, do not invalidate her feelings, whatever she is feeling it must be right. The "you should not feel that way" is probably the worst thing you can hear.

And offer advice but in the form of a guide, an opinion, without forcing her words, her hands or pushing her around. If she doesn't want to answer to a certain thing don't insist, accept it and ask latteral questions instead, she might not give you the answer but she will give you hints, and eventually may give you the answer to that thing she was originally hesitant about. And expect good things, if you expect someone to be friendly toward you, they are likely to behave in a friendly fashion because of your ingratiating actions.

An example of advice is courage over fear. Like if someone has a fear, you can tell them that it's okay to be afraid, we're all afraid sometimes, but that's no incentive not to do it. Or that it's okay to fail sometimes, nobody is born learned, trying and doing it, this is how we learn". Nobody is born learned.


It's important to establish an emotional connection with the other person.

Because people want to know you care about them, people want to be cared for, that's what love is and how they know you're a keeper. People looking for deep connections want someone to be in it for them, not their looks and cars.

Women being loved for their looks is the equivalent of men being loved for their money. Sure, they would appreciate being liked for their looks, but that's not enough, it's superficial. They want to be loved for the person they are, not for the body they have. Not caring about your looks, but caring about the person you are, caring that you feel good, wanting the best for you.

They want to be loved for the person they are, not for their money or looks.

You can do this by being supportive of the other person. Helping them in their time of need. Relationship based on mutual support and reciprocity. As well as on the acceptance of differences.

It's okay to fail. "It's okay to not know. It's okay, a lot of people don't know. A lot of people don't know how relationships work, they just like someone, go along and figure it out on the way, they rush head on"

And whatever you do, do not invalidate her feelings, whatever she is feeling it must be right. The "you should not feel that way" is probably the worst thing you can hear.

And offer advice but in the form of a guide, an opinion, without forcing her words, her hands or pushing her around. If she doesn't want to answer to a certain thing don't insist, accept it and ask latteral questions instead, she might not give you the answer but she will give you hints, and eventually may give you the answer to that thing she was originally hesitant about. And expect good things, if you expect someone to be friendly toward you, they are likely to behave in a friendly fashion because of your ingratiating actions.

An example of advice is courage over fear. Like if someone has a fear, you can tell them that it's okay to be afraid, we're all afraid sometimes, but that's no incentive not to do it. Or that it's okay to fail sometimes, nobody is born learned, trying and doing it, this is how we learn". Nobody is born learned.

We like it very much when we know that someone is on our team. That they have our best interests at heart. That they are trying to help us, and be there for us.

"Are you okay?" can be one of the greatest demonstrations of love, because it shows you truly care about them "how are you? how have you been doing? are you okay?".

With that tone, not the sarcastic "are you okay?" version, although that can be useful too sometimes, for humor reasons, it can be funny when you are messing with each other, but it's not okay to say a sarcastic "are you okay?", "are you all right?", "you're sure there's not anything wrong with you?", "wtf?" when someone has a problem.

But the "Are you okay? how have you been doing?" kind of thing.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 12:46 pm
@Apothecary,
Making sure they are fine, making sure they feel fine, or making sure they have what to eat when they are going to their workplace, can be either of these.

It expresses concern about them, and that expresses love, that expresses care.

So there is a part of fun, and a part of care. I think fun & care have to go hand in hand in a relationship. Although it's possible not to have fun in sad moments, it's not dependent on that.

Even if you have the looks and apprearances, it's the crazy. From the authoriarian tendencies and narrow-mindendess, not leaving for yourself, not thinking you are not always right.
Not seeking to get along and understand each other, not seeking to have good relations and good spirits first and foresmost, and always listening to the other person.
Maybe because the other person is broken or insecure, then that it could work. Not seeking to accept your differences and get along with them.

That's the kicker, you can get along even if you have differences by accepting your differences and getting along with them.
Not tolerating them, that's standing them, supporting and taking it, there's bitterness and resentment there, that's not really accepting, but accepting your differences and gettling along with them.
Simply accept your differences. Accept that you have differences and cherish them. Because the differences can be a greats part of a relationship.
And how do that that if your partner doesn't? first of all, lead by example, not by words, by example, by example is the best.
Second the of all, talk to them, and listen to them, be listening of them if they want you to hear you too.

Understand and accept their greviances if you want them to be able to reach you too. Reach them too if you want them to reach you too.
Start from where they are at, and all their opinions are valid, you can argue with them, but never dismiss them, they are all valid, because that's their point. To dismiss that would be to dismiss theirselves.

It's all about having fun with each other, and you can't have fun with each other if you don't accept your differences and instead are being bitter about them.
Differences can be the charmest thing in a relationship if you can come to appreciate them, they can be what makes a relationship special and fun, the different interactions between your different differences.


How to gain people's trust?

Be there for them, be a guardian angel. Don't be judgemental and listen, actively listen[/b]. If anything, offer reassurance in the form of an advice instead, rather than judgment. I don't want to say "treat her like sister you never had" since you're hitting on them romantically but you probably understand the protective feeling and genuine care that comes out of that statement.

Make them feel comfortable, to feel that you are somebody they can talk to when they have an issue. Get to know each other even more well. Develop even more intimacy.

I think intimacy is when you make someone really feel connected, when you go from "how are you doing?" to questions about feelings "did you enjoy that?", "how it made you feel?".

Intimacy is being able to be yourself around the other person without fear of being judged, being able to share your more secret thoughts, insecurities and desires without fear that they will spoil or be indifferent to them.

If you happen to experience a communication block, try to be her friend rather than an authority figure. Come across as someone who is trying to understand her, don't come across as someone who is trying to educate her or teach her a lesson.

And be considerate about the way she feels at the moment of your discussion, don't try to push her too hard, don't jump to questions suddenly as it came out of nowhere, and if you asked a question and you see that she doesn't want to answer drop it, don't push her, because she may not want to answer.

You can ask around the block questions instead, for example, if she doesn't want to tell you where she has been in weekend, don't insist, instead ask "where you there with many friends or just your boyfriend?", "do I know what place?", she might not give you the answer but she will give you hints.

And whatever you do, don't do something she wouldn't like. It's exactly because of that that she won't tell you what is going on in the first place.

Intimacy is built on trust, you got to make an attempt to get closer with each other by talking about your concerns and worries. In a way, be a guardian angel. And approach people with softness, because they may back down if they are pushed too far.

And don't be judgmental, whatever you do, be someone who tries to give advice or just listen to her, not someone who tries to make a moral out of this.

Offer reassurance in the form of an advice, but only after you're listened and don't force it upon her.

It's great to have someone that you can talk about anything with, including your insecurities. Have deep talks about life and so on. For this, you need mutual trust, and well, you got to be the first person who do it.

She needs to get to a place where she can trust you with her feelings. Probably, you need to show her that she is being understood at the core of who she is.

Show her kindness and desire to help her and she may begin to trust you. Make her understand that you will be there for her. Showing that you're being someone she can rely and count on. When she will trust you, she will open up by herself without you pushing her to open up and you can talk to her about her insecurities.

You can also share a secret to make her trust you more. Sharing a secret shows her that you trust her. If you trust her, this will make her more likey to trust you.

People look at the character of the other person when they decide whether to trust them or not. So far, what have you done to show that she can have confidence in you?

Greet her as if you were greeting an old friend you hadn't seen in a while. Smile deeply. A great smile is remembered.

Talk slowly, being a fast talker has negative connotations, people respond better to someone who talks slowly and deliberately. Exude calmness and be measure in your speech. Don't talk or feel rushed.

Find commonality. Mentally, people are looking to check a box that they can make some sort of affiliation with you, however distant. Find any sort of commonality, shared interests and common connection. For example: I see you went to school in New England", "you also know Joe", "yes, Joe's a great guy. I went to school with him. How do you know him?", it goes a long ways in terms of building trust.

Listen as if she was the only person in the room and make her feel that way. Look her in the eyes. Show her that you're listening by focusing on what she's saying. Don't interrupt her or finish her sentences. When she finishs saying something, wait a second before responding. This indicates you've really listened and you're taking it in.

Validate them, this most often comes in the form of agreeing with them. When people sense disagreement they put up barriers, reinforce their reasoning, and create distance. This principal is called "Yes, and ..." it's how you build on a story and create spontaneity and consensus.

Think of the times you’ve met someone new and walked away with a good impression. Look back on the encounter and think of what made you feel that way. Chances are what you really felt was validated and listened to.

Become a good listener, ask more questions, suspend your ego, be authentic, admit you are not perfect, don't be pushy, adjust to almost any situation, don't be judgemental, copy body language, tell a secret.

Expect good things, people treat others consistent with their expectations, and, therefore, cause the person to behave in a way that confirms such expectations. If you think someone is an a**h***, you'll act toward him or her in a way that will produce “a**h***” behavior. On the other hand, if you expect someone to be friendly toward you, they are likely to behave in a friendly fashion because of your ingratiating actions.

You can be the first to talk about your worries and doubts with her or share a secret. When she moderately trusts you, ask her questions about herself without being judgmetnal, agreeing with and actively listening to her without interrupting, and offering reassurance in the form of advice. Listen to her, help her, don't be an authority figure who tries to judge her. Don't try to educate her or teach her a lesson, try to understand her, her situation and her perspective, how she feels about things.

If she doesn't want to answer to a certain thing don't insist, accept it and ask latteral questions instead, she might not give you the answer but she will give you hints, and eventually may give you the answer to that thing she was originally hesitant about.

And whatever you do, do not invalidate her feelings, whatever she is feeling it must be right. The "you should not feel that way" is probably the worst thing you can hear.

And offer advice but in the form of a guide, an opinion, without forcing her words, her hands or pushing her around. If she doesn't want to answer to a certain thing don't insist, accept it and ask latteral questions instead, she might not give you the answer but she will give you hints, and eventually may give you the answer to that thing she was originally hesitant about. And expect good things, if you expect someone to be friendly toward you, they are likely to behave in a friendly fashion because of your ingratiating actions.

An example of advice is courage over fear. Like if someone has a fear, you can tell them that it's okay to be afraid, we're all afraid sometimes, but that's no incentive not to do it. Or that it's okay to fail sometimes, nobody is born learned, trying and doing it, this is how we learn.



Everyone has a different "stress tolerance" for teasing, so you might want to discover first what kind of person they are being before going all-in with the teasing. You may want to start with something light, the "implying a sense of superiority sort of type", make fun of something that puts them in a bad light but puts you in a good light, but without coming across as bragging, because bragging is not cool. Taking them over the feet and such. Finding a flaw and "playing around" with it, all with the goal to "provoke them". If they are the type of person that tease other people as well, that's a good sign they enjoy teasing.

5If not, stay to low-end teasing, the type of teasing you could make that is very absurd and funny by it's absurdity "bro, if you don't answer I'm calling the police" or "there has been 3 days since you haven't taken a picture on the bridge, bro, take a picture". Or"at least you're not at the park because you like to take pictures there", "take a picture fast", "no", "such a shame". Or "hey, when are you going to take a nice picture again?" and playfully persistent "answer bro or I'm getting upset with you", or "bro if you don't answer I'm calling the police". They are funny because it makes no sense, it's funny because it's absurd and pointless, the "that's not how this works" type of funny. It's a way to humor people. Or low-end teasing about them, avoid potential hurtful things like "you're going to fail in life", "you are so bad at that" type of teasing unless you know the person well. Instead go for something like "come on, I know you can make it, I hope" or simply witty replies that don't target them in particular, or those that target someone else. Take them over the feet with something light. You want them to have a good time with you.*

So just to recap: The gravity of the joke is important, don't make disability jokes with people with disabilities, it's just bad taste. You want to make sure the person you make fun of has some sort of control over the things you make fun of, like being a bad cook. Or doesn't but it's not that important, like being cold. The type of person they are, look at them and think of yourself whether they are the type that enjoy a good tease or not. And remember, a tease is not like a roast, a tease is when they are like "look what he told me, it was so fun, can't wait to see what else he's going to say about me" where as a roast is where they are like "look what he hold me, oh my god, ew, how could he possibly say that about me? that's upsetting, what a jerk". A roast is meant to be hurtful, a tease is not, a tease is meant to pull over their feets, to play with them, to nag them, a tease is the idea that "this is funny", you are doing it because "this is funny" and the main goal and the reason for it is the laugh, not to hurt the other person's feelings. And how well you know that person yourself, because you want to establish some comfort with them and estabilsh the fact that in general you are a good guy but all of your jokes are just jokes, because if they don't know you, they don't know that, and it may come off as offensive. You want them to have a good time with you.



Teasing is from the saying "teasing something out." It's about finding something and tickling it out into the open. Often against the original intention of someone, but not necessary always something they prefer to keep hidden. First thing that comes to my mind is teasing out small crushes. Such as: "What do you think he smells like?", "Excuse me?", "That guy you've been darting your eyes towards like a young teen girl who has her feet pre-swept off the ground, just waiting for her man to embrace her. I want know more about this fantasy of yours", "I'm not fantasizing anything", "Your head is against his bare chest, listening to the beat of a heart who knows how to treat a woman", "Oh god", "You turn your face into him and breath in with the entirety of your whole chest", "I think you're the one who's falling in love with this guy", "Hey, I think it's important for couples to have at least a basic interest in the other's blinding obsessions. I'm just trying to keep up". Obviously, very minor pinching / tickling / touching at proper points in the discussion is totally appropriate.

While teasing is one way to flirt, it is also just a way to interact with the lighthearted. And I personally love teasing people and I find it frustrating when simple teasing is misinterpreted as flirtation. Teasing can imply that they like you, but they're not going to kiss you ass in order to get you interested.

Not all men prefer to be dominant, and many men enjoy taking the submissive role once in a while. Likewise, not all women prefer to be submissive, while many women enjoy playing the role of the dominant sometimes. That alternation in roles may explain the give and take in teasing you rightly point out. Another explanation may be that women use teasing to test the dominance of men, to see how they respond. In this case, women use teasing to attempt to dominate the men, not because they want to take that role in a relationship, but because they want to ascertain if the men can. So the usual power relationship between men and women is preserved, even though it might, on the face of it, appear inverted.

I don't care about "men should dominate". Now, men exist, men judge, men do things but men respect their women. Domination isn't really good, it's more about knowing where you can be hurt and trying to not reach that line. And if you do reach a line, tease them about being so insecure about that thing, acting like it's not a big deal, with the purpose of comforting people assuring them that it's no big deal something they are insecure about

Women who want a "real" man, a dominant one, an alpha? it's labelled insecured all over. They're still in the sandbox, figuring out if the white knight can actually be a lumberjack. Men can also be sensitive creatures. Some are genuinely kind, adorable, friendly and warm persons who don't really enter that whole crap about dominance.

But instead they go for: Partnership. Balance of forces. Vulnerability. Trust the other as much as he / she can trust you and show that you're reliable. Kinks are fine. Need for dominance certainly isn't. Not with a woman to be the daddy she never had. Like the bond between the two main characters in Short Term 12. That's ultimately what a healthy relationship is.

Teasing often is a "playful competition" where you get to exercise your mind in this respect, it is intellectually stimulating and fun, but what is this competition but a test of wits where there is often a "winner" and a "loser"? and if a person consistently "wins" these competitions, why does that not establish a form of dominance? how, for example, would you react if you were attracted to a man but "bested" him in these verbal bouts? would you still be just as attracted to him, then? No, even when the woman frequently "bests" people in verbal spars, the way somebody "wins" is they get the last word, or say something that makes the other burst out laughing. I'm not sure it's even right to act like there is a winner or a loser. It's just messing around. If anything, it's testing a guys sense of humour as much as whether or not he's willing to challenge the woman. People who are too serious are such a bore.

Teasing is often funny and can be a form of humor, but humor relies a good deal on wit so an exchange of humor can be a contest of wits, or again, a competition, the "last word" is a good point, so what if a woman almost always had the last word when sparring with a guy she was interested in, would that turn her off in any way? Probably not, but they would like someone to give them crap, to fight them, even if they always win. What about the guys who don't even play? Some women may not like overly submissive guys though, but not because they want to be dominanted, but because they want someone to try. There's this idea that "A man has to be dominant, as in, in control. A man has to take the lead".

Playful teasing is a form of, well, play. It's a communicating, "I'm comfortable enough with you to play with your ego and you are comfortable enough with me to handle it". And teasing can be very helpful from a self-development point of view. Because they're making you aware of something you do or something you are in a playful way. A major point of partnering is becoming more aware of yourself through the other person. That's only true if it's someone who knows you.

Familiarity is the real issue when it comes to teasing. Someone you don't know very well, someone who has a "crush" on you, who knows little about you is not allowed to tease me. That's just rude and annoying and can easily become harassment. Or people teasing you for things you have no control over. They may not have any malicious intent but they also don't know how severely those issues can get to a person.

How can you tell when teasing is harmless versus not okay? Open mindedness. If it's just two jokes and not one every five minutes, you can see if the person is solid if she's showing back some self deprecating humor. If she / he does, you got a good one. A not broken just yet.

If he / she get all defensive / a bit arrogant, I'd suggest to move away. There are also the "defensive playful" ones who are exagerating something and will twist it into plain ridiculous, these ones are keeper too. You don't want boring, do you?

Despite being used in dating and flirting, it can be difficult to distinguish whether or not it's flirtation when someone does it to you. Some teasing that you receive may make the teaser come off as more of a brother/sister rather than a love interest. So it's also possible to assume that people who playfully tease me only see you as such. Teasing you in a friendly brotherly way.

How to avoid the "one of us will get pissed at the other" situations? By following a general rule with about all forms of meanness / b****yness: Never directly damage someone's charisma. Their appearance of being intelligent, competent, attractive, etc. Note that the key word is "directly", you can absolutely indirectly call someone "stupid" when teasing by saying something that implies it.

On the other hand, calling someone "a s*** head" or telling them to "go die in a ditch" does directly target a aspect that makes up the person's charisma. Heck, if you said it because they out played you, then it just makes them look better. Or hearing from someone "shut up" because they only say it whenever they have no counter to your logic. Calling someone an "idiot" or "worthless" in reference to something they said or did is again showing that they "lost" and have no way to counter your logic. Slowly clap and say "fail" when they do such a thing.

Of course, not everyone is on board with it, it depends on the character of the other person. Some women can see it like bullying them, which is not the case. Really, you're just having some fun. But some women, they tease right back. Some could actually get you to shut up and laugh at her. Some can actually make you break out laughing. In a way, teasing can be a test of how shrewd you are.

Sometimes "playfulness" gets interpreted as "mean". Being teased verbally is fine to me if the other returns fire and is amused by it. But if I see someone that doesn't like teasing and it continues I will intervene on their behalf though. I agree that it depends on personality and the way you interpret it. That is one of my favorite forms of teasing if it is silly and not done in a way that would be embarrassing or such.


Be lighthearted, this will make them feel comfortable around you. A person that others can pull up the laces with, that others can afford familiarities with. A person that doesn't judge and shows that doesn't judge. I don't recommend doing it at a job or in a formal setting, but outside the job in a group of friends on when you're talking one-on-one, you can pull up the laces with with them and talk to them as equals. Being lighthearted makes people more comfortable around you, knowing that they are free to be themselves around you, it also shows that you are in good relations, that you're at least a good friend, for you can't afford familiarities with everybody.

Be the kind of person that you can talk anything with, that people can feel they can talk anything with, that is non-judgmental and your first reaction is of support. The kind of person that people can feel free to share what is bothering them with, for they know you will support them and won't invalidate their feelings, telling them they are not supposed to feel a certain way, whatever they are feeling, they are right. The real question is what are you doing from there, or whether they are looking just for comfort or a solution to their problem. Sometimes people don't want a solution, they just want emotional support. If you show that you won't agree with certain behaviors, they won't upen up themselves to you out of fear or being rejected or parented, given a lesson when they are most vulnerable.

You can talk about absolutely anything with a woman, it matters at lot more how you say it than what you say. You can open various topic of discussions, it doesn't have to make sense or follow a well established logic, the more emotions the better, you can have simulatenous topics, not take one topic at a time.

20 DC:

Absolutely man, get in shape, you're on the right path.

You could have your "highschool sweethearts" moment with a girl you've known long ago, maybe go back to her, and rediscover and be in a lovely relationship with her. Like, you know, Ronnie or something. A girl you met at the academy or something, that you were always in love with and found a chance to reconnect. And be sweethearts again. But when it comes to "what i have to offer?" I don't think the right answer is "i offer everything that i want from my partner and more" as that's kind of simpy.

To be good for everyone. Be more organized & do your job - all you need to succeed. You are not good enough? You have to become good enlugh. Better looking and such, to be wanted. Women have the issue of "I could never know if those feelings are real", the female gaze. Like, if a guy approaches her, a woman can't tell whether that man really likes her or he just want to sleep with her or use her. But for men, it's a different game. The good looking guys are the ones getting flirty with the girls. When hot there's a little flirting and feelings involved. The "I thought we had a thing" sort of things.

If you want success with women I recommend you one thing - avoid advice from feminists and seek advice from men. Feminists when it comes to dating have plenty of double standards hypocrisy. They say they want the weak femboy but go for the masculine man. And then they become single moms (men have an equal responsability to find a quality woman, a keeper). They are sexually attracted to the alpha males but want men to be weak, to be beata, to be bad, but they won't sleep with those men, they will sleep with the alpha, they will sleep with the strong dominant man who has 20 other options and end up getting used and left then becomes single mom and complains that all men are the same. No, not all men are the same, you just make bad choices in terms of men, which suits those men, your stupidity, they do it because it works, for you and for the other 20 girls they are dating because they have options.

You want something deep? you want something meaningful? you want to learn to spot the bad apples first. Men and women who are outside this "grid" and don't go for such instinctive primitive stuff.

You want to be more attractive? become more masculine. Masculine. Men being masculine.

Men have to be masculine, women have to be feminine, that's why they work so well together, they compliment each other. A relationship between a masculine man and a masculine woman won't work. Nor a relationship between a feminine man and a feminine woman.

And I've seen my share of relationships with a feminine man and masculine woman and strangely enough they work but there's always something wrong there. The more you get to know the couple on a deeper level the more dysfunctional it begins to seem.

You'll find plenty of feminists saying "just respect us" as dating advice and then find 20 guys in their friendzone box who "just respects them". Women aren't attracted to that, to feminine men, they want strong independent dominant alpha men. Who ask questions, who entertain the converastion, etc. Feminists say thay want that but they don't, they still screw the alpha who has 20 other options because they are attracted to them.

For men, if your woman sleeps with another man it's a big deal for you, but for women, this is surprisingly not such a big deal once you're attractive enough, it's like it's understandable, it's like they don't even care. Sure, I think women would prefer not to "share" their man if they had to pick, but I've been surprised to see that they don't have such strong feelings about "sharing" once you are attractive enough.

These are all generalizations and of course there are exceptions, but I'm talking generalizations.

In fact, I would say a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about "sharing" her man is kind of a red flag, when it comes to wife material or relationship material, not screwing around material. This is strange because a lot of women could be with the same man or fight over the same man and not care if you're attractive enough.

I think it's about how men & women are wired, I remember this saying: If men and women had to pick between having a handsome partner that's a 20 years old virgin or a 30 years old succesful lawyer with +100 previous partners, the women would overwhemlingly pick the 30 years old one while the men would overwhelmingly pick the 20 years old one.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU TO FALL IN LOVE SERIOUSLY - 14 DC:

It's really a funny question. I don't know how the women's situation is, so I won't talk about that, but I know how the men's situation is, so I will talk about that. For men, there is a huge difference between having 0-1 women attracted to you. And a small difference between having 1-10 women attracted to you. This is not just me, this is everyone, you either know how to get women attracted to you or you don't. It's not "love", it's only "love" for women, for men it's attraction.

And whose fault is that? men just do what works. If it wouldn't work men wouldn't have doen it. But it works. Because women want that thing. But they think it's magical, it's not magical, it's what men with good sense do and a lot of women fall in their trap. Food for thought if you ask me.

I was born very good looking, blessed with my looks. As a consequence of this, I could get any woman I want. Women would hit on me and I would not be interested, they just didn't have that thing I wanted. Just so I tell how the situation goes.

And then, from all those top-tier women, I would only pick 1 women I wanted, that woman was special. That woman was also the only woman who would cheat on me. I was a 10/10 non-ironically non-braggingly just so you know how I stand. I doesn't matter to me what you think as we'ere complete strangers so I have no reason to brag but my looks were top tier. I was told that I look like Dean Winchester from Supernatural or Edward from Twilight, just so you make an idea what I look like. I was told this by women who were attracted to me.

I could have all the women I want, there were a lot of women who hit on me, but I decided to pick the only 1 girl who would cheat on me despite being 10/10.

So I know how a woman who only goes for bad boys and ends up suffering feels like, I've been there, I made poor decisions, this is why I think it's everyone's responsailty to guard against bad actors, I got f***ed because of that, figuratively f***ed. And then literally f***ed because she did not f*** me she f***ed someone else.

Heck, at some point, had 2 women who would fight over me but I didn't like neither of them so I picked none but also I didn't know how to tell them as they fought with each other. I even had a woman who hit on me and he was genuinely a nice girl, but I wasn't intereted. Instead, I was intersted in the only one girl who would cheat on me.

I looked like a model, she looked like a model, and when you look like a model you have plenty of options, this is true for both men and women.

So I perfectly understand how women who go for bad boys feel.

That hot boy you can't "get your mind off", yeah, he has plenty of options, you're just one of them. This is why all this doubt inside your head is happening. He has plenty of options, you don't, he's just using you because he can. Because he has a lot of options because of his looks. You're not special, even if you may feel like he's special. A lot of women feel like he's special, believe me, you have competition there, because I've been there.

After that, let's just say that I got fat and I got overweight, and it was then that I understood the blessing and the privilege of my looks. "Women would no longer hit on me!". For a lot of men this is WTF because women ever hit on them, but for me it was a big deal beacuse women used to hit on me. So I hit the gym, got better, and eventually the women hitting on me come back.

Since I was a man with so many options (top 20%) I had an easy time getting a one night stand (easy sex) so I know where a lot of single moms come from. But I wasn't satisfied with that, I know where a lot of 20% guys are satisfied with that, but I wasn't, so after my killing spree of just 2 one night stands I became bored of it and looked for a real relationship. And now I found a real relationship with a great woman.

Thing is, unlike my one night stands, I couldn't give 2 cents on her when I first met her, I only got to love her as I got to know her. As I discovered the person she is, and she discovered the person I am.

I don't know the lesson you can take form this but I hope it's a good one. Just saying that I'm better looking that 80% of guys would make plenty of guys mad, let alone women when I talk about the bad side of women, which as a man with privilege I can tell you it's real, I could have been the cause for so many single moms if I wanted to, but I didn't want to, looks is really king, it can carry you. So I don't know what lesson you will take from this, but I hope it's a good one.

At least take the lesson of "hit the gym" if you're a man.

No offense, but from a woman's behavior. If you are a bad looking man, you are a slave to women. If you are a good looking man, you are a master to women. You have no idea with how much crap I could get away with just because I was good looking (I realised that when I got fat). So yeah, some women may hate me for saying things that would put women in a bad light (like women go for bad boys, women pick their abuses by flirting and dating them so they have some responsability) but if they would meet me, a lot of these women would fall for me, non-ironically and speakig from experience. Also, women act a lot based on emotion, more than men, so if you also make them feel good, more than men, they're yours, this can be done with teasing and other stuff. Heck, there's a reason Andrew Tate is hated by a lot of women yet paradoxically he gets a lot of women at the same time, like how the hell he has so many women if so many women hate him? how the heck is he hated and wanted by so many women at the same time? this makes perfect sense for me and it's not a contradiction. Simply put: looks is king. His status helps too, but he's not a bad lookig men either. And teasing works too, if you make women feel emotions, even if negative, it's better than feeling nothing at all.

Should you be offended by this and call me a "sexist" or take a minute to reflect upon yourself and ask yourself "why does this work?" (not you, women in general). Because it does work. No matter how much women say it doens't work and hate it, it does work, and eventually they will be with that man. I know this because that man was me.

So before going "all men crap", take a look at yourself women. Whose fault is it that those things work on you? yours. That's my opinion. If you're the cause, it's your fault that those things work on you. And men would be stupid not to do those things that work on you.

Women's dating advice is like "a guide towards the friendzone", men's dating advice is actually a guide towards how to actually get the women, that's why it works. Despite Andrew Tate being hated by a whole generation of women, half of whom would sleep with him. I really don't think men are the issue here, but women's double standards, men just do what works. If women wouldn't go for a**h***s, men wouldn't be a**h***s but nice guys, because that works for women, but it doesn't, so men are a**h***s to get women, even if women hate it, because actually they love it. Secretly or subconsciously they love it. I don't know, but it just works.

What I'm trying to say is, check your own behavior, not men's behavor. This is not MRA just personal life experience.

Thus my jocks vs nerds comparison. Nerds would be better boyfriends on paper. But it's jocks that women want. So be a jock, because women want that, it works, I can tell you that from my experience with women.

Telling guys they should just be nice guys is just giving nice guys a losing game, and they don't want that. They want to do what works. Not what women tell them it works. It's almost a hypocrisy here, women say they want the nice but go for the hot, if you listen to a woman's advice you're only ensuring your own downfall at your own detriment, while that woman goes for an alpha f***boy and later to settle down with a beta provider who will offer a lot of things to her and her 3 children that she made with the alpha. Men want to be the alpha in this case, the one with the kids, not the beta, not the provider, so feminism is just plainly put giving men a losing game and men rebel against it, thus "extremist" like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, except they are not extremists, they are just a rational voice for men giving a woman's behavior. So you want to get the women? be the alpha. They will have sex with you, they will hate you, but then they will have sex with you, then they will complain about you about how bad you are.

But as hardcore feminists will tell you, this is never a woman's fault, except is it, because she is the cause for all of this, her preferences. And men just work based on those perefences, men just work based on what works, based on what is known to work, not based on what angry feminists are telling them it should work, because it doesn't, that feminist version is pure BS, the fastest way to ensure you become a pure femboy and get no women but at the same time become a perfect friend or friendzone material. I don't know why they do that, but women are really working against their own interest here.

Like, the one who would listen to them end up bad, the one who won't listen to them end up good, who the heck would the men listen to? the question is rethorical because you already know the answer. But at least now you have the answer. So be an alpha that's how you get the women. Women themselves may hate it, at least in theory, but at least you will get them, and you will end up having a lot of sex, because they themselves will want it, despite saying otherwise. Just reality man. It is what it is, women want the opposite of what they say they want, women want that hot alpha boyfriend and would only "love" quotes love a beta for his providing abilities. Would only love a bet man for his providing abilities, while they would love an alpha for his sex, to be red his looks.

Sometimes you have to be a fisherman to know what the fish want best, because the fish will never tell you what they want. Or the fish will never know what they want, what works on them. But you will know what works on them, as a fisherman.

So the advantage that looks have over everything? flawless. Looks can make or break a relationship. Look can get women attracted to you. Even if you're broke, lol.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 12:47 pm
@Apothecary,
++++ Still partially bolded part. Recap.

Part 16 (your best personality traits, how to get over someone completely,

WHAT IS YOUR BEST PERSONALITY TRAITS CHARACTERISTICS

Best personality traits for what?

Social? I think it's best to be a social chameleon. To know how to best adapt to people. Whether you are in a room full of cultured snobs or incultured barbars, to know how to best adapt to the circumstances and make them like you. Yeah, looks matter a lot about this (I talked about it a lot) but it's not only looks, it's also personality.

Heck, you can even apply this in dating, how your personality is important, you can be the type that clicks with 9/10 people or 0/10 people, all of this depends on you and your personality. So be a social chameleon, know how to best adapt to people.

You don't have to be too low, too "worth kicking", but also not too high, too arrogant. If anything, you should create emotions in them, emotions of good most of the time, amazed by you, awed by you, fun with you, but also emotions of bad sometimes, because in fact feeling bad is better than feeling nothing at all. Since we are on dating - if a guy gives you no emotions, you're going to find him bland and boring. If a guy gives you some emotions, even if they are bad emotions, you're going to find him attractive, at least he "rises you up". If you evoke no emotions in humans you are the boring type. Like the quality and disquality games with compliments and tease, you make them feel good but also make them feel bad. Make them feel wanting.

Which is 10x better than making them feel good but not too good just slightly good like a literal "too nice so he's so boring and bland" guy is described. And as I said, don't be a wuss, don't be to submissive, don't be to agreeable, because you're not going to be someone "worth kicking", don't be a beggar basically, but at the same time don't be to dogmatic or too disagreeable or too stuck in your ways. People like that tend to have the opposite effect. People tend to kick the person who displays too much weakness and ignore the person who displays too much aggression or anger, you want to be in the middle, you want to be diplomatic, with your own interests but also with getting along and giving the other people a good time.

From the laws of power I remembe a few things:

Heck, I remember this quote: "You are a coutier whether you like it or not, you must play the game of power so you might as well choose to be good at it. The perfect courtier obeys his master but shines in his own light. He is not powerless, doesn't trust, but appears trustful. Doesn't talk much, but finds the right words and the right timing when he does. Everyone likes him. He is charming, witty and helpful. He appears to be neutral, a paragon of honesty and fairness. He always has a genuine smile on his face and we don't doubt his intentions for one second. Although he is a great talent, we do not feel threatened by him. We seek him as an ally."

Or: "Play a sucker to catch a sucker". Act a fool to catch a fool. Because "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing". As in act a fool and the fool will expose himself.

Or: "Think as you like, but behave like others". Marie Antoinette's big downfall because she didn't catch this. "Work on the hearts and mind's of others". Marie Antoinette never cared about the people's opinion of her as their queen. Alcibiates charmed the Athenians, got accused of profanity over the sacred statues and got exiled, then charmed the Spartans, impregnated the king's wife and fled. Then charmed the Persians and helped Athens win the war against Sparta. How did he do it? They welcomed him back with open arms. Wherever Alcibiates went, whoever he had to deal with, he would leave behind his own values and appear to share the values of his victims.

No one can resist the man who not only concured with them, but also admired them and their way of life.

Go to a foreign country? make an effort to learn their language a bit, appear to admire them and their way of life. Seeming to be one of their own, adapt to their culture. You like people who are like you. You like people, who like you, who are like you.

You like people, who like you, who try to adapt to your way of being.

Match people's energy, speak their language, eat their food, admire their culture, find common ground and even envious people will drop their preconcieved notions about you.

Have you ever been to a party and someone would put exactly the music you like? Someone would request putting exactly the music you like? how did you feel? accepted, included, he did you a big favor. He played to your values. And it made you feel great.

So yeah, beauty, beauty is very important, I cannot overstate how important beauty is, but there are also other things important. Even if you're male/female other male/female will want to be around you simply because you are beautiful. Beauty, this matters, to have beauty, but other things matter too, related to beauty. There's also the halo effect, beautiful people are seen as kinder, better. There's a reason why Athena the godess of wisdom was also very beautiful in ancient Greece, they would associate her beauty with wisdom. Is this true? no, but people still do that.

Pleasing people, doing what their heart desires, amazing (like the song you like, playing the song you like, basically pleasing you and making your day better). I cannot overstate how important such things are.

Appeal to people's values, and they will like you.

Make them feel good, make them feel pleasant, by doing something they like, something that will enjoy them or bring them elascement, a higher being, dopamine, and they will like you. (like putting a song they like as I said)

Or: "Despise the free lunch". Louis the XIV gave his enemies free paintings. He didn't like him, until then.


Climbing up the life ladder of success in general? I'm going to assume for success in life. The answers are in my opinion: courage, motivation and discipline.

I remember reading a very good quote a while ago: "No, this is the time, not tomorrow, because tomorrow will never come."

We cheat ourselves using the procrastination method "I'll do it tomorrow" this quote allows you to stop cheating yourself, because that tomorrow is today.

Courage. How do we get confident?

You can tell yourself "I'm confident, I'm confident, I'm confident, I'm confident, I'm confident", you won't be.

You can even tell yourself "Let's do something fun, I know I will go there and it will be fun" which may help a bit but it's not long-term sustainable.

Here is the key thing - trying to control it or protect yourself from bad outcomes leads to less confidence and more fear.

You have to go out there and "go for it", "face the fear" and then the fear will dissapear.

You have to go there naked, no training wheels.

What do I mean by that?

Where does confidence comes from? Think of something that you're confident about, let's say for the sake of the argument: driving and cooking.

Now, think of something that you are not confident about. You have low confidence, that leads to fear such as OCD, and that leads to controlling things. OCD - as in, you try to control everything to avoid the source of your fear, to avoid having your fear made manifest. Let's say for the sake of the argument that your fears are: the way you look and giving a public speech.

So those things give you high fear. Then, in order to reduce the fear, what you do is you exert control. So you have low confidence -> fear -> control.

This is how you exert control over your fears:
The way you look -> wear a hat and many other accessories to cover your face.
Giving a public speech -> pre-writing the speech and repeating it in the mirror.

While proper preparation prevents poor performance, so pre-writing the speech and repeating it in the mirror is adviseable, what you are basically doing is exert control. Exert control over your enviroment to avoid the fear. So then because you exert control, what happens is that your fear goes down.

So you temporarily got rid of the fear because you exerted control. So you have controls over all of those things, and this (wear a hat and many other accessories to cover your face) results in getting a compliment about your looks or having a good public speech. Because you used a controller you got a good result.

Does that lead to increase in confidence? or decrease in confidence?

Decrease.

Weird, right? then, how do we get to an increase?

Let's say I'm teaching my kid to ride a bike and he's got training wheels. So when he rides a bike, the reason that he doesn't fall over is because he has training wheels or because he knows how to ride a bike? training wheels.

If he's fearful about riding a bike and I add training wheels, his fear goes down and what happens to his confidence? it's lower, because he's relying on the training wheels.

The training wheels are the control factor.

The wear a hat and many other accessories to cover your face in case of insecurity about your looks or the pre-writing the speech and repeating it in the mirror in case of insecurity about your public speech are your training wheels.

So now we go back to the nature of the confidence model: low confidence -> fear -> control -> good result -> decrease in confidence. What happens if you don't wear a hat?

You get rid of the control. And oh boy you're afraid, you're scared as heck.

And then you go out there, and then if you have a good result, such as people compliment you anyway, what happens?

It's weird. Your confidence will increase, but:

You accept it, but it's very weird, it came out of nowhere, you don't know what to expect or what to make of it. Because according to you, this isn't supposed to happen.

But what if you have a bad result?

Oh boy, your worst fears realised! You were right all along!

This should lead to a decrease, right? wrong. Increase.

Yes, even in the case of "your worst fears realised! You were right all along!" your confidence is going to increase.

Because now you are doing it without the training wheels.

Because if I'm with my kid and I take the training wheels off, he could fall, it's going to happen. But he's not always going to fall. And the more he falls or not falls, the more he's able to tolerate his fear.

The more he is able to understand the fear and realise that fear is not such a big deal.

Because, literally if I would talk to him about taking his training wheels off, he panics, because he's afraid, he's anxious.

If you're talking about overcoming fear, wearing a hat is not overcoming fear, it's feeding into it. More protection from fear through control leads to less confidence and more fear. It's making it go away artificially.

If you use forms of control to make your fear artificially go away, like perparing for it or using a hat, instead of grappling with it, instead of facing your fear, instead of having catharsis, your confidence is never going to grow.

All that's going to happen is that you're going to fall into the cycle over and over again.

And what you need to do unfortunately is face your fear.

Law of attraction or just discipline?

I think the Law Of Attraction is stupid, wishful thinking. Just because you visualize something or imagine it it doesn't mean you will have it.

There's the issue of telling yourself you deserve x, visualize it, desire it, and then not do anything about it. The only thing you'll manage to do is beat yourself up and be even more sad because you lack the willpower to follow through, even though you desire it a lot. Telling yourself that you deserve it and simply desire it are different things. That's worth noting. But essentially the issue is the same.

I think willpower beats the law of attraction. In my life, the most successful people I've talked with have a mindset of:
"I have no mood to do it but I have willpower", that's what it takes to have success, willpower.

I'm forcing myself to have willpower and do it, even though I don't feel like it.

They are not people who like everything they do, they are people who just do things, even if they don't feel like it.

Even if it feels draining, saddening, bad, they do it. Even if they don't feel like it. Because of the rewards they will get later.

"I have no mood to do it but I have willpower" - focus on willpower. That's the key. Willpower. I have no mood but I have to do it. That's how succesful (that I personally talked with) people pass through life, with willpower.

One even said that "willpower is the ability to self-discipline, because by that you recognise there isn't a single part of yourself, there are multiple parts of yourself, one wants to do this, one wants to do that, and you are the brain behind, it's your duty and responsability to pick the voice that is best for you, not the best that screams the loudest".

He may have schizophrenia I don't know, but it's a pretty good metaphor for the human body & mind. Sometimes we do things we don't really want to do. And sometimes we don't do things we really want to do. Willpower is the ability to self-control that. And follow the "voice" that you want. Not the voice that rigns the hardest to you, as in the biggest desire (especially in the moment). It's like self-rule.

Discipline beats the law of attraction, doing it even if you don't feel like it, because that brings results.

As I said above: "No, this is the time, not tomorrow, because tomorrow will never come.". This is no law of attraction, it's pure discipline, and it will get you results.

What makes you motivated?

I think "be the best person you can possibly be" means grow up. Be an adult. Do your job. And act like it.

Cut the crap. Bad parents who traumatized you? doesn't matter. You get no awards no points for being a "traumatized child", no one is going to come to you to give you money or awards for being traumatized. Victim of bullying or mugging? same thing. Take the time to mourn if it was recent, like less than a month, you deserve it. But after that? you still have to come back in into the world, and deal with the world, make your own living in the world, make your own work in the word.

You got to make your own destiny, and you won't make your own destiny by crying about yourself.

What do you want? money, power, women, peace of mind, family, friends, good relationships, a more fit body? Whatever you want it's not going to come easy or fast. You got to be hardworking about it and you got to be smart about it. Because there is such thing as hardworking and dumb. Or lazy but smart. Both are useless, I would say the hardworking and dumb has an advantage over this because he at least does something. Working on 10% to 80% power is still better than working on 0% power, because saying "I'm lazy but smart" is like saying "I'm a Ferrari without wheels". Yeah, good for you, but you are no use to me, to yourself, or to anyone else. I can't drive a Ferrari without wheels, you can't drive Ferrari without wheels, nobody can Ferrari without wheels.

You are useless because you are lazy. So you better put your act to it and start working and be dilligent to get what you want. Or keep what you want only in dreams and fantasies. The kind of things you imagine 1 or 2 times a day to keep yourself sane because your life sucks. You are useless, that can cause either 1 of 2 things: cry, do something to stop being useless. It's your choice. Your choice, your responsability, your consequences.

You got to be dilligent and put your bone to it. Put your work to it.

It doesn't matter if mother/daddy treated you bad, it doesn't matter if you were bullied at school, it doesn't matter if you suck in real life at social skills, it doesn't matter whatever excuse you can think of. It doesn't matter if you are depressed and dont' feel like it.

Be dilligent and put your ass to it. In spite of how you feel.

And have a routine, build a routine, even if you don't feel like it, that's the secret of success - routine.

Because in this life we build habbits. Habbits are hard to create but auto-pilot flawlessly easy to maintain. So if you have bad habbits or good habbits I can already project what will happen with you in the next 10 - 20 years. If you continue to stay in this path with these habbits. You can probably do it too.

Habbits are hard to switch but easy to maintain.

If you make good habbits it can make the difference in the world whether you live a good life flawlessly and without stressing yourself, or you live a bad life with difficulties and by stressing yourself. Often people suck because of the things they don't even realise that makes them suck. It's that bad habbit somewhere, whether it's a small thing like playing video games or being lazy or whatever. It's not all an "willpower fight" it's only an willpower fight at the beginning, afterwards it gets easier and easier, it becomes second-nature, it becomes part of you, this is why a lot of succesful people can do it, they are not robots, they just have the right habbits, and none of the wrong ones that drag you down. The ones I said you don't even realise you have.

Cut the crap, cut the bad sources of motivation. Watching movies? it's fine, but watching movies too much while you're actually ambitious and want to do something else? cut the crap. Cut the movies 100%, if you can't show moderation in them don't have them at all. Let me repeat: if you can't show moderation in them don't have them at all. Find another source of motivation.

It's perfectly okay and acceptable to have a source of motivation or a source of relaxation. But 100% unacceptable to have a source of motivation that is in danger of becoming a habbit or a vice. Becuase then what are you going to do when you're about to work or want to work? why would you be motivated on working on that stuff when you already have the movies as a great source of fun and entertainment.

You don't feel like doing it? Do nothing. Seriously. If you have a job to do and you don't feel like doing it. Simply do nothing. Stay in bed. Don't watch TV, don't play video games. Eventually you will feel like doing it because your brain will give up since he can't find another source of motivation.

You don't owe anything to anyone and nobody owes anything to you, so it's up to you to make your own life. If you want to get stuff, you have to give something in return, it's a trade, always has been. Want a high paying job? you better have good skills and qualities. Want a hot girlfriend with a lot of qualities? you better be a hot boyfriend with a lot of qualities. Why do you think some people only attract women who loves them for their money? because they don't have anything to offer. They're not fun to be with, they are not hot, they can't joke, they don't have courage, they don't do lovebombing, etc.

The world doesn't owe you anything, and you don't owe anything to the world, it's a trade. Make sure you make good trades to get what you want.

This is gold, and I think a lot of people need to understand this -> You don't owe anything to anyone and nobody owes anything to you.

You want a new gaming computer, recognition from the people? get your ass and work for it. Stop playing video games and wondering "what great my life would be if", yeah, but it isn't. Because you don't have the skills you imagine you have. You have the skills you have.

In life, we receive what we work for, not what we think we deserve. "Deserve" is such a subjective term. If you ask 100 people whether X deserves Y you're going to have 100 different asnwers. But if X worked to get Y then X has Y no matter who thinks he deserves it or not. This is why millionaires have money but nobody thinks they deserve it. They make good trades, and they don't care who deserve it.

So get your ass and work. Be an adult. And act like it. Ignore everything else.

No one is at fault for your current condition. (not your bully, not your parents, no one but yourself, you have to be a man and learn how to deal with it, or woman, it's your reponsability, not somebody else's to do the things you want to do and know that you have to do but just don't feel like it because my bully, my mom, my X, nah, it's your responsability and yours alone, you do want a better life, don't you? then stop making excuses and go and act like it)

No one. Not your family, not your bully, not your ex, not your mugger, not your . No one but you. So get your ass and work if you want to make something of yourself and not be a loser.

Be dilligent and abstain yourself. Abstain yourself from temptation while working towards what you want. It's that simple.

You just have to master your body and mind. It's that simple.

"But my parents were bad", do you think your parents are going to suffer if you fail in life or you are going to suffer if you fail in life? well, you. So why the heck do you care if your parents were good or bad? just be an adult, take what you have, and deal with it.

Take what you have, and see how you can best use the resources you have available. It doesn't matter if your parents did X or Y, you and you alone are responsable for your own life. You are responasble for your own life.

But I am depressed. Well, if you would have worked towards improving your life such as going to the gym and getting more knowledge like in business or intra-social relationships you wouldn't be depressed.

You have a cause of depression: no job, no girlfriend, loss of a loved one, etc. Loss of a loved one is something temporary, it may take you 4-6 months but you'll eventually get over it. But if you can't constantly get up, that means the source of your depression is something you constantly want and are lacking. So how do you get something you constantly want and are lacking? by working for it.

By getting your ass to work. Do you think that if you have a 6-pack full of muscles and a great personality with a lot of charm and charisma and everybody would pay attention to you and a great job on a subject you are passionate about that you enjoy and is highly paying and you are really improtant at your job because you're really efficient and indisposable and evereybody appreciates you there and you get to travel, that you would be depressed?

No, you won't be depressed if only good things would happen to you. But you got to make them happen to you, that's the trick, they won't happen by themselves, you got to make them. That's why it's worth and pay to be dilligent and work your ass for it. To train your mind and body to ressist temptation and work towards what you want. It's that simple. It just takes time.

And effort. Effort in the form of struggle against temptation for what you want but know deep in your mind that is not good for you, and struggle in favor of working towards the things that you want because you know deep in your head that they are good for you, even if you don't feel like doing them. Courage to act, and courage not to act, that's what you need.

It's easy on paper, but harder in practice, because you feel those things. But you go to feel them and act in spite of feeling them. Act how you know best in spite of feeling them.

We got to busy feeling comfortable and that's why we suck. We think that "if we feel good = it's good". It doesn't work like that. Feeling good all the time can really suck your life.

Because if you feel good all the time, most of the time you're not doing anything good all the time, you're not doing anything in your favor all the time. So, get busy getting uncomfortable.

Get busy getting uncomfortable. Get busy growing.

So yeah -> You got to make them happen to you, that's the trick, they won't happen by themselves, you got to make them.

There's no magic in the universe, no magic wand is going to come and make your life better, we do what we get.

And you can fail, just as sure as you can succeed.

"Everything will be all right?", do you think a multi-milionare or a hobo thinks everything will be all right? the hobo, that's why he is where he is and the millionare is where he is.

Because the multi-millionare didn't wait for everything to be all right, he made it happen. He knows he can fail, but he didn't. Exactly because he knows he can fail and tried to do exactly the opposite.

Failure is real. Life is real. This is life. Deal with it. And do your best. Do your best magic because as sure as heck that you can fail. So try not to, by doing your best. Then you won't fail. But the failure, the constant threat of failure, is there.

Become self-sufficient.

Cut the crap and deal with your own crap. Because no one else is going to do it for you. Be dilligent. Do stuff in your own life. Have a routine.

This is what I think it means to be the best person you can be. To Grow up. Be an adult. Do your job. And act like it. Because as sure as hell that you can fail if you don't do it.

Why the comfort zone sucks?

You need to get out of your comfort zone to understand how to be organized and consistent.

Our brain always wants the easy route, easiest thing you can do in the moment, not the hardest thing that will actually give you benefits.

Courage and facing your fears is important, whether it's fear of rejection or whatever, sure you can always become better prepared, but you have to do it even if you aren't 100% sure you will succeed.

You have to do your beest even when there's no 100% success rate (because there's almost never a 100% success rate in everything. This may not work is always a valid option, yet, you must try) for the sake of doing your best and actually doing something.

Even if there is no 100% chance you will succeed. Work it for the sake of working it and completing it.

It's not just courage but also expertise that matter, but first you get courage to do it and complete it 100% then you get expertise.

A CONFUSED MIND 20DC:

Absolutely man, get in shape, you're on the right path.

You could have your "highschool sweethearts" moment with a girl you've known long ago, maybe go back to her, and rediscover and be in a lovely relationship with her. Like, you know, Ronnie or something. A girl you met at the academy or something, that you were always in love with and found a chance to reconnect. And be sweethearts again. But when it comes to "what i have to offer?" I don't think the right answer is "i offer everything that i want from my partner and more" as that's kind of simpy.

To be good for everyone. Be more organized & do your job - all you need to succeed. You are not good enough? You have to become good enlugh. Better looking and such, to be wanted. Women have the issue of "I could never know if those feelings are real", the female gaze. Like, if a guy approaches her, a woman can't tell whether that man really likes her or he just want to sleep with her or use her. But for men, it's a different game. The good looking guys are the ones getting flirty with the girls. When hot there's a little flirting and feelings involved. The "I thought we had a thing" sort of things.

If you want success with women I recommend you one thing - avoid advice from feminists and seek advice from men. Feminists when it comes to dating have plenty of double standards hypocrisy. They say they want the weak femboy but go for the masculine man. And then they become single moms (men have an equal responsability to find a quality woman, a keeper). They are sexually attracted to the alpha males but want men to be weak, to be beata, to be bad, but they won't sleep with those men, they will sleep with the alpha, they will sleep with the strong dominant man who has 20 other options and end up getting used and left then becomes single mom and complains that all men are the same. No, not all men are the same, you just make bad choices in terms of men, which suits those men, your stupidity, they do it because it works, for you and for the other 20 girls they are dating because they have options.

You want something deep? you want something meaningful? you want to learn to spot the bad apples first. Men and women who are outside this "grid" and don't go for such instinctive primitive stuff.

You want to be more attractive? become more masculine. Masculine. Men being masculine.

Men have to be masculine, women have to be feminine, that's why they work so well together, they compliment each other. A relationship between a masculine man and a masculine woman won't work. Nor a relationship between a feminine man and a feminine woman.

And I've seen my share of relationships with a feminine man and masculine woman and strangely enough they work but there's always something wrong there. The more you get to know the couple on a deeper level the more dysfunctional it begins to seem.

You'll find plenty of feminists saying "just respect us" as dating advice and then find 20 guys in their friendzone box who "just respects them". Women aren't attracted to that, to feminine men, they want strong independent dominant alpha men. Who ask questions, who entertain the converastion, etc. Feminists say thay want that but they don't, they still screw the alpha who has 20 other options because they are attracted to them.

For men, if your woman sleeps with another man it's a big deal for you, but for women, this is surprisingly not such a big deal once you're attractive enough, it's like it's understandable, it's like they don't even care. Sure, I think women would prefer not to "share" their man if they had to pick, but I've been surprised to see that they don't have such strong feelings about "sharing" once you are attractive enough.

These are all generalizations and of course there are exceptions, but I'm talking generalizations.

In fact, I would say a woman who doesn't feel that strongly about "sharing" her man is kind of a red flag, when it comes to wife material or relationship material, not screwing around material. This is strange because a lot of women could be with the same man or fight over the same man and not care if you're attractive enough.

I think it's about how men & women are wired, I remember this saying: If men and women had to pick between having a handsome partner that's a 20 years old virgin or a 30 years old succesful lawyer with +100 previous partners, the women would overwhemlingly pick the 30 years old one while the men would overwhelmingly pick the 20 years old one.

WHY DO WE FALL IN LOVE WITH SPECIFIC PEOPEL 20DC:

I disagree with your premise. I don't think we do have control over who we allow ourselves to love. I think we have control over our actions, but the feeling of love is there whether we want it or not. You don't decide what you're attracted to.

Actually, it's very easy to argue that it doesn't & agree with the concept that love is a feeling at the same time. Your feelings are based upon "what you know so far", you have your beliefs that make up your reality, and from the on you have values and feelings. If your soulmate would turn out to be a serial killer, police would discover tomorrow that he killed 30 people so far, would you still love him unconditionally? If your SO would get out of a shape, become fat and it at home and play only video games all day, even become unemployed, would you still love him the same? If your SO would abuse you, begin to beat you out of the smallest things, would you still love him the same? If your SO was all 3: become an ugly, abusive, serial killer, would you still love him no matter what he does? It's pretty hard to argue that the answer would be yes.

Toxic relationships still happen because that person still finds the abuser attractive, no matter their behavior towards them. It's not unconditional love, it's just that the conditions are not what you think they are.

Well, you love your child BECAUSE he is your child. So the unconditional part falls off right away.

And sometimes, there are abusive parents who mistreat their kids.

Funny thing is, in a family with more kids, are the parents going to like more the "succesful" kid or the "loser" kid? They are not allowed to make differences, but they do, even if only in thought. In a family with 3 kids I heard a woman saying that she secretly has a favourite. Of course, she would never admit it, what would this mean? lol, but she has.

The idea of unconditional love is one of those wishful lies to me. Sounds good in theory. But that's not how it works in practice.

HEALTHY & UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS

Controversial opinion, but, although there a lot of MBTI-based dating advice out there, I think MBTI-based dating advice is a terrible thing. Your MBTI type is just a few traits about your personality that you have in common with other people from the same type as you, it's just part of your personality, not your whole personality. INTP (A) may be very different from INTP (B) despite them both being INTP. Many things in a relationship that make a relationship work or not work fall outside the MBTI range.

MBTI is good for a lot of things, but finding your ideal partner is not.

You're going to have to do that the classical hard way. Getting to know a person and discovering what they are like. From then, seeing if you are compatible or not. I've seen healthy relationships between people that are supposed to be "incompatbile" according to MBTI and toxic relationships from people that are supposed to be "ideal" according to MBTI. Why? because there's more to a person and there's more to a relationship than their MBTI types.

HOW TO GET OVER SOMEONE COMPLETELY 20DC:

Girl, I think you just friendzoned yourself.

It was clear you had a thing, you went into so much depth to explain it. And then you ask him: "Can I ask you something? Are we just… Friends?", leave a little early and then say "I know you just want to be friends so I think I need a little break from hanging out right now".

I mean, you asked him "Can I ask you something? Are we just… Friends?", what was he supposed to say "No, we're dating" ? The way you asked it was like begging for the answer to be "Yes, we are just friends". And then leaving early only confirmed his suspitions.

"I didn’t really like him so much until he offered to put together all of my furniture. I felt cared for/protected by a man and noone’s ever done something like that for me before"

Cute.

"Yup I can’t get myself to be with him anymore. He just pushes every button to get me to like him and as a friend that’s some pretty poor boundaries. I even thought about just wearing sunglasses around him so that he couldn’t read me anymore

He kept analyzing my body language all the time and admitted to doing that. He’d ask me a question and then answer it himself before I would say anything… That made me uncomfortable and made me wonder… Is he trying to manipulate me? Why else would you be analyzing someone’s body language 24/7. "

Yep, analyizing your body language and behavior all the time, guy is an INFJ all right.

That’s very true… I did feel like we were mirroring each other alot. Our entire history together felt romantic which is why with each next meeting I’d get more and more feelings. I told myself the last time we met I would ask the question if we were friends because I can’t go months having intense feelings for someone and being in the dark.

Also, I looked up every article/video about how to know if someone likes you more than a friend and he met all of the criteria. That also got my hopes way higher..

Maybe he does like me but he refuses to get too close to anyone since he’s not over his recent breakup. But regardless I think I need to protect myself emotionally…

Lmafo, guilty, I also tend to do that a lot, if it's any comfort analyzing too much is not something judgemental, it's just something we do because we have Ni-Ti. So we sort of read the body language a lot and draw conclusions from there. Combined that with out Fe interest which means that we also enjoy when people open up to us and tell us their experiences, heck, I'm the "couch therapist" for my friends and I enjoy it. You know how some people especially narcissists are described as "emotional vampires", INFJs tend to be the opposite, they tend to absorb the feelings rather than have the draning effect that a narcissist has. The downside of this is that this opening-up is usually 1-way, INFJs enjoy having people opening up to them, but don't enjoy opening up to people. Leading to pretty one-sided relationships in the therapy department.

Heck, remember when I told you about that barista and how she would open up to me and describe her life experience so far while I would try to comfort her? I do that a lot with people, strangers even, and I enjoy every second of it.

But the weird thing is, I don't know how to initiate intimacy, it just happens, people do that to me. A friend pointed this out to me and I was like "you're right". Like, if I want to touch a deep subject I don't know how to transition from small talk to that, people just do that to me.

As an INFJ, it's very easy to mirror other people, it's second nature, we do it without thinking and without wanting. I'm not necessarily going to say that I go into a relationship looking for "emotional support" but if I am in a relationship and there is emotional support I see that as a plus. I have the idea that a relationship won't fix your life and maybe that's why I don't expect that there. When I think of a relationship I think of having fun, having a good time with each other, emotional support is a plus but it's not really on my checking list.

Also, I like how women told me that what they like about me is that INFJ's can be nice guys and bad boys at the same time.

Which I think it's a fair point. INFJs can be a genuinely kind person and sensitive but also with militaristic tendencies. A good boy and a bad boy at the same time. A good boy who likes to protect. And knows it can protect. A defender, fighting for justice. This element of good and bad is what makes him attractive. Because he's a good guy with bad guy tendencies. Able to apply swift justice if the case and take militaristic action, but at the same time being a genuinely kind person who is able to serve and protect. This dichtonomy works great for them and is not contradictory at all. They know that force must be applied when necessary but also have a sense of and a respect for justice and kindness and people's wills and demands. We can find INFJ at the extreme of both sides: Thomas Jefferson, but also Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. They can be a radical in this way, for good and bad. They are equally capable to be both the healer and the warrior. At the same time. Imagine the sensitivty of INFP combined with the ruthlessness of INTJ, sometimes allowing them to do what is necessary, for the greater good, being the necessary evil in order to stop evil. A necessary evil for good. Like a sniper shootinga a taliban extremist who likes to kill and rape. INFJ have that stopping power in them to make that killing blow in order to protect what is good. While also having that INFP sensitvity in order to be what is good themselves. That INTJ ruthlessnes and calculating nature combined with the INFP idealism, in a single person. They are albe to see the good in the world, while also doing the bad in order to protect what is good in the world.

There is a kind of mythology out there about INFJs that I think some people some people think INFJs are the best thing since rock&roll. Like: “Are INFJs really perfect?” “Are INFJs really magic?”.

INFJs are not magic? puts my wizard staff away

I often heard INFJ being called "the good INTJ", meaning having that planning and foreshadowing of an INTJ but combined with the sensitive nature of INFP, rather than the cold calculated nature of the INTJ. Don't get me wrong, INFJs are calculated as well, we are Ni-dom after all, but it's often because of that byproduct of having the kindness and sensitivity of an INFP, we don't get put into the "cold calculated bastard" bucket.

That's a more realistic stereotype in my opinion. Still a stereotype, but more realistic that INFJ are magic or INFJ are perfect.

And the dark side. I read somewhere that out of all types, INFJs have the best access to their subconscious, their subconscious communicates the best with their conscious. Which is why INFJ are more likely to be aware of their shadow than any other type. The shadow being the concept in psychology about the bad part of yourself that you repress.

INFJs are aware of their bad side. And I think this works as a perk because the more aware you are of something the more you can control it. The brute guy who is being an ahole and is pissing everyone off, yeah, he doesn't think he's being an ahole. He's not aware of his shadow. So his shadow controls him without even knowing. The byproduct of this is that INFJs also enjoy dark humor a lot. Like in a weird way, the worse, the better.

But in my experience, people who enjoy dark humor are usually safe. It's the psychopaths and sociopaths that don't find anything funny in dark humor because they find it normal.

Morally, INFJs are all over the place:
Mahatma Gandhi - indepdence of India. Also had some weird things going on for him*
Plato - one of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece. You can see that his opposite Aristotle ENTJ is more sturdy, Plato being with the republic and Aristotle with authoritarianship.
Thomas Jefferson - wrote the declaration of independece "all men are created equal" and fought against slavery in Virginia. Had slaves*
Dante Alighieri - great writer, love his work. The first religious science-fiction that became cannon afterwards. The hell with lava and purgatory? yeah, not in the Bible, Dante wrote it.

I find in interesting that in INFJ even in the good guys, there's usually an asterix for them, so no, not perfect. Sometimes pragmatic (you can't be rich and maintain your wealth and become a politican because of your wealth and abolish slavery because you become a politian, if you don't have slaves to be rich in the first place in 19th century America), but not perfect.

And the bad ones, ooh, the bad ones:
Adolf Hitler - mad that they lost the war, felt betrayed by the jews, wanted to do justice to Germany.
Osama bin Laden - mad that the Americans intervene in the Middle East, his stated motivation for 9/11 is that whenever a kid in the middle east is killed by the Americans nobody cries, he will make them cry, wanted to do justice to the Middle East.
Leon Trotsky - one of the romantics of communism, he actually believed in it and thought it will bring peace and prosperity, unlike Stalin.
Chiang Kai-shek - the one who was beaten by Mao Zedong who made China communist, he was authoritarian but authoritarian to restore the republic, he stated that after China is whole again he will restore the republic and step down. He also believed that the ends justifies the means and took drastic measures sometimes. He said he wished for peace and prosperity in China under a demoractically elected republic (this army eventually left China and became Taiwan), when the Japanese attacked, he noticed that the Communists were hesitnat, waiting for the civil war that will come afterwards, he didn't care, the took the blunt of the attack either way, being the meat grinder for the Japanese while the Chinese Communists wait and rebuild their forces, he argued that should they lose it's better to live under a Chinese state be it communist rather than a Japanese dictatorship.

Weirdly, there can be seen some 'good' in the bad INFJs as well, 'good' as in they have a twisted version of justice, but they all wanted to do justice in the end. It's not like any of them was Chaotic Evil as you may see in other types. They had a moral code, a code of conduct, but it was a weird and twisted one. And very revengeful. But often revenge and justice is just a matter of perspective (shadow talk here. ok, get back in there boy).

That may also give OP some more insight, if it helps.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 12:48 pm
@Apothecary,
+++++ Still partially intro bolded part. Recap.

Part 17 (13J and 14J, how to tell if genuine nice or not reply, nice guys simp another angle some disagreeableness, how to date men the bad, how to date men the very very good, how to date men the very good, being more shy than you seem to the 2 clocks theory of connection 2feb)

HOW TO TELL IF A MAN IS GENUINELY NICE OR NICE GUY TM 12J23:

In my experience, the best way to figure out the difference between a nice guy genuinely and a nice guy TM is the latter talks about how nice he is, sees niceness as one of his defining characteristics, feels entitled to stuff just because he's nice (like, yeah, I got no value, no good looks, no making you feel good around me, no funny, no engaging, no attractive, BUT I'M NICE, SO DATE ME. WHY WON'T YOU? ALL WOMEN ARE THE SAME). Instead of realising it's about good looks, social intelligence, and hit the gym, he's all like I DESERVE STUFF BECAUSE I'M A NICE GUY. He's like the other side of the coin of feminists who are overweight and shame men for not dating them for being fat. This guy shame women for not dating him for being nice. They shame men for not dating them for being fat. Personal preference doesn't matter, that's how you know they are a nice guy. /sarcasm off.

In my experience, the people who go out of their way to tell you they are the good guys are not necessarily the good guys. More often than not. I try to do good but I'm not a saint, definetly flawed, and looking for deals where I get something out of it too so no self-sacrificing stuff, just trying to not hurt others as I get what I want. Can be an ahole at times when stepped on the tail, and I consider it necessary, good, as there's good people in this world who need to be protected but bad people too and you don't want to be vulnerable, a victim or lose the fight to them. So yeah, I see being powerful and threatening as something good as long as you don't use that to hurt others. And I'd rather be morally grey than a self-entitled saint or champion of justice who believes himself that he is the pure light of gold of God but actually is a bigger ahole that most people I know since these people who have such a high sense of self-morality find themselves infallible to doing bad stuff because of their superior morality, they are the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to morality, it's this stupid belief in their superior morality that allows them to be the biggest aholes without questioning themselves because in their mind they are too morally good to fail, their own self-righteousness about their own morality deludes them. And so they feel "pure", "right", "fighting for justice" but really are just self-deluded, entitled, annoying, aholes.

This is why the people who go out of their way to tell you they are the good guys are not necessarily the good guys.

I don't know, I find that set-up cute. It was a set-up not kidnapping you, you can always say no. Actually happened to me once, I wasn't interested in her so I politely declined telling her I'm not interested, but I sure appreciated the gesture, if anything she increased in my eyes, even if I wasn't interested in her I was like "wow, this girl is something". I don't know, I find it cure, for the effort probably, even if you're not interested. And my ex said that something like that happened to her as well, before we met, with a guy, same thing, she wasn't interested so she politely declined but appreciated the gesture.

So I would go with nice guy genuinely in this case. There are no signs of nice guy TM as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure I get you with "I don't know if he was just being friendly back to me or if he was being the nice guy for alternate reasons". Like he was friendly with you, good. He was friendly with you but also interested in going out with you and having a relationship, bad. Is this it? Because I don't think that's the difference between a nice guy genuinely and a nice guy TM.

If "alternate reasons" was putting drugs in your drink I'm 100% on your side, but what you said doesn't lead me to believe that way. It looks like the guy was just trying his shot.

Does that make him suddenly not nice, suddenly a nice guy TM because he was friendly and he hit on your and you weren't interested in him? What if he was a guy that you were actually attracted to? What if he was a guy who was friendly, and hit on you, and you were interested in him? would he still be a nice guy TM? I find this a double standard. Because often I see that the difference between "creep" and "cute" is how good looking the guy is. I can literally copy-paste this guy's strategy and the woman would call it "very cute" or "adorable" simply because she is interested in me.

Of course he was friendly, would you want him to be rude? what does the fact that he is attracted to you or not have to do with his character? Do you want all the guys you find attractive instantly know you like them and hit on you while all the guys you don't find attractive instantly know and not hit on you? everybody is friendly with the person they like, it goes without saying he was friendly if he was trying to date you.

Would you prefer him to be more direct? to be "hey, I like you, let's date!" because you see his friendlyness as "insincere?", I actually see this friendlyness as building some rapport as you say, in my experience, most guy who are that direct and usually the aholes looking for one night stand women to sleep with and they don't have time to lose because frankly they don't care. You may have had a difference experience but be careful what demographic you attract with your dating strategies.

Heck, one of the most LMAFO moments in my entire life, I was in a club and a fkboy friend of mine hit on a girl, directly like that, she accepted, after a while he asked her if she wants to go to his place after the party, she said that it would be better tomorrow, and he was like "fk this, I'm out" (thinking she's not really interested and just postponing), and she started crying and told the rest of us, I kid you not "I wasn't shaved". Like that's the reason she refused him, she wasn't shaved (didn't tell him), and he just dropped it and left (I got not time for this). We live in a funny world what can I say.

Back to the guy who was friendly and he hit on your and you weren't interested in him, just trying his shot. He should have just stayed in his corner, in the friendzone? no. The guy did noting wrong in my opinion, he did good. He found you attractive, shoot his shot, and just becuase you weren't interested in him doesn't mean he was a nice guy TM.

If your ulterior motives was just him trying to date you, I think you may have overreacted here and he's actually a good guy. As I said, I would find the gesture cute.

If you are asking in general is actually just friendly or if he has ulterior motives because you're insecure about this, I don't think you can know this from just one night, it takes a while for the red flags to show up, this is why dating is a thing. You will discover them in time, if there are any.

Question: "I was kind of interested in him I guess, but no sparks for me or anythin", are you interested in him because he liked the same things you like? are you interested in him as a friend? or are you interested in him romantically because you found him a cool guy but no sparks yet?

In my experience, it takes a while for the sparks to show up, as you discover his personality. If you have instant sparks that just mean he's a very good player. That friend of mine in the club I told you about was very good at creating instant sparks. It wasn't the woman, it was him. Making all the right moves. So I wouldn't count on "sparks" if you want a long and fulfilling relationship. These things can develop in time, if they do develop, as you get to know each other's personality. If they develop instantly as soon as you know the person, you're probably dealing with a player.

R: Nobody does anything without any expectations. Everybody is selfish and expects something in return. That's nonsensical, some women expect a guy to do everything for her and get nothing in return. That's not how relationships work. No relationship is without reciprocation. I get tired of chicks complaining about "nice guys" when men don't complain about "nice women". There's plenty of men and women who will take advantage of a partner and that is one example. Guys might use a woman for sex and women might use a guy for favors, help her move, etc.

R: Just ask him what kind of relationship he wants and be upfront about it. If he wants more he'll let you know. Don't expect him to do favors for you without some sort of relationship expectation.

Facts ^

All this "does he do it to get credit with you, or does he do it because he GENUINELY WANTS YOU TO FEEL NICE" are BS and the people with that mindset are usually toxic. You know who would do something because he genuinely wants you to feel nice and not to get any credit with you? your dad, that's it.

It goes gender-reversed too, imagine saying "does she do it to get credit with you, or does she do it because he GENUINELY WANTS YOU TO FEEL NICE", like WTF? of course she wants to date me, that's why she does it. She's attracted to me and she does it because she wants to date me. It would be stupid of her to do otherwise. Like, what if I was attracted to another girl, would she help me get with that other girl because she genuinely wants me to feel nice (nice), or would she not do it and feel resentful because she does it to get credit with me (not nice), like how stupid is that? This whole mindset of "does she do it to get credit with you, or does he do it because she genuinely wants you to feel nice" screams toxic and entitled to me. Of course she does it to get credit with you, that's why she's here, and there's nothing wrong with that.

R: It's not that easy to tell right away. People can obscure their motives easily. Most important is just having strong boundaries and a way to defend your boundaries, regardless. Because people can turn out less or more nice than they would appear.

If I saw this guy's post before writing this I would have stopped because he's 100% on point and already gave you your answer.

As I said too, I don't think you can know this from just one night, it takes a while for the red flags to show up, this is why dating is a thing. You will discover them in time, if there are any.

And the buying a drink or even a set-up was a cool gesture.

Exactly, how he reacts when/if you refuse him is a big tell whether he's a genuinely nice guy or a nice guy TM. Does he accept it and moves on? or does he get angry and bitter about it?

Does he accept that you weren't entitled to listen to him, to talk to him, to date him, to sleep with him, because he bought you a drink (after all it's a gift, that's what a gift is supposed to be, otherwise it wasn't a gift), or does he get angry and bitter because he lost his drink or lost his investment "you ungrateful brat".

"A healthy person has boundaries and is comfortable with disliking things others like", one of the most fun I could ever have with my girlfriend is about disagreeing on things. Disagreeing on this is so fun.

But then again, it depends on both people's level of maturity. You can disagree with fun "no way, you like that stupid thing", "I can't believe you like that, it sucks", it just makes the converastion so fun. And then there are people who get angry and bitter the moment you disagree with them.

This: "If he seems totally disinterested in what is required to establish trust (like talking more in depth about things or talking about value/ethical topics) then he may be trying to keep a more superficial relationship, and may be only interested in superficial things", again, spot on. Maybe the guy doesn't know how to move a superficial discussion to a deep one, so you may be the one wanting to take the initiative to test him, or maybe he's not interested at all in this which you'll find out soon enough.

R: A man that lacks generosity is not breedable man. I wouldn’t carry on those genes, anyway.

My god, this is poster material.

However, I think you are confusing 2 different things. Generosity doesn't mean that when you're interested in a guy/gal you don't consider yourself and do everything about them without thinking of yourself, that's stupditiy not generosity.

Generosity usually goes towards people that you have nothing to gain from and no interest in. Like helping someone with directions, helping a beggar, helping someone whose car broke down. Doing stuff for people you have nothing to gain from, for the simple act of doing it.

Since when trying to date someone, you already have an interest in them, it goes without saying it's not generosity.

R: A man that lacks generosity is not breedable man. I wouldn’t carry on those genes, anyway. In my opinion, such a man lacks the necessary components to sustaining a family and a firm place in society. Heavy incel vibes.

I can already see through that and don't think you are a very good person (my first impression, could be wrong though). Since you already went for unnecessary buzzwords like "Heavy incel vibes" and "So, probably just be exceptionally evil if you want to get anywhere in life". I don't expect a good person to reply with sarcasm to be like "hah, I got you!". You could have easily made a good point without that, but you had to insert that, not as nice as you think it is of you.

Incidentaly, this goes back to what I said way up above that in my experience, the people who go out of their way to tell you they are the good guys are not necessarily the good guys.

While horseloverfat did call you a troll, so he's no better in this regard, he made some very good points:

R: If you're a troll, good work ma'am. if not and being serious. To assume that everyone is selfless and will expect nothing is how you are taken advantage of. I'm sure it's happening to you, or has been done by you with your attitude. No they do not, everybody has some sort of expectation for actions they take. George price himself showed this indirectly and you can't live without being selfish, it's in human nature. There is nothing wrong with selfishness, that's what the culture has taught us, to value altruism over self interest. Watts talks about the problem with virtue signalling, etc. as well. And stop using slurs they don't help your argument.

I also automatically assumed that someone one must have taken advantage of you at some point, not that I want that to happen to you, but based on your mindset it's just what naturally happens. Everybody has some sort of expectation for actions they take. It's better to appeal to people self-interest than their sense of morality. Do you know why people date in general? why people fall in love? why people make children? self-interest. They do it for themselves because they like it.

To assume otherwise that "they do it for the other person" is a very unfortunately naive look at the world and very wrong. What would it mean for a wife/husband to tell her/his SO "I don't love you, I never loved you, but because you loved me and I wanted to make you happy I married you". My first reaction would be gross. But it's very selfless isn't it?

Selfish and selfless don't exclude each other. They can coexist. We are all selfish, you included. And we all have moments of being selfless, some more than others, it depends on each other's character. But we all have things we want to achieve and are selfish for it, the very fact that we want to achieve things is selfish, and there's nothing wrong with that, because people want stuff, even children want stuff, and I think that's beautiful. I'm more like "oh, come on, he wants it too" rather than "look at that selfish jerk over there how dares he want stuff". Humans have the blessing or the curse of want, however you want to see it, and I think we have to navigate with that, learn it and navigate with it, and at the end of the day I think it's a beautiful thing, because wanting stuff gives life meaning. It's selfish? sure, it's bad? no.

I don't want to further start this discussion or continue a debate, just found your discussion interesting and I wanted to share my 2 cents.

NICE GUYS SIMP, ANOTHER ANGLE, SOME DISAGREEABLENESS:

R: I've been getting into the Big 5 lately. One of the categories is agreeableness. As women are shorter than men on average, women are nicer than men, by about half a standard deviation. There are advantage to being nice, and there are advantages to being not so nice. To a certain extent, nice guys finish last. Less agreeable people earn more than more agreeable people. My theory is that most women prefer a man who is less agreeable than they are. A man can become less nice with some practice, but it takes a lot of effort to stay consistent. Men should do this to improve current relationships. Some men have an unhealthy niceness. Some behaviors like covert contracts, giving to be accepted, and men resenting their wife for decisions made with their wife are unhealthy.

R: Since agreeableness is a core part of personality and not easily changed, men and women should initially choose their partner more wisely. Since women are shorter than men, even a short man can find a wife who is shorter. In the same way, a nice guy can find a woman who is nicer than he is.
----------------- EDIT ---------------
R: Because this was so universally condemned, I thought that I would at least support what I said. Actually, I did some googling and found out that there is research on the topic that women find disagreeable men more attractive. I'm not finding the study now, but I remember there was a study where men who disagreed with their dates on the first date were seen more favorably by women than men who didn't. I may add more studies and articles to this as I find them.

I agree.

I usually think of it like this: women are a lot smaller than men on average, life is far more threatening for women, if I were a man going at 3 AM in a notoriously bad neighbourhood worse case scenario I get robbed, for women, it's not that simple, worse case scenario they get raped. So they need to be extra careful with at. Not only that, but the likelyhood a woman gets raped in a notoriously bad neighbourhood is higher than the likelyhood that I get robbed in a notoriously bad neighbourhood. I'm a pretty muscular guy, they could carry a weapon or knife and I might get robbed but they'll have to pick their chances because they know might I'll put up a fight, so putting up a fight is not worth it so they may be looking for a weaker target. If there's only 1 guy he may almost never try to rob me because he doesn't know how the robbery will turn out. With women, women are a lot physically weaker than men, so if that same guy who wants to rob me wants to rape her, he doesn't even need to consider his chances, he knows he will win.

The notoriously bad neighbourhood is a metaphor for life in this case, it doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen everywhere, but it's something women keep in mind as far as I can tell, the world is a far more dangerous place for women than it is for men.

Now, not all this big muscular guys are brutes, I'm not going there that "all men bad" etc, but some are, so you have to prepare for that. Some are good people, some are bad people, but you don't want to pick your chances with the bad people. I'm not saying all men are bad, but the fact that good men exist doesn't mean that bad men magically poof out of existance.

I remember one time I was at the mechanic to fix my car, and right behind me was this big muscular guy twice my size maybe about 1.95 waiting for his car. He crew impacient and started to help the mechanic, without asking the mechanic, and I was like "wtf is this guy doing with my car". I only thought it, didn't say it, because I hesitated. If the guy was just like me or weaker I would have no issues saying it and even doing something about it. So while I was contemplating there whether to say something or not the mechanic said "hey, wtf are you doing, wait for your turn", he mechanic was a small and weak guy but he had the authority because he was the mechanic. I imagine my comparsion with this big muscular guy of 1.95 cm is how women feel about men all the time "he could beat my ass".

So women live in this more dangerous world with these brutes called men around them, some are good, some are bad, but one thing is clear, men are stronger, they are weaker, men are bigger, they are smaller, they aren't the top of the food chain, the men are, and they have to be extra careful with men because even 1 bad man is enough for a bad experience.

But what if, you could have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side?

What if you could have 1 man around you on your side? preferably one who is good. But what does good mean? morally good and strong. Morally good but capable of violence to protect you. Because that's what this is all about. She doesn't mean good in the same way men mean good when think about women, like innocent and such. She means morally good but perfectly capable to protect her and kick some ass if it comes down to it. She doesn't want a weak man who would run up from a battle because that won't help her with anything, she's already a woman, what does she needs another woman for? or a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot. Even the man is poor, he better do anything to better his lot, to improve himself, otherwise it's unattractive.

It's okay to be poor, it's not okay to excuse yourself from bettering your lot and simply living a life where you will always want to be poor, that's unattractive, ambition in this case is attractive even if you're poor. Not saying you should date based on ambition alone but it's a factor, a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot is unattractive, being poor is excuseable as long as you do something to better your lot, to improve yourself, as long as you have ambition for the grind. Not a man who has resigned himself with what he has. A man who wants to do stuff.

All of this is a methaphore but you get the underlying theme.

Women's advantage over men is that men are attracted to them. So they use that, to sway one of these brutes on their side. (I'm not literally calling men brutes, making a metaphor here to emphasize the size and strength difference between men and women)

This is why nice guys is a problem for women, but nice girls not a problem for men, in fact men prefer girls to be nice. It's not that they are nice, it's that they are weak. Either weak physically or weak willed. They don't have that stepping power in them.

Ok, it's not only the boyfriend/husband the woman has as 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. She has a father, she may have brothers and uncles.

So she certainly knows what's it's like to receive protection from a man, at least she got her from her father. She has been protected by men in her past. But she certainly wants that from her future boyfriend/husband as well.

And there is an interesting statistic here, if you are raised by a single mother, you are 3 times more likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life than if you were raised by both parents. But here's the interesting thing. If you are raised by a single father, you are just as likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life as people raised by both parents. I don't know what the correlation is here, the study didn't draw any conclusions itself either, but certainly there's something about the father role that is important.

After all, the stereotype goes that women with "daddy issues" are "easy prey" not women with "mommy issues". I think it's something about not having a father figure in your life that you can look up to and compare to your father whenever you see a dating material boyfriend/husband. If you have nothing for comparison, you'll take any crap because "that's how men are", if you have a father figure for comparsion you will not take any crap because you already have a standard to compare with "my father isn't like this, this man just sucks, this man is terrible, I shouldn't be treated like this". The father figure in your life allows you to have standards for men, for how men are and how they are supposed to be.

I remember watching the documentary about Marilyn Monroe and my girlfriend was like "what a hoe" while I felt quite sorry for her because I knew where she was coming from. She saw a hoe I saw a big tragedy. Which again, another interesting subject, but women are more likely to call other women "hoes" than men are. When women call women "hoes" it's with hate, when men call women "hoes" (unless he was specifically rejected by her, and does that just to cope) is not out of hate but rather a statement, an analysis, like "yeah, she's a hoe". Because men are "I might not date, marry this women, but certainly I will try to score with her because she's an easy target" while for women it's pure hate, maybe because they take their men off the market or provide easy sex or stuff like that. Same with the body count, men don't feel hate towards women with high body count but rather disgust, repulsed, women on the other hand feel hate. For men, and I've heard this comparsion from a man, easy women are like a low budget supermarket, sure you are not proud to be in one, you will not take selfies to show your friends, or post about it on social media, but are damn happy they exist.

So interesting dynamics there.

Ok, so women want to have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. But the emphasis is on "1", which is not the case for men.

Men can fk around endlessly and leave a trail of 10 single mothers behind them. They don't need to raise a child, they just need to impregnate a woman and the woman will do all the work. They only need to raise a child if they want to, their genes will carry on. So they can easily sleep with 20 women with no consequences (there's alimony now, but that's more of a legal thing than biological, genetic or social thing, it's not something we developed in nature over the years but something we've imposed now).

Women on the other hand, need to carry the baby 9 months in the womb, and when he is small she needs to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him. So the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. They can't just go around and play the numbers' game like men can. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective, if they are going to carry the baby 9 months in the womb and raise him to ensure he survives and becomes an adult she doesn't has time for counterfit genes from weaker men, if they are going to invest in him go through all that trouble for 1 child she needs to make sure it comes from a good man with good genes, this is why women are naturally more selective than men. She needs quality genes. Men don't care.

Again, metaphors, I'm not saying men don't care about their babies, it's that men don't care they can play the numbers game, genetically speaking, where as women have to play the quality game, they must, they can't afford to carry the baby 9 months in the womb, and when he is small she needs to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him, they can't afford to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival since they can't play the number's game, they can't afford to go through all that trouble only for him to have poor genes, genetically speaking, this is how we are biologically inclined to do.

And there are in fact studies confirming this. There was a study where women & men were asked to rate men/women based on attractiveness on a scale from 1 to 7. For men, it's what you would normally expect, most women were rated 4, then women of 3 and 5, then women of 2 and 6, then women of 1 and 7. Kind of average. But for women, most men were rated 2, then men of 1 and 3, then men of 4, then men of 5, then men of 6, then men of 7. It's not that women don't care about looks, women do care about looks a lot more than men in fact. It's that women are way more selective than men when it comes to looks.

So yeah "looks vs personality", "I prefer personality", throw that in the trash.

Just be hot/good looking and she will want you. Simple as that.

And there is another study confirming this. Testosterone, which is the hormone predominant in men, also has the function to make less attractive people seem more attractive. It has the function to make men less selective than women (since by default we are all women in the womb, the Y cz is the last to activate, everything that differentiates a man from a woman is in that Y cz, man is basically like woman patch 1.1, so it needed something added to make men different from women, rather than something removed to make women different from men). In other words, the more testosterone a man has, the less selective he is going to be. This is probably the source of that stereotype that "big ripped muscular guys are more likely to cheat" and why "skinny with glasses are more likely to stay loyal". Like if you think of a feminine man with glasses and skinny or like a K-Pop artist cheating is not the first thing that comes to mind, but if you think of The Rock for example for plenty of women "cheating" would probably be the first thing that comes to mind. Sure, you can also blame it on "having options". But at the same time having options is not the entire story (although I agree it's a factor, a woman might consider a woman may consider a feminine man with glasses and skinny or a K-Pop artist more "safe", due to lack of options, but then again K-Pop artists do have a lot of options reinforcing the idea that this is all biological) because in another study when compared with multiple body types: slender, typical, chubby, toned, built, brawny. Women ranked the one they found most attractive as the and the one they wanted to be in a relationship with different. They ranked brawny the most attractive, and toned & built the one they want to be in a relationship with.

The reason? the women argued that while brawny was the most attractive body type they also found it the most likely to cheat. No reason, it was just an impression. So there seem to be biological reasons for this.

There seem to be biological reasons for this dynamic between testosterone and less selectiveness in women for men who have that testosterone. And women, even if they can't point it out, are subconsciously aware of this. As pointed out above, it's not about the options, because both the toned & built body types and K-Pop artists have plenty of options, but women just consider them more safe. Women want testosterone in a man, enough to be strong, but not enough that you will be very likely to cheat.

It's kind of funny that women are doing the game of make up and trying to look as good as possible where as it's in fact men who should be doing that.

Because men are far more appreciated for their looks than women are. Since women care more about looks since women are more selective while men are less selective, due to testosterone.

Imagine you're this small woman looking to date men and all men are bigger and stronger than you in comparison. Wouldn't you find that strength attractive? the more the better, the stronger he is the better, just not enough to cheat. Like, you look around, and see all these attractive men around you, and not so attractive, some hitting on you, some not hitting on you, while you are scouting for the best genes who would hit on you (or maybe make a move or 2 to him to make it clear you are interested, hopefuly he would hit on you and you get those good genes), of course good looks matter but wouldn't strength also be a factor? strength can protect you, and good looks are good for carrying on to your child so you enjoy having a great child not to mention feeling good in the moment while actually being with that man because you look at his face and get enjoyment out of it, all men being potential gene givers, but you want the best, you want that one with the good genes. You could sleep with any one of them, but you only want to sleep with the best. Because it's not worth it otherwise, not also because of "hoe" but because there's no point. Why? because you like those genes, and because if it comes down to it, it's going to take 9 months for you to invest in a child and a further lifetime of investment to actually raise that child, while in theory a man could just disappear, so you are looking for a moral one with a strong family commitment while also having those good genes I was talking about.

Like literally as a man imagine you're shorter than a woman and women are stronger than you and you have to carry the child.

So I said above that "so the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective. They can't go around with counterfeit genes that they don't want for 9 months, and then raise those counterfeit genes", but that's not the whole story.

Because women actually want 2 things: (1) good genes, (2) a man that will commit.

Yes, I talked above about good genes, but it's not enough that he has good genes and just leaves. That's how single moms become single moms. Women want a man who will commit, a good man, a morally good man, who also happens to have good genes and is good looking. And don't forget strength, as we discussed, women like strength. Because we live in this world where women lack strength and they want that in a partner.

In fact, have you ever heard a woman saying "feeling protected", as a compliment. Like "I'm feeling protected with you". It's cute. But I have never heard it the other way around, a man telling a woman "I'm feeling protected with you" or even in boys talk I never heard a man saying "yeah bro, I'm feeling protected with her". He's feeling a lot of great things with her but protected is not one of them.

Yes, they want strong quality genes that they will be glad and happy to have, but they also want, a father for their child.

Which is why paternal investment is a big thing for a woman. Such a big thing. Why does a woman like when a man pets a dog? if women want men to be all this strong aggressive brutes who protect them but loves them, like this total brute and evil man except for 1 thing that he loves them (have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side) that wouldn't make sense, because it's already there, what does it matter if he pets a dog or not? heck what does it matter if he's a good person or not as long as he loves you? but there's a sense behind that - paternal investment.

Women don't just want a good partner, they want a good father for their children as well.

As men, this is easy to overlook, because paternal investment is a big deal for women, or potential paternal investment.

"If he was to have a child, would he be invested in it?", women want to hear an "yes", and to see by behavior and actions a behavior that reflects an "yes".

It's is why you can't be just a bad boy. You need to be a bad boy and a nice guy. A bad guy and a good guy. In the specific sense mentioned above. Strong, good looks, willing to take a fight, all that good stuff, masculinity and so on, things women like and find attractive, while also a paternal investment side, a more sensitive and soft side. Literally, a few weeks ago I was in a park with a group of friends, and there was a couple with a 1 years old child next to us, the guy was huge, twice to 3 times the size of the woman, but he was so gentle, playing with the child and such, hugging his wife and such, and generally seeming like being a good human being, and all the women in the group found that so attractive. That man had all the masculinity you could ask for, but he was also such a soft and gentle guy. If there was a fight, there's no doubt that guy could mop the floor with anyone, including myself. But because he was such a soft and gentle guy, I don't think he would mop the floor with me, he would defuse the situation, he seemed like that kind of guy, even though he could.

I know I went around the corner with this one but I hope you can see how my answer intersects with your original post. Yes, you need to be a bad guy as well, in a very specific sense. Also a good guy, in a very specific sense. A weak defenseless guy is not that good guy in a very specific sense, he is weak, like a rabbit, and nobody likes the rabbit. If you had to pick from a list of animals which animal you would become, would you pick the cobra, or the tiger, or the rabbit? almost nobody would pick the rabbit because he's weak, defenseless, and there's no value or honor in that. You might pick a dog, a certain strong big breed of dog, who you know is powerful and big but also has a good soul at the end of the day. Which non-ironically but sarcastically and metaphorically I think it is what women pick when it comes to men. A dog of breed, someone who is strong, and powerful, but also has a good soul and a good heart. That good specific combo between a bad boy and a nice guy I was talking about.

Even in countries, why so many countries have their emblem as the eagle? like there's literally so much with an eagle as the emblem. And not a rabbit or a worm for example? because one is weak and defenseless while the other one has that aggressiveness. Sure, you wouldn't call an eagle a company animal like a dog, but these are countries not women we are talking about, they are not looking for that paternal investment.

They are a predator, a territorial animal that's preying on others, the rabbit is not the norm when it comes to countries picking their emblem, the eagle is.

That's not to say women go around thinking "will this be a good father?", likely it doesn't even cross their mind, it's subconscious.

Just like men don't know why make up makes women more attractive to them, it just does. They don't see the cause, or the reason, just the result, it's a subconscious process.

For women, when they are younger say 13-18, the ideal male while still attractive is more of a "boyish prince charming" type of good looks. Not beta but not alpha either. He also has a sweet sensitive side, not alpha. He has outwards strength that he displays to the rest of the world, which signals that he can protect. But he is on the nurturing side and can take care of them as well.

As the grow older, they start to become more interested in more Chad more masculine type of looks. But still with that sweet sensitive side to them that not everybody sees. To have a bit of generosity and do things for other. Why? because that shows paternal investment, it shows they are less likely to cheat and more likely to stay with the child. They don't want a brute, they want a nice guy who can be a brute. A nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind.

Not a weak-willed "beta" simp either, that's not very fitt-y with the nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind, it's actually quite weak and submissive, and I talked in the beginning about being a weak or weak-willed man, either weak physically or weak willed, not the way to go. Simps who think they just need to simp harder and then they will get the girl are just ridiculous.

In fact, funny thing, there are simps out there who think that if the "good men would dissapear" then they would have a chance. Like, if there was a 2-to-1 ration of women-to-men they will have a chance. No they won't. Because women will still have the preferences that they have and they just won't be one of them. In fact, if that would be the case and top 50% the most attractive men would dissapear, women would be more likely and more willing to share the "good leftovers", the few good looking and hot men left, than to pair with the simps even if 1 on 1. By a simp I imagine the stereotpyical fat man living in his mom's basement jerking off of anime and simping for Belle Delphine. Who just think that if they just, invest harder, they will see how much he loves her and she will finally want to be with him just for the simple fact that he loves her that much despite him provinding no value. I saw a TikTok once like "omg, I love you so much, this is all my life savings, I hope you will do great with them, I love you so much" and the girl was like "wow, thanks dude, but you know, it's your poverty. Hey babe, someone just gave us 10.000$" and the title was "POV you're a simp".

So if you take something from this, be hot, and paternal investment also help. But literally above all else, be hot, that's all it takes to be instantly attractive to women. Have good genes (when I said that I don't mean literally, because you can't change your genes, but genes translate as good looks, so it's literally 'take care of your face and your body', it doesn't matter if you are an IQ of 9000 or own 7 companies and have 3 Bugatti of a color Andrew Tate likes, if you don't have good looks you don't have good genes according to biology, but good looks is something you can work on. You can be born good looking and be lucky, good looks and allow yourself to fall off by not taking care of yourself, or born bad looking and literally max out your looks by taking care of yourself by making improvements and then you will see results, good looks translates to good genes, but our brain doesn't know that it's actually good genes + talking care of yourself = good looks, because in the ugga bugga time you didn't really had time to take care of yourself, so men and women likewise had to work with what they had, what they saw in front of them).

HOW TO DATE MEN, THE BAD:



Reading the room, I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that the existence of this topic triggered her, thus her reply of okay but what do you bring to the plate in order for women to want to date you? asking for the audience and later not respecting OP's boundaries that he just wants to opt out of this thread, because nothing screams maturity more than the inability to accept different opinions.

This topic was made as a sarcastic response to another topic "How NOT to Date Women", specifically pointing out that everyone has to learn HOW to date women and not how not to date. So it was made not to be that helpful.

Aarya and Inveniet made a great point in that other topic:


With his mother being like "all these years of planning, waster!", planning all the time and not giving a crap about her son, or development.

But the real beauty & the tragedy of that movie is that when he asked a genuine question in genuine ignorance, no one bothered to tell him the answer, but just used various tactics to shame him.

Which is so amazing and so much what kinda happens today.

R: The tragedy of that movie is that when he asked a genuine question in genuine ignorance,
no one bothered to tell him the answer, but just used various tactics to shame him.

I see the same attitude here in this thread a lot, these people are Betas so they do not require respect.
We all have an inbuilt aversion to help people who have gotten stuck on the romantic front.
I guess we deep down know how f***ed they are, and the males think, great less competition
and the women think, get away from me creep.

That being said, the OPs attempt to correct them is morally noble.
Sadly the issue is too complex and convoluted for any relevant critique having any chance to work.

Hence why her hand will always be forced to reject them at some point.
Sadly she want to be fair and give things a chance to play out,
which makes it seem to me that she doesn't trust the information she had beforehand to make a judgement call on character.
It is ironic that she on this site have all the information available to make a judgement call on character preemptively,
yet her moral imperative to be fair override this solution.
It may be that she doesn't trust the systems accuracy enough or her own capability as a typologist to make such calls,
so she instead opts for tests that also put her in situations that frustrates her enough to make a dedicated thread to complain about it.
/R

I wouldn't say inbuilt aversion (although the great less competition & get away from me creep are good points; it's like you either naturally get this or you don't), but I would say people are far quicker to point out fingers and be like "you wrong ahole" than actually provide useful information. So much easier to shame people than actually explain what you think they did wrong.

But then we expect all people to be great at it, despite not teaching people how to be great at it. And then when someone comes and teaches how to be great at it, it's the first that's met with adversion.

There's also a lot of wrong information out there, as well as a lot of information that works but might be considered offensive by a particular group of people for one reason or another (breaks their world vision) so they have every incentive to mock it or cancel it if they can. Well, it's offensive to you but it's true, does that mean reality is offensive? Andrew Tate for example, I think he's wrong about some things and right about some things, not 100% agree with him, but on the things I agree with him I can almost always see some people triggered by it despite the fact that those things work, I've seen them work, so what are you really triggered about? that men become great at it? that you don't like how men become great at it? that you would rather have some men not have any dates or girlfriends so that you would feel good about yourself? going back to that inbuilt aversion part.

It's celebrated in western society to exploit men financially, but if a guy like me comes in and says "yo, play the same game that they play, and you exploit them without giving up the money, and you bang them", oh, you're a toxic misogynist. You're a jerk. You're an ahole. Blah blah blah blah blah. All I'm saying is this, the game has changed, and you need to learn to know how to play the game with these new rules, because chivalry is dead and women killed it, so sorry not sorry for not wanting to be the chivalrous simp that lusts after women but gets none but the guy that actually ends up with the women, if chivalry worked men would be more chivalrous because it worked, but that's not how it works, you don't get women for being chivalrous, so men are not interested in being chivalrous anymore. Have you ever heard of the guy that's so chivalrous and has tons of women at its door? me neither. But if you ask women they want chivalry, but somehow you don't see the results, because they want chivalry from a simp that will orbit them, maybe be in the friendzone, not from the man they actually want to be with and actually want to date. So yeah, chivalry is dead and women killed it, it's not men, it's women's preferences, because men don't do things randomly, they respond after the women's preferences, they respond after what works on women, and chivalry is not it. Simple as that. A lot of women would say that it does, but you simply don't see the results, that's because there are no results, all the results are in the friendzone, and occasionally the hot boyfriend who is also chivalrous but she's not with him for his chivalrous side that's just an extra nice to have.

So why be the chivalrous guy when you can be the ahole, the fk boy that they want to talk crap about. "Oh, he's a jerk, he's an ahole", the bad boy that they try to shame, but they sleep with on the side because they like it. Of course men want to be that guy, that guy who wins, not the simp who stays on the side. The game has changed, we live in a deregulated sexual marketplace now. The girls have 100% selection on who smashes and who doesn't, they have all the cards, for any time of wiggle room to play this game and win you got to play by the same set of rules that they do, which is not giving a crap what they think and you playing it for your win. No birkin bags and all the other sucker crap.

There's a lot of men of accusing women "they don't truly love" and a lot of women accusing men "they don't truly love", which I believe they are both right for a certain demographic, there are women who truly love and there are men who truly love, and there are women and men who don't and are only in it for their own interest. Like the gold digger who is celebrated in America and the fk boy who everybody hates but apparently everybody sleeps with otherwise he would not be a fk boy, you don't hear about a 30 years old fat virgin living in his basement with adolescent moustache and glasses that he's a fk boy for some reason, he hasn't even reached 1 body count. There's a lot of women who truly love and truly are there for you, but also a lot of women who marry a lifestyle, I mean there's women who marry a lifestyle, because who is the first one gone when he loses his job? her. What's one of the number one indicators that you're gonna get divorces in America? the man loses his job. So that's where the stereotype that "women can't love in the same that like men can love" comes from. There are women who actually care about the man, but also women that like once you lose what you have like a lot of times women leave. Kind of like men fall in love ideally, ideologically, romantically, because there's no strings attached, like "I don't care baby, I don't care what you do, I don't care what you make, I don't care what your career is, I love you" and there are women like that too, and then there some women like "I love you, but I also love your mansion, and your house, and your car", but at the end of the day, I think the gold diggers are mostly men's fault, because they didn't make sure that that woman is interested in them, in what they have, in what they can provide, in what they can bring to the table in terms of personality and good looks, rather than what they have, if you lead with money, rather than yourself, you're going to become nothing more than an ATM, women who are not interested in that will not be interested in you, and women who are interested in that will jump on you, it's a self-selection process. So yeah, you got to make sure that the woman is in it for you, not your money or cars.

When it comes to gold diggers, women are not loyal towards guys, so why should guys be loyal towards women? Think of it this way, 80% of divorces are precipitated by women, not only that, 50% of women in relationships have admitted to having a back up plan in the event that the relationship fails, not only that, 10% to 30% of babies out there are being raised illegitimately by the wrong father because the father believes his wife was loyal to him but in fact it was the DNA of another man. Huge statistics in USA. So what do we make of this? Guys are hardwired to try and fix a relationship when the relationship fails, marriage counseling, negociate, be your best, do more duties. The reality is you cannot negociate attraction. If she is not into you, she is manipulating you, all the rules are being broken, the good faith is gone, and she has no morals and you need to be able to walk away from that relationship, if she is not being good, respectable and faithful to you, at the end of the day you as a guy deserve your dignity. And if she's not giving you the respect that you deserve you need to go stand up and leave you deserve better. Too often women are abused and that is not acceptable, but somehow is acceptable and tolerable for men to be shamed and humiliated and being nagged on and so and so forth. Men need to be able to get up, recognise that you don't deserve to be manipulated and abused and you need to leave a relationship if that relationship is not serving your best purpose. If you attract with money you'll end up an ATM. I see in the culture today the beleif that 'women attract with looks, men attract with money'. Which I think it's completely wrong, it's actually 'women attract with looks, men attract with looks'. You attract with what you are, you don't attract with what you have, if she's not attracted to you but your belongings, she's not attracted to you, she's attracted to what you have. I'm not talking about the cases where a rich guy wants some sleeping around and uses money to get a one night stand. If you want one night stands it's 100% legit to use money to get you where you want to go, not paying for hookers but use money to impress. But I'm talking about the cases where a guy wants something with depth, a genuine relationship with care and sensitivity but pours a lot of money in. That's where you end up losing with the money strategy. And yes, paying for the first date is usually the nice thing to do as a guy, although in my experience the biggest indicator to see whether a girl is genuinely interested in me is whether she is or is not financially invested. It's not about the sum, it's about the fact that if she is not financially interested in the relationship, she is not interested in the relationship.

It's because that communicates interest. So investment of a woman in you financially speaking can be a big indicator of interest, if not the biggest. This is why whether she pays for things on the 3rd date is important. If a girl likes a guy, she is willing to financially invest in him. Not for the sake of the money but for the sake of this. If a girl finds you attractive and puts money on the table, you know she is genuinely interested. You can see if a woman likes you if she's financially invested in you, because then she sees you as a long-term financial investment, not just someone to be used. In reverse-gender scenario, I don't think that works the same way because (a) men are expected to pay. And (b) men are willing to financially invest even when they don't really care about the woman and just wants to sleep around with her. As a woman, you just have to select the quality one, by that I mean morally. There's plenty of guys trying to do that. To lead with money. Rather than with themselves. But remember, rabbits can have one human who feeds them and one human who they like best. The same is true for humans. Maybe those guys are thinking that if he just puts enough money, maybe she will love him. Doesn't work like that. We don't love people simply because they do just too many good enough things for us. - You attract with what you are. How they feel around you. Handsome. Personality. And character. Just doing good stuff for her and hoping it will work, doesn't work like that, you need to be attractive yourself, with what you are. You need to attract as in pull towards you. Not with what you have, or with what you do, meaning too many services that will end up with her appreciating it but her not wanting you for it. And yes, you can see this coming, I bet the man who ended up in a relationship with a gold digger saw the signs but he ignored them or he just didn't care about them, the fact that the woman didn't love him, because he was too busy simping.

If I feel good with this man, I'm attracted to him. If I don't feel good with this man, I'm not attracted to him. Simple as that. How many money you pour in is irrelevant. If you are almost broke and she feels great with you - she might be willing to financially invest in you yourself. If you are rich but she's not attracted to you at all meaning she doesn't like your personality at all and your looks are terrible - if she's not a gold digger, she just leaves, if she is a good digger, she hooks up with you but while thinking of others.

5 guys in friendzone? screw that, they are called orbiters, call those guys orbiters. They are orbiting around you waiting to get at you. You think someone is going to marry you with 5 guys in the friendzone? and let you keep those relationships and go to dinner with them, go to gym with them, you think a guy who values himself is going to allow that? So, you marry a guy and he has Jay Lo and Rihanna, Selina Gomez, he has all these girls in the friendzone, are you okay with it? I'm going to go to lauch with Selina Gomez. Jay Lo just hit me up, I'm going to go train with her, it's okay wife I'll be back. Are you okay with that? so why would he be okay with that?

Her revenge on you is instant, her revenge on you is running and getting on a boat and sleeping with 5 guys and going out to party and you're sitting at home alone. Her revenge on you is instant, your revenge takes a little bit longer, your revenge is gonna become using that sadness using that sorrow to become such an amazing man that she realises she fked up. So if you get to take that sadness and sorrow and truly become the man that you know you can become, then your then your victory comes, it's maybe a little bit delayed but it's certainly not least coming and you should be excited about that. You need to look that, there will be a day where she regrets the decision she made, there will be a day where she understands that she fked up and her life would have been better if she kept you, and you're going to prove it to her, that's what you have to do, you have to go do it, and you can do that. Like the sk8er boi song.

The gentleness that a woman asks from a man that is a monster otherwise. Imagine a park, a rugby player, former rugby player, big man, 2 meters, 120 kg, with a minion woman, somewhere under his shoulder, him pushing a baby carriage, you can't see the baby carriage from him, and she gives him indications, she keeps him from the arm, and tells him "here", and him in a gentleness, assumed gentleness, protects, he's like a bubble, like a sphere, around them. It's an interesting image. Why does that giant work at a level of gentleness? for a man to end up that way, he must have passed through so much gruesome and wars. The gentleness that a woman asks from a man who is a monster otherwise, because as a man you are born a monster, men are monsters, they see only wars, only. He must have seen battlefields, to have had fights with wounds with blood, hands, legs, for him to end up being gentle. The most gentle of men are the most passed through the forks of life.

Since we talked about gold diggers, it's only fair we talk about men. Dark thing, some men marry the woman in front of them at the time they are ready to get married. You want to know why this statement might actually be true? From my experience with previously married men, one of the questions I would ask a previously married man is "when did you know that you were no longer in love with your ex-wife?", their response? "they day of the wedding". Not all previously married men, but let's say 9 out of 10 respond that way. Men don't necessarily marry because they are in love. And that stuff is scary. So yeah, men, don't do that, women, be careful for that.

Women are hypergamous, which means they will marry across and up hierarchies, socioeconomic hierarchy but competence hierarchy is really at the bottom of it. And so, when you set up a situation where there's far more women than there are men in a given domain, say where mate selection can take place, most of the men still don't do very well, because most of them are still rejected by women, but a small minority of men do extraordinarily well if you think well means unlimited amount of sexual access and so what's happening in American universities is that a small minority of men have sexual card blash in some sense, and most men are in the same position that most men are always in, most young men are always in, which is they're in a state where they're not particullary desireable to women. And then the women of course are terribly frustrated because the minority of men that they would really like to have long term relationships with, it's a seller's market for those men.

The average looking promiscuous girls think they deserve everything, they don't realise until they get to their 30s and their 40s, there's no one waiting for them at the finish line, Chad and Tyrone are gone and they're gonna want you Jimmy, and then what will happen is they'll get with you Jimmy, you give them the ring, you disregard their past, you disregard that Chad and Tyrone were pounding and throwing her back to the street, you disregard that Chad and Tyrone were running trains on her, you'll disregard all of that, you'll wife her up, you'll marry her, she'll get tierd of you cause you don't do it like Chad and Tyrone, then she'll divorce you, she will take half.

"If a man is asking me about the body count, he can get fked. Who gives a fk? omg, that's so stupid, people actually ask that crap? okay, then you're talking to the wrong men. If a man is ever asking about your body count you're talking to the wrong man". That's all cope. She can say this, she can smile, she can be happy, all that she can say, all that right now. Because she got a lot of guys validating her right there, validating creating this ego, because those men want to sleep with her, but when she turns 30s, 40s, the older she gets, she's more single. She's going to become more and more single, more and more desperate, more and more depressed, more and more bitter, because she couldn't take self-accountability in her 20s. She couldn't make a change, she didn't get educated, why do guys care about body count? to avoid all of this.

For some reason, some women have this opinion that men don't have the right to choose. Men just have to accept what women give us and that's it. You have the right to wear what you want, wear as much make up as you want, dress as you want, put on as many tattoos as you want, sleep with as many men as you want, have as many kids by men that don't want you and just slept with you and now left as you want, men that don't want to marry you, get as overweight as you want, you can do whatever you want. But what you cannot do is tell me I should accept you for who you are. No, I have standards. You made decisions, and if my standards do not meet the decisions that you've made, we are not a match. It's as simple as that. I am allowed to choose the woman that I see fit to have a relationship with and carry on my legacy. But for some reason, I'm toxic and misogynistic when I don't want that woman you have become, please tell me how it works, please tell me how that makes sense.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 12:49 pm
@Apothecary,
HOW TO DATE MEN, THE VERY VERY GOOD:

Points 6 and 7 sound good in theory, but aren't as easy in practice, thus my text.

Golddiggers and fk boys who sleep with you and leave wouldn't be a thing if all it took was realize the other person is being fake.

I don’t think she loved you to begin with if she leaves you over a job. So be careful with women who "marry a lifestyle".

You can have the standard of being golddiggers, chivalry killers, friendzoners, revengeful, hypergamous, etc. And men can have the standard of not wanting that, simple as that.

If you don't want to end up with a gold digger, you have to learn how to protect yourself from golddiggers, what's wrong with that?

There's a lot of men of accusing women "they don't truly love" and a lot of women accusing men "they don't truly love", there are both women and men who truly love.

But there is a certain demographic of men and women who don't and are only in it for their own interest. Like the gold digger who is celebrated in America and the fk boy who everybody hates but apparently everybody sleeps with otherwise he would not be a fk boy.

There's a lot of women who truly love and truly are there for you, but also a lot of women who marry a lifestyle, I mean there's women who marry a lifestyle, because who is the first one gone when he loses his job? her. What's one of the number one indicators that you're gonna get divorces in America? the man loses his job. So that's where the stereotype that "women can't love in the same that like men can love" comes from.

There are women who actually care about the man, but also women that like once you lose what you have like a lot of times women leave.

I guess it's not about developing an emotional connection but about loving what you can provide, your utility. Once that utility is gone, they are gone. Developing an emotional connection with the other person where you 'get' each other, is out of the question, because it's all about money. Or they can be very sneaky about it like "yeah, I get you" but are really in for the money.

To love a person you got to get to know the person, I assume that doesn't happen when it's about money. There's no heart there, no care, no sensitivity. But a love for the lifestyle they provide.

There's women who care about you, but how do you differentiate those from the rest? like literally, if you were a rick man, say a CEO, a 25 years old CEO (hard but bear with me) and were into dating, how would you tell the difference between the women who really like you for you, and the women who like you for your money? seems like a legit question. There's women who are in love with the man not with the object, but how do you tell them apart?

For love to be real you got to love the person not the things.

My "solution" to this is don't show off you're rich at first and attract with what you are. If you lead with money you're going to get burned.

Money don't work, be a partner not a provider, the provider clause: If you lead with gold not going to make much. Animals can have one person who feeds them and one person they like.

The sad part is, some people attract with money because that's the only thing they have, they don't have the looks, they don't have the personality, they don't have the emotions.

So they lead with money, but they still don't like you, they like your money. And I think everyone in that situation is subconsciously aware of this.

There's also the fool's dream, "maybe if I invest enough in her she will realise how much I love her", no, doesn't work like that. Attraction is a pull not a push.

If she's not attracted to what you are, if she's not emotionally invested in you, she's not invested in you.

As for chivalry, it is exactly because women have standards that chivalry is dead. Because chivalry is not one of their standards.

Who would you rather be, the chivalrous simp that lusts after women but gets none, or the guy that actually ends up with the women?

If chivalry worked men would be more chivalrous simply because it worked, but that's not how it works, you don't get women for being chivalrous, so men are not interested in being chivalrous anymore.

Have you ever heard of the guy that's so chivalrous and has tons of women at its door? me neither.

But if you ask women they want chivalry, but somehow you don't see the results, because they want chivalry from a simp that will orbit them, maybe be in the friendzone, not from the man they actually want to be with and actually want to date.

So why be the chivalrous guy when you can be the ahole, the fk boy that they want to talk crap about. "Oh, he's a jerk, he's an ahole", the bad boy that they try to shame, but they sleep with on the side because they like it?

What about men eh? We talked about women, let's talk about the guys who are Nice Guy TM.

In my experience, the best way to figure out the difference between a nice guy genuinely and a nice guy TM is the latter talks about how nice he is like it's some sort of achievement. No, it's just the basic human decency, it's not a superpower. They see niceness as one of his defining characteristics, I AM NICE, and feels entitled to stuff just because he's nice. Like, yeah, I got no value, no good looks, no making you feel good around me, no funny, no engaging, no attractive, no depth, no emotional connection with you where we get each other, and are on each other's side, BUT I'M NICE, SO DATE ME. WHY WON'T YOU? ALL WOMEN ARE THE SAME.

Like bro, being nice is cool but it's definetly not a superpower.
Won't get you women, it's literally what everybody expects from you, to be nice. It doesn't mean women will get to you if you're being nice.

It's good that you're nice, but what else do you have from there moving forward?

Instead of realising it's about good looks, social intelligence, and hit the gym, he's all like I DESERVE STUFF BECAUSE I'M A NICE GUY. But being nice is not enough.

And not only that, in my experience, the people who go out of their way to tell you they are the good guys are not necessarily the good guys. Are almost always not the good guys. But bad guys who think they are superiorly moral superior and their superiorly moral superiority allowes them to do the most bad stuff ever because they think of themselves as the good guys.

Like social media or ads manipulation. If you think that ads don't fool you, you're most likely to be fooled by ads. If you think that your moral superiority is so grand you can't mess up, you're most likely to mess up and already be a bad person due to your infallible belief in your absolute moral superiority over the others.

It's actually people who think "I'm not a saint" who are more moral than these guys. Because they do self-check themselves, unlike these other guys who are absolutely convinced of their moral superiority.

It's like in politics where everybody calls the other party "satan". If the other party is "satan" then there's no amount of bad things you would do that it's really bad, because you're actually fighting satan, you're actually the hero. If you start to realise that the people on the other side are actually people, then you might have a problem.

"In war, one of the most effective propaganda tools is to dehumanize your enemy, because if they are human, what does that make you?" (paraphrasing someone whose name I actually forgot, a WW2 general)

I find a set up when someone actually tries to date you kind of cute. Even if I'm not interested, I actually appreciate them for the effort.

Like "wow, this person is actually something if they tried to went through so much trouble". I will politely decline saying I'm not interested, but I sure appreciate the gesture, if anything they increased in my eyes, even if I'm not interested in them.

Like "wow, they are something".

There are some people for whom the difference between someone planning a "set up date to you" is "cute" or "creppy" depends on how good looking they are, I think that's kind of a hypocrisy, and I appreciate the effort even if they are not that good looking.

So I would go with nice guy genuinely in this case. There are no signs of nice guy TM as far as I can tell.
Like "hey, I appreciate your effort, but I'm not interested". I'm kind of impressed. It's a plesant surprise to me, at least.

He should have just stayed in his corner, in the friendzone? no. Going for it and taking your chance is the best thing you can do. The guy did noting wrong in my opinion, he did good.
Asking you out or even planning a "set up" date, even if you're not interested, is good.
He don't know whether you're interested or not until he actually sees it. Extra bonus points for trying to make the moment special.

Having some moment of getting to knowing each other helps, maybe through text. And then like asking out for a date, "hey, would you like to go for a coffe with me?". "Would you like to go for a coffe with me", but also look for the choosing signals, when a woman is interested, she usually makes it clear, with her body language. She's also interested in the chat, she keeps the discussion engaging and such. It's also your job to make the discussion engaging, because it won't happen overnight, if she's not interested maybe the discussion wasn't engaging enough for her to have any interest in it, for her to like her discussion with your or your personality, or maybe you weren't good looking enough. Because looks can literally carry you, if you have good looks, you don't even need to be engaging for a "spark" to be there, they will be engaging in the first place in your turn. It's kinda cute and innocent, very beautiful.

Speaking of the "spark":

In my experience, for most people, and for the most healthy relationships, it takes a while for the sparks to show up, as you discover his and her personality. As you get to know each other. As you get to discover the person there is underneath. Maybe they are very polite and engaging, with a lot of emoji, maybe they are very deep, with a lot of depth in a lot of interesting discussions, maybe they are very emotional able to talk about feelings and be vulnerable and such, maybe they are a real good team player and very supportive, etc. The point is getting to know the person through text. Get to know the person a bit so it doesn't feel awkward, then ask them out. When you ask them out, they already have a slight idea of who you are so it won't be awkward.

If you have instant sparks that just mean he's a very good player. That friend of mine in the club was very good at creating instant sparks. Like instant sparks, you just get to know him and there's sparks. It's not real sparks, he just makes all the right moves and "creates spark". It's not a spark built with depth and with getting to know each other, getting to know the person there is as above, a more mature spark based on getting to know each other, having an interaction and getting each other. It wasn't the woman, it was him. Making all the right moves. So I wouldn't count on "sparks" if you want a long and fulfilling relationship. These things can develop in time, if they do develop, as you get to know each other's personality. If they develop instantly as soon as you know the person, you're probably dealing with a player.

What women really want? In a man, not in the money he has I think. (feel free to contradict me if you think otherwise)

But I also have plenty of experience in the field so I speak from that angle.

The point is to establish an emotional connection with them.

That's what this is really all about. Only after you've established an emotional connection with them you can really talk about a relationship and ask them out.

Only when they get to know you a bit, and you get to know them a bit, the real you, as I said above. Because when you get to know each other a bit and have a lot of depth with each other, or at least a little bit of depth, it won't be awkward when you ask them out, they actually know who is asking them out so you have an increased chance of them saying "yes".

This is why asking random people out like those "pick-up artists" do is just stupid in my opinion. It doesn't work like that. Most people would not a go out with a stranger. Let alone a stranger they know nothing about. Let some depth develop there, some getting to know develop there, to "feel their soul" and "they feel yours" and then ask them out. And have a bit of fun there as well, in your conversations, if you're interested and have subjects in common this should be easy, or jokes, jokes about things you know you have in common, or jokes about things you know she will like. That's how you develop an emotional connection, with depth and fun in texting.

Before texting it was just the first date, or simply talking with them normally and then asking them out, but now, texting is an advantage. If you know how to use it that's it, to develop an emotional connection. To get to know each other, all the stuff mentioned above. To "touch each other's heart" so to speak while having fun in the process. If you're both interested, this should be easy and flawless. Since you're both interested in getting to know each other and having fun with each other. If only you are interested you should make them interested. By having the same kind of conversation that would arouse their interest, by having a deep and fun conversation with them, keeping them engaged, so at the end of the day they like you. And they get to know you. Sometimes on the fun side, sometimes on the deep side, the point is they get to know you so you're not a stranger anymore, and you get to know them, and when you ask them out you both sort of know what to expect, sort of, because you've got previous interactions and got to know each other a bit. As I said, no good to ask out when strangers, get to know each other first, a bit, through text, have a fun time, then ask them out, as at that point they will know what to expect, it's also at that time that they will give choosing signals if they are interested. Interested, depends on how well your conversation when, how much fun you both had, how much they got to know you, and you got to know each other, and on a side note and second note, of how good looking you are. Because as I said, if you're really good looking looks can literally carry you without needing any of that stuff. Like if you're a 7 or an 8 looks is already a pretty big advantage over the rest, and they might be the ones engaged with you, and you on the receiving end, but if that's not the case, you got to be the one engaging, making them feel great, and look for what you have in common, and talk about that, and have fun, all while laughing and getting to know each other, getting to discover each other, share, don't overshare, but share, so that you can "step into each other's heart", even having a deep discussion, a philosophical one so to speak, but not too philosophical, while also having fun on the side, having fun on the side is very important, it's what keeps the discussion engaging, as I said, look for things in common and laugh about that, look for similarities, so that you'll have a pretty good idea about each other.

So, so emotional connection, got it, but what do women really want?

Establish an emotional connection to be a dating material. And then there's the physical part.

Women live in a world of big men, big and strong men, almost all men are bigger and stronger than them. But what if, you could have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side?

What if you could have 1 man around you on your side? preferably one who is good. But what does good mean? morally good and strong. "Good" for women, is different than "good" for men. For men it's mostly about innocence, for women it means good and strong, and of course preferably good looking, and all that emotional connection stuff I was talking about. Morally good but capable of violence to protect you. That's what good means to women. Because that's what this is all about. She doesn't mean good in the same way men mean good when think about women, like innocent and such. She means morally good but perfectly capable to protect her and kick some ass if it comes down to it.

She doesn't want a weak man who would run up from a battle because that won't help her with anything, she's already a woman, what does she needs another woman for?
Decent? sure. Seeking for a resolution? sure. Seeking to defuse the conflict? sure. But not a man who would run with the tail between his legs the moment a conflict arrives.
And a resourceful man, a man who knows how to handle himself. A man who knows how to navigate his way around life. Because it implies competence, and that is attractive to women.
It's not the best, probably in the order I mentioned it here, with emotional connection being first, then looks, then strong and masculine, being able to handle in a fight, then this, resourceful.
It's a plus, a very big plus if you're able to handle yourself, actually.
Or a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot. Even the man is poor, he better do anything to better his lot, to improve himself, otherwise it's unattractive.
Like even if you're poor, in spite of the stereotypes most of the women I've interacted with had no problem with her man being poor. It's her man wanting to stay poor that's a problem.

Heck, I don't think women are half as materialistic as the stereotypes make them out to be, they have other priorities, it's the man. How attractive he is, how good looking he is, that emotional connection I was talking about, ambition, whether he wants to better his lot in life, resourcefulness, whether he is able to handle himself, that strong and masculine stuff paired with emotional connection, etc. It's mostly about the man. It's more often about the man than what he has. Because they are attracted to the man if it comes down to it, not what he has.

They want a good man, they want "quality genes" so to speak, the money and all other stuff comes on the second place. If they have a good man, they could settle with less money, or even no money, or even them being the provider. I've seen these cases.

In fact, I've seen women better at being self-sacrificing than men, as long as they love the man.

Like what would a woman do who loves a man, you wouldn't believe. Loyal is not even enough to describe it.

Why do you think women stay in all those abusive relationships? why do you think they are loyal? they love the man. Loyal in spite of it all, I don't know how many men are able to do that.
I'm not saying that's healthy, I'm saying that's what it happens.
It's actually a compliment, but it has bad consequences, I would advise leaving, but the very fact that they don't leave because they love the man in spite of it all says it all.

Like, how to understand if a girl is attracted in general? There's plenty of "nice guys" memes like this: The meme (I can't find it) went something like this: "There is a guy in my DM's that's just a little too nice and he seems boring" -> Clown level 1. "I found an exiciting guy who is great at sex and makes me feel dangerous" -> Clown level 2. "We didn't use contraceptives and now I am pregnant with the baby of a guy who won't return my phone calls or texts" -> Clown level 3. "All men should have mandatory vasectomies" -> Clown level 4.

What, "wahmen bad", except: What these guys miss is that, they are really like: I'm a guy who is bitter about women - clown stage 1. Women like dangerous guys with strength and I'm neither - clown stage 2. Women like handsome men even if they have some bad qualities and I'm ugly - clown stage 3. I'm actually envious of that guy who slept with that woman and avoided that nice guy with no good/attractive qualities like me so I'm going to be bitter about it and make a post about it - clown stage 4.

You see the problem? You want to be that guy? be that guy. But you can't. They want to be that guy, but they can't. And that's what really annoys you, that's what you're really bitter about, that you aren't good enough, that you can't be as good as that guy. Not about the injustice done to that woman or that woman's double standards.

But let's not talk about them, let's talk about the woman: Why does this keep happening? because they love that man so much. The guys above are really just bitter about women and that's their way to justify their bitterness. But: Attraction matters, and they just missed that part. Sure, they might be "nice" but they are also "boring", not attractive. They actually want women to change their standards and pick them rather than play by women's standards. Not going to happen, women won't change their standards because you are bitter about it, better learn to play by their standards. It leads to far more success than otherwise. Women like a good looking man. A hot sexy man. And they are neither, so they are bitter about that, therefore the stereotype.

Completely oblivious to the fact that attraction matters and they are simply, plainly put, not attractive. This is what they lack, this is what they miss. If you can't feel emotions with another person, you aren't going to be interested. No matter how much of a good person they are. This guy wasn't truly a good person, but I'm saying in the case of genuinely good persons.

A relationship isn't charity. You aren't in a relationship with someone because you feel 'charitable', you are in a relationship with someone because you feel good with them.

Women are willing to go through so much crap for men, as long as they like them.

Women's advantage over men is that men are attracted to them. So they use that, to sway one of these brutes on their side. (metaphorically speaking, by saying "brute" I highlight the man's height and strength advantage over a woman, physical advantage, not saying all men are brutes, because they aren't)

This is why nice guys is a problem for women, but nice girls not a problem for men, in fact men prefer girls to be nice. It's not that those men are nice, it's that they are weak. Either weak physically or weak willed. They don't have that stepping power in them.

Because the opposite is attractive to women.

Ok, it's not only the boyfriend/husband the woman has as 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. She has a father, she may have brothers and uncles. So she certainly knows what's it's like to receive protection from a man, at least she got her from her father. She has been protected by men in her past. But she certainly wants that from her future boyfriend/husband as well.

She wants a husband who can protect, or who can theorically protect.

In fact, have you ever heard a woman saying "feeling protected", as a compliment. Like "I'm feeling protected with you". It's cute. But I have never heard it the other way around, a man telling a woman "I'm feeling protected with you" or even in boys talk I never heard a man saying "yeah bro, I'm feeling protected with her". He's feeling a lot of great things with her but protected is not one of them.

There is an interesting statistic here, if you are raised by a single mother, you are 3 times more likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life than if you were raised by both parents. But here's the interesting thing. If you are raised by a single father, you are just as likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life as people raised by both parents. I don't know what the correlation is here, the study didn't draw any conclusions itself either, but certainly there's something very important about the role of the father.

After all, the stereotype goes that women with "daddy issues" are "easy prey" not women with "mommy issues".

I think this stereotype goes to show that there's something about not having a father figure that makes some women an easy target for men with bad intentions. Maybe because the father is your bedrock, mentally. Maybe because, in your life you can look up to and compare every man you see with your father. How does he compare with your father? If you have nothing for comparison, you'll take any crap because "that's how men are", since you don't know how men are, or how men are supposed to be, you have no bedrock, if you have a father figure for comparsion you will not take any crap because you already have a standard to compare with "my father isn't like this, this man just sucks, this man is terrible, I shouldn't be treated like this". And you just leave, you're out, because that's not how you're supposed to be treated. The father figure in your life allows you to have standards for men, for how men are and how they are supposed to be.

I remember watching the documentary about Marilyn Monroe and my girlfriend was like "what a hoe" while I felt quite sorry for her because I knew where she was coming from. She saw a hoe I saw a big tragedy. Which again, another interesting subject, but women are more likely to call other women "hoes" than men are. When women call women "hoes" it's with hate, when men call women "hoes" (unless he was specifically rejected by her, and does that just to cope) is not out of hate but rather a statement, an analysis, like "yeah, she's a hoe". Because men are "I might not date, marry this women, but certainly I will try to score with her because she's an easy target" while for women it's pure hate, maybe because they take their men off the market or provide easy sex or stuff like that. Same with the body count, men don't feel hate towards women with high body count but rather disgust, repulsed, women on the other hand feel hate. For men, and I've heard this comparsion from a man, easy women are like a low budget supermarket, sure you are not proud to be in one, you will not take selfies to show your friends, or post about it on social media, but are damn happy they exist.

So interesting dynamics there.

Ok, so women want to have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. But the emphasis is on "1", which is not the case for men.

Women are far more monogamous in my opinion.

More monogamous than men. And when they aren't, it's usually about sharing a man, for men, it's usually about having multiple women and sharing none.

Men can be fk boys endlessly and leave a trail of 10 single mothers behind them. In theory, if they have the looks, the everything. They don't need to raise a child, they just need to impregnate a woman and then leave and the woman will do all the work. They only need to raise a child if they want to, their genes will carry on. So they can easily sleep with 20 women with no consequences

There's alimony now, but that's more of a legal thing of the most recent years than something biological we've had since ancient times, genetic or social thing, it's not something we developed in nature over the years but something we've imposed now. Genetics show us that we have 2 times more female ancestors than male ancestors, despite the male to female ratio being roughly 1 to 1, I wonder how that happened. It happened because some men got a lot of action, while other men got no action. Since there was no alimony back then.

Women on the other hand, play a different game.

They need to carry the baby 9 months in the womb so they need good genes for that baby. And then, after they gave birth she needs to spend almost a lifetime to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him. So again, they need good genes for that baby, they can't afford counterfit genes for such a big investment. Men can, because theoretically, it might not be a big investment for them.

You can probably see where I'm going with this, women are way more selective than men.

For men, if they just sleep around and "spread their seeds" they've already ensured their offspring's survival. It's the mother's job now, they are just playing the numbers' game.

So women need to invest in their child, invest in a man. The man needs not to. Since nature existed and without alimony, it was optional, this is why women are also interested in paternal investment but I'll get to that later.

So the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. They can't just go around and play the numbers' game like men can. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective, if they are going to carry the baby 9 months in the womb and raise him to ensure he survives and becomes an adult she doesn't has time for counterfit genes from weaker men, if they are going to invest in him go through all that trouble for 1 child she needs to make sure it comes from a good man with good genes, this is why women are naturally more selective than men. She needs quality genes, it's her mating strategy to find the best man with good genes who would also preferably stick around. Men don't care.

And in fact, there's study confirming this. Both that women are more picky, and that men are less selective and it would be easier for them to just "spread around".

There was a study where women & men were asked to rate men/women based on attractiveness on a scale from 1 to 7. For men, it's what you would normally expect, most women were rated 4, then women of 3 and 5, then women of 2 and 6, then women of 1 and 7. Kind of average. But for women, most men were rated 2, then men of 1 and 3, then men of 4, then men of 5, then men of 6, then men of 7. It's not that women don't care about looks, women do care about looks a lot more than men in fact. It's that women are way more selective than men when it comes to looks.

So yeah "looks vs personality", "I prefer personality", throw that in the trash.

Just be hot/good looking and she will want you. Simple as that.

And testosterone, which is the hormone predominant in men, also has the function to make less attractive people seem more attractive. It has the function to make men less selective than women (since by default we are all women in the womb, the Y cz is the last to activate, everything that differentiates a man from a woman is in that Y cz, man is basically like woman patch 1.1, so it needed something added to make men different from women, rather than something removed to make women different from men). In other words, the more testosterone a man has, the less selective he is going to be. The more non-attractive women he is going to find attractive.

This is probably the source of that stereotype that "big ripped muscular guys are more likely to cheat" and why "skinny with glasses are more likely to stay loyal".

Like if you think of a feminine man with glasses and skinny or like a K-Pop artist cheating is not the first thing that comes to mind, but if you think of The Rock for example for plenty of women "cheating" would probably be the first thing that comes to mind. And this is confirmed by a study.

Sure, you can also blame it on "having options". But at the same time having options is not the entire story (although I agree it's a factor, a woman might consider a feminine man with glasses and skinny or a K-Pop artist more "safe", due to lack of options, but then again K-Pop artists do have a lot of options so it's not really the reality reinforcing the idea that this is all biological) because in another study when compared with multiple body types: slender, typical, chubby, toned, built, brawny. Women ranked the one they found most attractive as the and the one they wanted to be in a relationship differently. This is actually quite interesting. Because they had a "yeah, this is the most attractive man I can think of, but I don't want to be in a relationship with this man".

They ranked brawny the most attractive, and toned & built the one they want to be in a relationship with. The reason?

The women in the study argued that while brawny was the most attractive body type to them, they also found it the most likely to cheat. They gave no reason for that, it was just an impression. It's not like they could recall a past experience and says "I had a boyfriend like that who cheated", it was just an impression. So there seem to be biological reasons for this.

There seem to be biological reasons for this dynamic between testosterone and less selectiveness in women for men who have that testosterone. And women, even if they can't point it out, are subconsciously aware of this. They don't want that much testosterone in a man. They want some, but not that much. Enough to be "masculine" and "alpha", but not enough to cheat, and also to have a sensitive side as well but that's when we are going to discuss the paternal investment. As pointed out above, it's not about the options, because both the toned & built body types and K-Pop artists have plenty of options, but women just consider them more safe. Women want testosterone in a man, enough to be strong, but not enough that you will be very likely to cheat.

It's kind of funny that women are doing the game of make up and trying to look as good as possible where as it's in fact men who should be doing that.

Because men are far more appreciated for their looks than women are. Since women care more about looks since women are more selective while men are less selective, due to testosterone.

I think taking the woman's perspective is quite interesting:

Imagine you're this small-looking woman looking to date men who are all bigger and stronger than you in comparison.

Wouldn't you find that strength also attractive? like it's a contribution because it's something you lack, like the more the better, but without being that overly masculine stuff. Just masculine enough to be attractive and that's it, having muscles. There's some women who like that overly masculine stuff but it's a nische market, in general for most women the stronger he is the better, just not enough to cheat. Like, women are attracted to muscles, big revelation I know. It can protect you in many ways, it's very good to have a strong man if you have a man. I'm not saying it's a priority, but it's definetly a good +.

Like, you look around, and see all these attractive men around you, and not so attractive, talking about looks here, some hitting on you, some not hitting on you, while you are scouting for the best genes who would hit on you, the best looking man (or maybe make a move or 2 to him to make it clear you are interested, hopefuly he would hit on you and you get those good genes), of course good looks matter but wouldn't strength also be a factor? strength can protect you, and good looks are good for carrying on to your child so you enjoy having a great child not to mention feeling good in the moment while actually being with that man because you look at his face and get enjoyment out of it, combining your good genes with other good genes.

All men being potential gene givers, but you want the best, you want that one with the good genes. You could sleep with any one of them, a lot of them sure hit on you, but you only want to sleep with the best, and the one that would stay. Because it's not worth it otherwise, not also because of "hoe" but because there's no point. Why? what evolutionary advantage would it bring you otherwise? to sleep with those other men? if you would sleep you would only sleep for the pleasure and that's it. And why not? because you like those genes, and because if it comes down to it, it's going to take 9 months for you to invest in a child and a further lifetime of investment to actually raise that child, while in theory a man could just disappear, so you are looking for a moral one with a strong family commitment while also having those good genes I was talking about, the good looks and strength being a plus, not to mention morality but I've already talked about this.

Like literally as a man imagine you're shorter than a woman and women are stronger than you and you have to carry the child.

How would the situation change, eh? how would the dyanmics and your dating strategy change? this is why women aren't as promiscuous as men.

Sure, for promiscuous you need 1 man to sleep with 1 woman, but that doesn't mean there's an even balance. Because 1 woman can sleep with 35 guys, and those 35 guys can sleep with 5 to 10 women who are all like that woman. But in general, I would argue men are more promiscuous than women. Not only because society allows it, but because it's biology.

In fact this whole stigma of "hoe" started because of biology. It's a double standard? yes, but it kind of makes sense when you look down into it. And why society doesn't consider these "hoes" valueable, of use to society, except for the men looking for an easy time. Not only because "a man has to make sure it's their child" since there was no DNA testing back then, also because "it destroys families" since a man cheating didn't had much impact back then since no matter how much the man cheated it was still the woman & the man's child so there was no family broken at this point (not fair, I know, but it's biology), it could function but if the child was another man's man good luck having that family function, also because if a woman cheats she only does it for fun for the sex or she found a better partner, which are both terrible options if you want a wife, which kind of breaks down the whole "lock her out" of the marriage, she's not really locked out if she cheats, where as a man cheating didn't really "unlock" the marriage despite being bad, since again, the family still works, it's still both partner's child.

Simply put, "hoes" seem to not be good of building a family, of building society, where as men who cheat, despite being bad, are. Yeah, I know, not very great, but technically a society can function with rampart cheating men, not so much with rampart cheating women, so it was mostly a stabilizing factor that caused this whole stigma. And if we were to talk about merit, being a "player" has merit because it's hard. Being a "hoe" has no merit because it's easy, all men want you, even if they are not interested in you otherwise for anything else, you just have to say yes. In fact, the "hoe" of the men is the virgin. That's the stigma. The "failed experiment". Which is ironically quite the opposite of being a "hoe".

I'm not saying how things should ideally be, I'm saying how things used to be, why a woman's purity was so highly regarded, for biological reasons. Most cultures of the world developed a stigma around "hoe" without interacting with each other, this is far too spread to be randomly a cultural thing.

Simply put, "hoes" seem to not be good of building a family, of building society, where as men who cheat, despite being bad, are. Yeah, I know, not very great, but technically a society can function with rampart cheating men, not so much with rampart cheating women, so it was mostly a stabilizing factor that caused this whole stigma. And if we were to talk about merit, being a "player" has merit because it's hard. Being a "hoe" has no merit because it's easy, all men want you, even if they are not interested in you otherwise for anything else, you just have to say yes. In fact, the "hoe" of the men is the virgin. That's the stigma. Which is ironically quite the opposite of being a "hoe".

So I said above that "so the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective. They can't go around with counterfeit genes that they don't want for 9 months, and then raise those counterfeit genes", but that's not the whole story.

Because women actually want 2 things: (1) good genes, (2) a man that will commit.

Yes, I talked above about good genes, but it's not enough that he has good genes and just leaves. That's how single moms become single moms, which tend to be judged as "hoes" sometimes even if it's not their fault. Women want a man who will commit, a good man, a morally good man, who also happens to have good genes and is good looking. And don't forget strength, as we discussed, women like strength. Because we live in this world where women lack strength and they want that in a partner.

In fact, have you ever heard a woman saying "feeling protected", as a compliment. Like "I'm feeling protected with you". It's cute. But I have never heard it the other way around, a man telling a woman "I'm feeling protected with you" or even in boys talk I never heard a man saying "yeah bro, I'm feeling protected with her". He's feeling a lot of great things with her but protected is not one of them.

Yes, they want strong quality genes that they will be glad and happy to have, but they also want, a father for their child.

Which is why paternal investment is a big thing for a woman. Such a big thing. I cannot overstate how important this is. Why does a woman like when a man pets a dog? if women want men to be all this strong aggressive brutes who protect them but loves them, like this total brute and evil man except for 1 thing that he loves them (have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side) that wouldn't make sense, because it's already there, what does it matter if he pets a dog or not? heck what does it matter if he's a good person or not as long as he loves you? but there's a sense behind that - paternal investment.

Women don't just want a good partner, they want a good father for their children as well.

As men, this is easy to overlook, because paternal investment is a big deal for women, or potential paternal investment.

For men it's almost a given, women by default will look after their child, who also happens to be theirs, for women, it's not so much of a given, so they need to be extra careful with this.

Again, different tactics. It's interesting how these dynamics play out.

"If he was to have a child, would he be invested in it?", women want to hear an "yes", and to see by behavior and actions a behavior that reflects an "yes".

It's is why you can't be just a bad boy. You need to be a bad boy and a nice guy. A bad guy and a good guy. In the specific sense mentioned above. All the stuff I talked about previously up until this point. There needs to be some good there, paternal investment, some bad there, ability to protect, genes, good looks, emotional connection, and so on.

In the Big 5. One of the categories is agreeableness. As women are shorter than men on average, women are nicer than men, by about half a standard deviation. There are advantage to being nice, and there are advantages to being not so nice. To a certain extent, nice guys finish last. Less agreeable people earn more than more agreeable people. My theory is that most women prefer a man who is less agreeable than they are. A man can become less nice with some practice, but it takes a lot of effort to stay consistent. Men should do this to improve current relationships. Some men have an unhealthy niceness. Some behaviors like covert contracts, giving to be accepted, and men resenting their wife for decisions made with their wife are unhealthy.

Since agreeableness is a core part of personality and not easily changed, men and women should initially choose their partner more wisely. Since women are shorter than men, even a short man can find a wife who is shorter. In the same way, a nice guy can find a woman who is nicer than he is.

Because this is so universally condemned, despite being true and working, because being disagreeable works, because women prefer disagreeable men on some level, not too much, but enough to be disagreeable sometimes, or disagreeable with some people. That's actually a quality, that women value. Because hey, if he's disagreeable he can stand up for himself, and I need a man who can stand up for himself, I need that kind of man. As I said originally early in my post, not a weak man, not a doormat. So being disagreeable is sort of of a test for that or a given. There's also the stereotype that "women like bad boys" this is where it comes from. Women prefer men who are disagreeable, to some extent, men who can be disagreeable. Men who can be disagreeable when necessary but most of the time prefer not to. Some women prefer men who are outright disagreeable all the time, with everybody, not just capable of being disagreeable and testing it out once in a while, or men who are actually dangerous because they got that adrenaline in them. I thought that I would at least support what I said. There is research on the topic that women find disagreeable men more attractive. I'm not finding the study now, but I remember there was a study where men who disagreed with their dates on the first date were seen more favorably by women than men who didn't. I may add more studies and articles to this as I find them.

There's truth in that. Being disagreeable in a functional way isn't something bad. It's also part of the bad boy complex that most women have a fetish over. There are exceptions, but not enough to make a majority. If you get massive pushback just remember, it is all cope. They actually like that, that bad boy, they would just rather say that they wouldn't. Bad boy, as I said, who has the ability to be "evil" on the side; and can be like that sometimes, has the ability to be disagreeable when necessary but is not always disagreeable, sometimes is just disagreeable for testing or for fun. Bad boy but bad boy with an asterix, bad boy in terms of potential, most women would not like a man who is outright evil, although as mentioned above, some women prefer men who are outright disagreeable all the time, with everybody, and men who are actually dangerous because they got that adrenaline in them, so take that as you will. More like men who have the ability to be evil and can be evil in a simulated enviroment, not men who are evil for no reason because again paternal investment is a thing.

Also, nice guys make less than highly disagreeable men. If disagreeable men earn more than agreeable men and women like a guy with money and social status then we can add this to the pile. You hear a lot about women that just love nice guys. But I hear no stories about massive panties drop near nice men. Let the cope flow.

Strong, good looking, willing to take a fight, all that good stuff, masculinity and so on, are things women like and find attractive, while also having a paternal investment side, a more sensitive and soft side. Literally, a few weeks ago I was in a park with a group of friends, and there was a couple with a 1 years old child next to us, the guy was huge, twice to 3 times the size of the woman, but he was so gentle, playing with the child and such, hugging his wife and such, and generally seeming like being a good human being, and all the women in the group found that so attractive. That man had all the masculinity you could ask for, but he was also such a soft and gentle guy. If there was a fight, there's no doubt that guy could mop the floor with anyone, including myself. But because he was such a soft and gentle guy, I don't think he would mop the floor with me, he would defuse the situation, he seemed like that kind of guy, even though he could.

Yes, you need to be a bad guy as well, in a very specific sense. Also a good guy, in a very specific sense. A weak defenseless guy is not that good guy in a very specific sense, he is weak, like a rabbit, and nobody likes the rabbit. If you had to pick from a list of animals which animal you would become, would you pick the cobra, or the tiger, or the rabbit? almost nobody would pick the rabbit because he's weak, defenseless, and there's no value or honor in that. You might pick a dog, a certain strong big breed of dog, who you know is powerful and big but also has a good soul at the end of the day. Which non-ironically but sarcastically and metaphorically I think it is what women pick when it comes to men. A dog of breed, someone who is strong, and powerful, but also has a good soul and a good heart. That good specific combo between a bad boy and a nice guy I was talking about.

Even in countries, why so many countries have their emblem as the eagle? like there's literally so much with an eagle as the emblem. And not a rabbit or a worm for example? because one is weak and defenseless while the other one has that aggressiveness. Sure, you wouldn't call an eagle a company animal like a dog, but these are countries not women we are talking about, they are not looking for that paternal investment.

They are a predator, a territorial animal that's preying on others, the rabbit is not the norm when it comes to countries picking their emblem, the eagle is.

That's not to say women go around thinking "will this be a good father?", likely it doesn't even cross their mind, it's subconscious.

Just like men don't know why make up makes women more attractive to them, it just does. They don't see the cause, or the reason, just the result, it's a subconscious process.

For women, when they are younger say 13-18, the ideal male while still attractive is more of a "boyish prince charming" type of good looks. Not beta but not alpha either. He also has a sweet sensitive side, not alpha. He has outwards strength that he displays to the rest of the world, which signals that he can protect. But he is on the nurturing side and can take care of them as well.

As the grow older, they start to become more interested in more Chad more masculine type of looks. But still with that sweet sensitive side to them that not everybody sees. To have a bit of generosity and do things for other. Why? because that shows paternal investment, it shows they are less likely to cheat and more likely to stay with the child. They don't want a brute, they want a nice guy who can be a brute. A nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind.

Not a weak-willed "beta" simp either, that's not very fitt-y with the nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind, it's actually quite weak and submissive, and I talked in the beginning about being a weak or weak-willed man, either weak physically or weak willed, not the way to go. Simps who think they just need to simp harder and then they will get the girl are just ridiculous.

In fact, funny thing, there are simps out there who think that if the "good men would dissapear" then they would have a chance. But as I said above, if there is a lack of men, women would simply share 1 man if anything than end up being with the lower end of the bottom. Like, if there was a 2-to-1 ration of women-to-men they will have a chance. No they won't. Because women will still have the preferences that they have and they just won't be one of them. Women would rather be promiscuous in the sense of sharing a man that they found attractive rather than being with a man who they find unattractive, or highly unattractive. So I don't think things would change much if Thanos would snap half the male population, as incels would like to believe in their wet dreams. See? it's not them, it's you. It's not the competition, it's you that's the issue. There's plenty of women for everyone as it is right now, if you can't get a woman, that's not the issue or the problem of the "competition", it's not an issue with the competition, it's an issue with you, even without the competition you would still be in the same boat, because you're simply not attractive to women as you are. So you need to work on yourself better to become more attractive, before complaining about any unfair competition or women's dating preferences and market options. They just have preferences, and if you are just not one of them, there's nothing you can do about that, except working on yourself to better yourself and become one of their standards. In fact, if that would be the case and top 50% the most attractive men would dissapear, women would be more likely and more willing to share the "good leftovers", the few good looking and hot men left, than to pair with the simps even if 1 on 1. By a simp I imagine the stereotpyical fat man living in his mom's basement jerking off of anime and simping for Belle Delphine. Who just think that if they just, invest harder, they will see how much he loves her and she will finally want to be with him just for the simple fact that he loves her that much despite him provinding no value. I saw a TikTok once like "omg, I love you so much, this is all my life savings, I hope you will do great with them, I love you so much" and the girl was like "wow, thanks dude, but you know, it's your poverty. Hey babe, someone just gave us 10.000$" and the title was "POV you're a simp".

So if you take something from this, be hot, and paternal investment also help. But literally above all else, be hot, that's all it takes to be instantly attractive to women. Have good genes.

When I say "have good genes" that I don't mean literally, it's not about something you can't change it's about something you can change, because you can't change your genes, but genes translate as good looks, so if you look good it's automatically assumed you have good genes, that's how we humans function, both men and women alike, so it's literally 'take care of your face and your body', it doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 9000 or own 7 companies and have 3 Bugatti of a color Andrew Tate likes, if you look bad, you have bad genes, end of story. If you don't have good looks you don't have good genes according to biology, but good looks is something you can work on, which can translate to appearing to have good genes. This is why plastic surgery is a thing despite not changing your genes (I don't recommend plastic surgery). Basically when someone is attracted to you is saying "I want that genes into my children" subconsciosuly. And your genes is actually your face and your body, not what genes you literally have, because there was no DNA testing back then. You can be born good looking and be lucky, have good looks and allow yourself to fall off by not taking care of yourself, or born bad looking and literally max out your looks by taking care of yourself by making improvements and then you will see results, all the little things may not matter individually but eventually add up, and there's some things like bad breath that no matter how good looking you are it will simply fail, good looks translates to good genes, but our brain doesn't know that it's actually good genes + talking care of yourself = good looks, because in the ugga bugga time you didn't really had time to take care of yourself, so men and women likewise had to work with what they had, what they saw in front of them. It's how everbody does it, we determine good genes by how we see in front of us. Do you want to have good genes or not?

Leading with money still ends up as you being used as an ATM. But as I said, I think in part this is the man's fault for not recognising that, not recognising that leading with money will only attract gold diggers. Women who are not interested in being gold diggers but something more emotional, a true relationship, will stay away from that, and women who are interested in being a gold digger will jump to you, thus you end up with gold diggers. All because you lead with money. Leading with money is perfectly okay when you are looking for a one night stand or easy fun, it works in that case and there are no drawbacks, but it doesn't work when you are looking for a true relationship, a genuine relationship with sensitivity and care and depth for one another. The kind of relationship where you "get" each other and can have deep and emotional discussions as such. Where you feel good with one another simply because you feel like you get each other, and that they are on your team, they are on your side, you feel and support them, and vice-versa, they are your partner not some foreign power.

This is an interesting subject in itself, the "selection biases" people have. You can have a selection bias yourself, you present yourself on the dating market in such a way that you create a selection bias for a certain group of people, and then don't know where are the bad people come from.

Such as:

1. Serial daters - "women date multiple men and always have 1 guy on the sideline in the friendzone".

Let's say you have 2 women and 10 men. One of those 2 women 1 is a serial dater. She is going to date 9 people, while 1 woman would go with 1 man. How many guys are going to have the experience of "I dated this exact same woman?" 9. How many women were there in total? 2. So the real number was 50%, but the impression that guys get is that 90% of women are going to be serial daters, because 90% of guys had this experience. But that was only because that other 1 woman was closed off with that other guy so she wasn't available to them. New guys are also going to compete with the serial dater and not with the taken woman. Simply put, the serial dater takes a broader share of the "market" so she appears more numerous and relevant than she actually is.

Therefore, it appears to them - there are a lot more women with less purity than there actually are, there are a lot less women with high purity than there actually are.

2. High standards/Selection Bias - "all the good women are gone"

Let's again say we have this scale from 1 to 10 in with women in terms of attraction & purity spread evenly. Out of these women, let's say 50% are going to have lower standards, and 50% are going to have higher standards. What happens to lower standards women? they get into relationships more easily. So they are very quick to be taken. Especially the ones above 5 in terms of attraction. So then only the above 5 high standards and below 5 all standards women are left. Attractive women with low standards is like an amazing house at a very low price that the seller is willing to sell fast. It won't stay on the market very long. In the case of this metaphor they won't last on the house buying website very long, they're just too good of a deal not to be taken.

Out of all these above 5 in terms of attraction with low standards women, the ones with low purity are more likely to break up (increased chances of cheating, high promiscuity, etc). So they come back on the market. What does this means? Women with high purity are not only more likely to be in relationships in the first place, but they are also more likely to stay in relationships. So what we are left is this dating poll where all the highly attractive, high purity women left are also women with high standards. Because those are the ones who didn't make it into a relationship yet.

Therefore, it appears to them - all good women have high standards, all attractive and purity women have high standards.

3. Age bias/Survivorship bias - "all the good women are gone in their earlier years"

Let's say women enter the dating scene at 15 - 18 years old. The vast majority of them are high purity at that point, and most of them are attractive at that point. There are many highly attractive high purity women at that point. But as time advances, those women slowly get taken and marry. There is also aging. Leaving guys in the 30s with less desireable women. Sounds kind of bad for saying this, but I think it's the truth - the leftovers.

I think at 25 it's evenly distributed and at 30+ it's only downhill from there. You can find plenty of online posts even here on PerC with +30 guys compalining that the dating market is full of single moms at that point.

This is why I think it's best to get a good relationship in your early 20s. It's only downway from there, the good ones get taken.

Men are encouraged to work on their fitness, finance, health and happiness in their early 20s and only think about dating later, but I think it's equally important if not more important to go for dating in your early 20s when the dating market is relatively good.

4. Simply bad strategy on the man's part.

Lots of men, want a relationship, but at the same time, ask women to go to their home first. For something casual. This is equally true of guys who really want something casual and guys who actually want to commit. As you can assume, it's pretty dumb of guys who actually want to commit to ask women to go to their home first, but they do it. Why is that dumb?

The issue is that if you do that you're 100% guaranteed only to attract low purity women. Because what would the high purity women say if you ask them to their home first that you want for a relationship? no. They are going to say no, that's why they are high purity. And that's why you are single and only find "bad women".

You are a market and select yourself only bad women with your strategy.

Instead of asking them to go to their home first, if you really want a relationship, ask them for coffe or a tea or a soda. You're more likely to find high purity women there who would accept this.

If you would ask for coffe instead of going to your place, you're going to have equal amount of high purity and low purity women accepting the offer I think, because I don't think a low purity woman would say no to coffe in the same way a high purity woman would say no to bed. And from them you can filter using red flags to see who is actually high purity and not.

I think this creating your own selection bias also works in reverse. Like men giving f-boy vibes and such. Like having pictures with other women, shirtless body gym, pictures of them smoking, pictures of wealth, instead of for example a picture of them with a dog. Or a picture of them in a plain new T-shirt with nothing special about them.

Who is the pictures with other women, shirtless body gym, pictures of them smoking, pictures of wealth going to attract? low purity women.
Who is the pictures with the dog or the pictures with them with a plain new T-shirt and nothing special going on in the background going to attract? high purity women. Women who want to commit, women who want something special, women who want something serious, so to speak. Or even if you have a hobby, a picture with a violin or playing chess, who is it going to attract? it's like being a niche market for your own audience.

A woman who only goes for f-boys is not going to go for a man playing a violin or playing chess in his pictures unless he's extremely attractive like 9/10. On the other hand, women are going to see the personality of this man and like more his personality. By the way, you don't have to be "nerdy looking" to play violin and play chess. If you are "nerdy looking" that's another issue in itself not related to that. It's about looks. You can be average looking and do that.

So much like the women getting with physically and mentally abusive men, they are creating their own selection bias and then complain about the results.

And it's not even their fault because people do that without realising.

How can you blame people for something they do out of sheer ignorance?

In both cases, the lesson is: If you feel like you end up in toxic relationships over and over, it might be worth considering if there's some behaviour on your part that takes you there.

If you happen to have 1-2 crazy ex, you just got unlucky. But if you happen to have most of your ex-es as crazy ex then you may be the one at fault here. And I don't mean it that you're the crazy one. But you select for the crazy and generally the bad.

Perhaps the dumbest thing in all of these is trying to negociate attraction, you can't negociate attraction. There's a lot of Jeffrey out there trying to invest and invest and invest, to no avail. It doesn't work like that. You're applying the wrong formula. If she were attracted to you she would have invested in you even if you had no money.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 02:29 pm
@Apothecary,
HOW TO DATE MEN THE VERY GOOD:

R: The thing with chivalry is that in order for it to work you kind of have to be consistently chivalrous and mean it. Not only pretend to be to get what you want. Chivalry is basically treating women with respect, it is the bare minimum. Expecting women to fall at your feet for providing the bare minimum is simply not in proportion to what you're offering. And then resenting women for that only goes to show there was never any real chivalry involved.

R: So the solution to that would be to forget about chivalry being something extremely valuable men can offer women. And stop playing these games of "but women do this and that, so I'm going to do the exact same things and expect a different result, oh it doesn't work, it's all women's fault". No, these men are part of the problem, they're doing half the job of messing everything up. Just own up to it and do better or nothing ever changes. The same goes for women as well. Everybody's so busy with playing stupid games, no wonder nothing ever changes.

I agree with what you're saying, I made that case when it comes to Nice Guys TM. The type of guys who feel entitled to have women just because they are nice.

It's good that you're there, but what else do you have beside being nice that makes women attracted to you? being nice is not enough.
Congratulations for achieving the bare minimum I guess.
It's good that you're nice, but you need something extra to be attractive to women.
Not just being nice, being nice is not enough. A lot of people are being nice, everybody is being nice, is what we expect, basic human decency, so again congratulations for doing the bare minimum but that's not enough.

You need something extra, you're being nice and what? And why would that 'what' be attractive?

While I agree that you have to be chivalrous and mean it, I disagree with the premise that you kind of have to be consistently chivalrous and mean it. Not only pretend to be to get what you want.

Because, if being able to spot fakes would be an easy thing we wouldn't have so many cases of fakes in this world, from politicians to dating. You might as well draw the conclusion that you need to become better at pretending.

I believe everyone deserves basic human decency and is indeed the bare minimum, since that's the definition of chivalrous you're using, treating everyone with respect. But I don't generally buy into this dichtonomy that "you have to do it because you mean it vs. you have to do it to get what you want". I mean in this case, yeah, it's a nice thing to do and everyone should have basic respect, no matter whether they are a janitor or the woman you are attracted to.

But in general, I don't think it works like: If the man does nice things because it's the right thing to do without expecting anything in return and doesn't gloat about how nice he is than he's legit. That's genuine niceness. If the man does nice things because he as an interested in being with you then he is sure to be a certified Nice Guy TM.

It's a false dichtonomy IMO because nobody does anything without any expectations. Everybody is selfish and expects something in return. That's nonsensical, some men/women expect a girl/guy to do everything for him/her and get nothing in return. That's not how relationships work. No relationship is without reciprocation. There's women who complain about "nice guys" but I have hardly seen any men complain about "nice women". There's plenty of men and women who will take advantage of a partner and that is one example. Guys might use a woman for sex and women might use a guy for favors, help her move, etc.

Like, all this "does he do it to get credit with you, or does he do it because he GENUINELY WANTS YOU TO FEEL NICE" is BS in my opinion. You know who would do something because he genuinely wants you to feel nice and not to get any credit with you? your dad, that's it. Or your mom for men.

It goes gender-reversed too, imagine saying "does she do it to get credit with you, or does she do it because he GENUINELY WANTS YOU TO FEEL NICE", like WTF? of course she wants to date me, that's why she does it. She's attracted to me and she does it because she wants to date me. It would be stupid of her to do otherwise. Like, what if I was attracted to another girl, would she help me get with that other girl because she genuinely wants me to feel nice (nice), or would she not do it and feel resentful because she does it to get credit with me (not nice), like how stupid is that? This whole mindset of "does she do it to get credit with you, or does he do it because she genuinely wants you to feel nice" screams toxic and entitled to me. Of course she does it to get credit with you, that's why she's here, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I was thinking of chivalry as going the extra mile, but in the sense that you're saying it, yeah I agree with you.

"But women do this and that, so I'm going to do the exact same things and expect a different result, oh it doesn't work, it's all women's fault", well should one adapt to what women want? I agree that being resentful is stupid, but if women want X in a man, shouldn't one strive to become X to get women? there's plenty of men with no dating experience simply because they are not a good pick for women. Usually those bitter guys do the exact opposite of what women want, you have a skinny ******* white nationalist who thinks that he is the crap and wonders why women won't be with him, it's because not only he doesn't tick all the boxes, but he doesn't even tick one of them. And there's also fat virgin who are not necessarily bad people just no luck with women. And in their case "just be yourself" doesn't work (they tried it already) so I think it's better to play these stupid games. And actually have a chance.

When it comes to man vs woman in terms of preference, men want women to be nice, pretty much end of story.

But for women, it's not that simple.

Women want men to be "a nice ahole" so to speak. The kindest ruffian.

Women want men to be nice but with a hint of bad boy in them. The ability to be a bad boy in them. With a hint of imposing and dominant.

Not being generally an ahole, as in treating people miserable, but having the capacity to be that generally an ahole, if necessary.

Who has the ability to be "evil" on the side, who is disagreeable sometimes, or with some people, but is generally agreeable. (that paternal investment thing, combined with a desire for a strong masculine man who can protect, as I said above in what a woman means by "good" - good strong and moral).

To be morally good and strong but capable of being an ahole if necessary.

"I've been bad sometimes, now I need to be good" - have to have moments of good as well. Predominantly moments of good, but not lacking in the bad department when it comes down to it.

So yeah, if you ask women whether they want a chivalrous man, most of them will say yes, but that's not really the end of the story, or even half of it.

There's a reason the chess club gets no girls (Andrew Tate excluded) but the jocks get plenty. I mean the stereotypical chess club players vs the stereotypical jock.

Women don't want a defenseless weak man. It's not part of their preferences. They like muscles, that's one thing, but they also like other things, when it comes to personality. To be more... like a jock, but not totally a jock, just capable of being a jock. But if it came down to between the jock and the nerd most women would pick the jock, simply because of how he looks and become of his personality, more dominant, more enduring, more daring, it's inspiring more endearing.

I compared men to animals (I went beyond objectifying women, I've transcended that step, I animalized men), women want a mix of good and bad. You need to be a bad guy as well, in a very specific sense. Also a good guy, in a very specific sense. A nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind. This may seem easy from a certain POV, but really it's not, you need to be on both sides of the spectrum at different times.

A weak defenseless guy is not that good guy in a very specific sense, he is weak, like a rabbit, and nobody likes the rabbit. If you had to pick from a list of animals which animal you would become, would you pick the cobra, or the tiger, or the rabbit? almost nobody would pick the rabbit because he's weak, defenseless, and there's no value or honor in that.

You might pick a dog, a certain strong big breed of dog, who you know is powerful and big but also has a good soul at the end of the day. Which non-ironically but sarcastically and metaphorically I think it is what women pick when it comes to men. A dog of breed, someone who is strong, and powerful, but also has a good soul and a good heart. That good specific combo between a bad boy and a nice guy I was talking about.

Even in countries, why so many countries have their emblem as the eagle? like there's literally so much with an eagle as the emblem. And not a rabbit or a worm for example? because one is weak and defenseless while the other one has that aggressiveness. Sure, you wouldn't call an eagle a company animal like a dog, but these are countries not women we are talking about, they are not looking for that paternal investment.

They are a predator, a territorial animal that's preying on others, the rabbit is not the norm when it comes to countries picking their emblem, the eagle is.

So yeah, "women want a man who is a dog of a certain breed", quote me on that, it would make a lot of sense. (joking)

R: I see that as being fake and toxic, not only towards the person you're doing it for, but also towards yourself. Unless you really want to become X for your own benefit, doing it for someone else is just play acting. You won't be able to keep up with it forever, so the failure is already written into it from the start.

R: "Nice guys" can't get the women they want because these woment don't want guys like that. Is it really the women's fault that they don't? Once you start faking everything about yourself, do you honestly believe you're going to attract someone genuine? How about looking for women who actually want the genuine things you have to offer?

R: No, men have just as many requirements for women as women do for men.

R: What people keep getting wrong in dating is they're looking for things they're unable to attain without major effort. And then feel resentful that they have to put in such effort while it doesn't really make them any happier. Everybody has a choice in what battles they want to participate in. And accepting people for who they are doesn't mean that you're required to accept things your don't like.

It's not about pretending, it's about learning. I see where you are coming from but this isn't some fake it until you make it concept. Well, you kind of become X for your own benefit, don't you?

No, it's not the women's fault that they don't, but what are the "Nice guys" supposed to do in that scenario? sit down and take it or try to become the men that women want?

It's not about faking, it's about learning. Personality isn't something set in stone, it can change as you get more experience. People in their 20s and then the same person in their 30s is evidence of that. As you get more knowledge about life you change. It's not faking.

What would a 40 years old virgin living in this mother's basement who is fat and loves anime have as genuine things you have to offer? (not saying anime is a bad thing, I love anime, but just following the stereotype here)

There's a reason the 40 years old in question has 0 body count and then there are Chads in their 20s with 10 to 20 body count. And it's not because they have genuine things to offer. It's because they're actually attractive to women.

I agree that men have just as many requirements for women as women do for men, but they are different requirements.

Well yes, they're looking for things they're unable to attain without major effort, and so they need effort to get these things. Just like in everything. It's not magic. If it was magic every 1 person would be paired up with another 1 person, but the reality is there are guys with 20 women sitting around them and guys with 0 women sitting around them, the same is true for women in terms of men. So the stars are kind of off.

You can also put in such effort while gettings results.

There's a lot of scams out there, but not everything is a scam. Yeah, the red pill is a scam, preying on weak men like that to sell their products, selling hope. The black pill is a little more honest. I mean it's all about looks at the end of the day, well not all about looks but mostly about looks, a bit important part of it like 60-80% is about looks. There's a difference between being told "I'm sure you will find someone right for you" and "I'm sure you'll break a few hearts when you'll be older", we all know in which way people are going even if we don't outright say it. Like just moments ago, I saw an ad about a donation for a woman who was pourn acid on her face, it was terrible to even look at her and I'm not saying that in a demeaning way, quite the opposite in fact, not trying to be disconcerting but in which category do you think she is a part of? "I'm sure you will find someone right for you" and "I'm sure you'll break a few hearts when you'll be older" ? I know where she'll be, you know where she'll be, and it's sad. There's no magic or stuff like that in the universe, there's no need to be genuine that magically solves all your problems, there's no just be yourself and now you're set for life, it doesn't work like that.

Heck, I can't even being to imagine how she imagines that people must look at her, which is exactly what I did, I was repulsed, I didn't want to but I was repulsed, I like to have decency and not show it if I meet with a person like that in real life and not consider a person's whole value just by the fact that she had acid torn on her face, but I know there will be many people who won't, many people who will treat her just by what they look at her, where is her happy ending? there isn't any.

You may develop the qualities necessary to be a good pick naturally, or you may not.

If you don't, what's wrong with just learning them?

Like you grow up, you don't care about being good looking or social and you just do what the boys/girls do, eventually you get in the dating scene and have all the right qualities without even trying. Just from observing and imitating those around you.

If it happens to find a good match, it happens because you already have the good qualities necessary behind you, without you even trying: good looks, social, being good at the stuff the boys/girls do; just because of the way you grew up in life.

You might think it's magic, or chance, or fate, but it's really not. Otherwise there wouldn't be girls/guys able to attract a lot of people and guys/girls able to attract none.

So if you don't have these skills, because you didn't get them naturally or by chance, what is wrong with learning them.

I don't see them as playing games, I need them as learning what needs to be learned to succeed in an enviroment, no different from learning to be good in business. Some people have natural talent at business, some people grew up with a businessman dad, does that mean the rest of us are trying to play games by learning business as well?

I actually read a book of business currently thus the example, but I don't see it as playing games, just learning what needs to be learned.

I don't think having a company will just happen. You've got to make it happen. By being good enough to create a company. And maintain it and others.

I always find it funny that women/men have an adversion to that learning about dating specifically from the opposite gender. Like if there was a bootcamp for women "oh, they are teaching how to manipulate us!". Like it wouldn't be without a man's consent if a woman would be attractive to them after learning what makes a man attracted to them. Like there's some sort of purity in the game, those who have already learned the game or know the game by default can stay, those who have not must stay away and they are creeps/undesireable women. "Because they will manipulate us against our will!". No, they will just learn what makes you tick, and use that in their advantage, to get a date with you. Like, if a woman learned all these stuff and suddenly I have an interest in her, I wouldn't care why I have an interest in her, I just have, good for her, good moves, well played, you made me attracted to you, now I'm attracted to you, you played well and got what you want.

And I have no issues with it, it's a win-win situation so why complain?

Like, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for my own volition. What dark trick, sorcery or magic is this one that you made me attracted to you and now I actually like it and get to enjoy a lot of time with you. It's a win-win situation so why would I ever complain? If I don't want I can always say no, remember this is all my own volition to begin with, you just made me attracted to you, so what do I have to lose? nothing. I only have to gain.

R: Become the men they want to be for their own sake. There's still a difference between doing things to better yourself, and doing things to better yourself in the eyes of others. One is real, the other is fake. The quality you get from the second isn't the same as you would from the first.

R: But your interest isn't in her, it's in the thing you wanted to see and she learned to show you. You would never be attracted to her without it. That's the pretend part.

R: But yeah, it doesn't really matter. People simply try to get by as best as they can, and do whatever they feel they need to do to get the things they need or want. Some succeed, some fail, some want nothing to do with anything. That's life.

BEING MORE SHY THAN YOU SEEM TO THE 2 CLOCKS THEORY OF CONNECTION 4FEB

R:

It's like I have two clocks for meeting new people that govern my behaviour and comfort around them that are operating at the same time.

One is my "fun" / "surface" clock which runs pretty much immediately the second I meet someone. This clock is invigorated by the enthusiasm and excitement of meeting someone new, particularly if I find them intriguing.

Second is my "connection" / "bonding" / "comfort" clock which can take 10-20x as long. This is my "real" clock and the reason why I often feel more bonded with introverts than outgoing people even though by appearance this can seem to others to not be true.

This can create discordance and miscommunications- the real problem is that if the two clocks run too far out of concordance with each other that it creates a feeling of disconnect and I can often literally stop communicating with someone in the same way because I start to feel unauthentic when it goes too far when someone (particularly extroverts) start to believe we are connecting more than I actually feel is true. It also- and maybe this is even more important, gives incongruence to my interaction with introverts because they think I connect with extroverts more than them which is simply not true (this I have talked about before).

This leads me to having to take artificial alterations in my behaviour such as either being less friendly with people if an introvert I want to connect with is around, OR, often what I find to be somewhat effective is to pretend to be shyer for a while in new environments with people to match my second clock. It feels very alien but in the long run it can yield good results. That requires a lot of self-control because it can take months depending on the situation.

I dunno, I kind of can't believe it's taken this long for me to conceptualise this to post on here considering this is something I have dealt with my entire life. I notice it can confuse people, especially disparaging when it might be people that I feel connected to. It's really cost me at times.

/R

I don't think you realise the power of your "fun" / "surface" clock.

I think this is a side effect of being ENFP. ENFPs are the most introverted extroverts.

ENFPs "fun" / "surface" clock is amazing and what makes people drawn to you. That you're invigorated by the enthusiasm and excitement of meeting someone new.

Not all types are like that, you may take that "fun" / "surface" clock of invigorated by the enthusiasm and excitement of meeting someone new as something normal, normal to your nature, but that's more like "bonding" for other types, this is how I think you end up in situations where "we are connecting more than I actually feel is true".

Because they took that for "bonding", you took that for simply being invigorated by the enthusiasm and excitement of meeting someone new.

ENFPs have some really cool perks when it comes to that "fun" / "surface" clock. They can also be very deep thus the other clock and them being the most introverted of the extroverted types.

But when it comes to the fun" / "surface" clock, I think you may underestimate it. ENFPs can be very inspirational, ENFPs are "The Inspirational" type TM. Even their title says that. Naruto is the most ENFP anime out there, and in fact, Naruto is "The Inspirational TM".

And the cool thing about ENFPs is that they motivate you by action, by example, by just doing what they should be doing and infecting you in the process. Their motivation is sort of organic.

Sort of, wanting you to make you do it. Rather than telling you to do it.

I would summarize them in 1 word as "positive".

Like, if an ENFP has an issue, he usually accepts it, but doesn't try to let it affect him. This is different from denial or ignoring the problem. But rather, acknowledging that the problem is there, but not letting this stop me from doing this other thing.

ENFP used: "I don't try to let it affect me"
it's supper effective

So I would summarize ENFPs in 1 word as "positive", but not "positive psychology" and all that, like real "positive".

I like how they are never down.

Even when they are down they are not really down.

Very damn vibrant ENFPs. INFPs usually struggle with depression and opening up, but when you meet an assertive INFP, very damn vibrant, like ENFP. But in a more softer introverted 'motherly/caretaker' way. Where as ENFPs are more in a 'fun out there in the moment enjoying the action' way, that's not to say they aren't 'motherly' but not to the extent of the INFP.

I think is the power of your "fun" / "surface" clock that creates discordance and miscommunications, because it gives people just too much expectations of you. You give BFF vibes, where in reality you're just being ENFP.

So keeping the "fun" / "surface" clock starts to feel unauthentic when it goes too far. Is this because:
a) A lot of time has passed since you first met, so you find it unproper to behave like it's the first time you met them again.
b) They start to believe you two are connecting more than you actually feel is true, which makes you feel uncomfortable.
I'm actually asking not making statements.

Well, you are just giving ENFP vibes and they took the bait. That's why they feel that way. And that's why you feel this way in return. They don't understand that it's not that personal, as it is for them, and you are just that way generally.

Funny how in my experience ENFPs always had a thing for introverts despite them themselves being extroverts, it's something about that 2nd clock that makes them ticking. Like, sure, they are very good with the 1st clock, but it's the 2nd clock that they are really interested in. (which from OP seems you want the same thing)

They want the 2nd clock but are good with the 1st clock. Maybe that's the weakness of ENFP.

In your solution. I can sort of see the argument, but I don't think you are the problem here. I'm an introvert, and I have absolutely 0% issue is my extroverted friends are very extroverted with extroverted people. I don't take that as an issue on my side. Or as a lack of connection with them. Because I know that those extroverted interactions are more superficial than they actually are. So I'm feeling pretty reassured in our "depth" despite them talking to other extroverted people.

But I can see how that jealousy would work. "artificial alterations in my behaviour such as either being less friendly with people if an introvert I want to connect with is around" seems like a good plan, the equivalent of holding a sign saying "I'M NOT A TREAT" to an introvert because you want that 2nd clock.

I giggled at this: "often what I find to be somewhat effective is to pretend to be shyer for a while in new environments with people to match my second clock" because only an ENFP could have the issue of "having to pretend being more shy than I actually am so I can connect with introverts". Yeah, it's a good strategy, it's the weird situation itself that made me giggle.

In what ways it can confuse people?
And in what ways it really costed you at times?

My opinion, as an introvert, is that an introvert should not feel "intimidated" by an extrovert being extrovert, that's just him doing his own thing. But I can see how this is one of those cases perfect in theory flawed in practice, so in practice what you're doing I think is good because indeed trying to appear more shy and introverted than you actually are will encourage introverts to talk to you. It makes you feel like a 'safer space', despite you being equally 'safe' both when you're extroverted and introverted.

You sort of adapt to the atmosphere of the room so to speak.

R:

Awesome post and thanks. Makes me feel understood.

Wish it would work that way reliably in the real world though sometimes. Essentially when I've felt closest to people, and most understood, is when people realise and notice the "charm" exterior but stay for the "introverted" interior that I really feel I operate at. A definite requirement for a permanent partner too, and I'm starting to try to "test" people with more honesty about myself to filter through who is just there for the fairy lights vs who might be there because they see the deeper side.

If I'm honest about my true side at a certain point I can see who stays and who leaves. Those who stay can gain "next stage" access, those who leave aren't valuable to me anyway.

/R

R:

I don’t know how I would have seen what you’re talking about years ago. I know if I was feeling misunderstood or disrespected, I’d get very quiet. I would feel like a shadow of the real me.

I think none of this works the same for me anymore since I got more confrontational, if needed. If I feel misunderstood, I speak up. It seems like I am simultaneously more understanding of where people are coming from with their perceptions and more able to handle it. But that’s maybe separate from what you’re discussing.

You’re commenting about how it works with new people. For instance, if I went to a new church o had a new job or a new group of people? I think I am somehow more in control yet feel less anxious or less need to control this than I used to be. But I’m also interacting with others who are past age 40. Its just different.

I’d love to hear your situation or story, though. Because you’re looking at dating and probably keep to show who you want that you are more bonded to x person? I guess my advice is to let go of some of the control and let it kind of all happen… but then I can imagine that would be hard to do in a situation where you really want things to be a certain way.

I know others value us often for what we would think is more like a symptom of who we are rather than who we actually are. That’s annoying and offensive to me if I actually care about a personal bond…but I’ve also sometimes hung back and waited for someone to start to realize that I am what matters. Not what I be in ng. Not what I can do. Not the group—- although if someone feels they don’t have a family or friend unit that they’ve been craving, I will allow some forgiveness on this— but at some point I’m going to want for the other person to care about the bond between me and them and not what I’m capable of bringing together in a group. I’d say this is probably true for me as sx variant first. I don’t know what would exactly happen with someone who was so variant first. Probably they and I would never get very very close? I’m not sure, actually.

Good luck on this with whatever you’re working on.

/R
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 02:31 pm
@Apothecary,
+++++++++++ FULL BOLD

Part 18 (patches and aftermath)

3FEB PATCH:

You need like this a strong men to say "bro, we do what we do".

There were 2 managers talking. And one was complaining that his emplyoee that he has in team and doesn't like him. And the other said: but he doesn't know well what he does? well, yes, if it's about doing he does it. But if you don't give him anything he doesn't do anything. You need like this a strong man to say "bro, let's do what we do".


Skill and initiative, that's what you need.

Making fun of them. "Sometimes I could have as well" (see well). Laugh a little bit.

It's all about that laughing spirit, that's the key.

"Very ugly from your side", "and even worse from your side".

Sorecery & good looks, all you needs.

Making fun of them, that's the fun zone. And a lot of laugh.

What you are losing are the years, playing. More than you would win playing.

YT videos on productivity and feeling like doing it.

Be more friendly and open to people. Smile, that is always a good sign.

Boys have feelings, boys can cry too. (Can I make it more obvious, sk8er boy)

Girls are not objects either, they have feelings, they have preferences, they have things they like and dislike, etc. Some like rock, some like banjo, etc.

What can I do to get to where I want to do? Slow and steady, no hurry.

You want to be like before? Just look at the old messages and seek to replicate them. What made me so relaxed about that dream? So chill? no stress?

Just take the old messages and read them and imitate them. One must have the icebreaker to text.

Have the courage to change.

Learn from your mistakes: Literally look back and ask yourself: what did I do wrong? Where could I have done it better? What stopped me from doing it better?

I need to change my priorities in life, otherwise I will get nowhere.

If you want to get where you want to be you have to pay a cost, it's difficult until success gets addictive.

(you have to follow the right path above to get here) self-sufficient.

Guilt, shame, envy, etc.

"We can do it in this country too"

"From the mud and blood to the green fields beyond"

STONE ON CHEST & INVESTED 5 FB:

I have to stone on my chest with an, need to remove this stone.

I do not want to get m. I so not love her.

I wanted to undo all of that if I could, because I couldn't.

Being more relaxed helps a lot. I need to learn some meditation from drk.

Be more invested in this world, than that world.

We all have a choice, which world you are more invested in.

l was just trying to help and got banned for my political views. Controversial.

BE MORE INVESTED THE 11SA FEB, BEFORE DU FALL:

Be more invested in this world, than that world.

"They were very kind"

All I wanted was to integrate (the perfect dance and all that) (dream).

And I need to be more responsable.

Be a polite and warm person. (speak with "you" unless said otherwise, and be polite. - You can be polite yet familar at work.)

"There is no problem" let me be the better man.

This is thurs 9feb, perfect for the argument.

This ^^^

"Calm, patient", etc.

"What you are doing is wrong", that's my frame, when somebody escalates.

That was the last thing I said that needs exploring ^^

What does it mean? it means look at: when somebody is escalating they are raising a concern. Let's say you are in a car and you are pushing yourself and the other person pushes back. Why are you pushing me like that? you are wrong for escalating is the frame, but how? people don't like escalation, they find it out of place and only like it with good reason. You have to show it's not a good reason and the other person had no business escalating like that. "But where do you want me to go?", "I'm falling over these people". Therefore, you are the one in the wrong for making such escalation. It was morally wrong for you to escalate like that. Why are you doing that? escalation? it's wrong.

Can't remember, something in the lines of that was the debate.

friday night, the talk of the night:

The best thing is to be funny. Is the coolest thing. Because people don't get bored of you. If you are funny, you can even hook while ugly.

But ideal has to come from both sides, if only one of you is funny the thing is not funny anymore. Ok, is still funny but not as funny anymore.

1. Be funny.

2. Don't brag with the money, brag with the result of the money. Not how much money you make, but what you did with those money, I got a car of 50.000 rather than I have an income of 50.000.

You can use jealousy as gas. But not envy.

You're fat? Instead of cope and becoming ferocious, work in yourself. They are unambitious, want everything to come easy, they want to blame someone else for their crap choices and they don't want to be judged for this.

Intelligence doesn't matter, it matters how you use it.

I want to be a hot man.



k

tech problem.
0 Replies
 
Apothecary
 
  0  
Sat 18 Feb, 2023 02:32 pm
@Apothecary,
++++++++ FULL BOLD AS WELL.

Part 19 (patches and aftermath)

THE HOME PLAN, THAT ABOVE WAS THE END OF AN ERA, AND THE LAST 3 ON THE END WAS RAELLY GOOD.

- Make more answers

- Create more

- Make sure one gets p2

- Make worldwide save

- Start edit until limit

- Copy last on there

- Write on there

- Make summary at the end.



Looks like it:

- (First complete the right order with last desireable post - See if your last posts and last post on the big one match). From when interrupted to new paste.

- Then fill in with mailing.

- Then continue as advised.

"Have a more moderate approach"

"Chill, detached, warm"

"I'm just gonna have to write that and I'm gonna be fine"

Nice, and hot and strong. What every woman wants.

"Women are the soft who want the hot and alpha"

It's not that .... women want that strength, eifh good character.

YOU JUST HAVE TO BE ATTRACTIVE, THAT'S ALL

You just have to be attractive, that's all. (Py)

You just have to be attractive.

If I want to we get back together now.

She started hitting on me, then we combined.

A Chad can afford to refuse women.

"She looks good, it's a truth".

"Your opinion is irrelevant to me", cheeky.

"I ask you from all my soul, for me, so that we play with you" on feeling.

Attitude: I have to show that I am competent. In all areas of life.

THE NICE HOT AND STRONG:

KK



I don't know what to say, what if I say something wrong? how I was before? because before: first it was that novely, so I was the greeted one. Then it was that QNA about me. While I also had to be polite with you and so on, like on a job. Friendly and with people on a job. kkkk



Making comments and so on. Going in on the discussion and so on. When that moment was on and I doubted whether to say something or not, I said it. What if I was wrong? what if I was too much? I asked that too myself, but eventually undoubted myself and went for it. And said, asked, made the comment. She was also very open, very safe. So I felt safe and open saying it knowing that she would reply. That's a great skill and a great perk to people, to be safe and open, so that they know that you will reply. Apologise and be warm and inviting but don't apologise that often.

The most important thing is charisma. That's the charm that does the trick. Being pleasant to talk to, being pleasant to be around, like the 5dc. And other stuff that can be gathered. And it also includes, as said above, being safe and open so that people know you would reply. (and hot & cold)

That's what makes you attractive, charismatic, whatever. Attractive in terms of personality. That is.

That joyful and smile feeling combined with that always reply and being open, so that people know they can be safe and open with you.



tech problem.

THE NICE HOT AND STRONG:

Women want nice, hot and strong. Men want nice, hot and soft. The likes of tate confuse nice with strong so they are like "you have to be an ahole, you have to be the loudest person in the room". No.

Left to do: that connection there with escalation and descalation. Tropically.

Add to it: Those 2 tropics made on nice. Whatever the response above. The part with emotional connection, from that big thing and such (the 3 big ones, last ones). To be put after last save. With the emotional connection and going for it parts highlighted.

So yeah, tabout that, the escalation and such. This about that. Plus, remember the tailor swift and appropiation causes. For the ones going to mention after ones big tropic. And a summary of: appropiation, how to get appropiated, explained there. And being close, not being hesitant.

Good spirit. Having good spirit. Is the best thing possible.

Having someone who makes you smile when you hear or see them.

Become someone who makes other smile when they see or hear you? how? the above part with charisma. With being safe and open but also fun to talk to. And also some parts from above like chads and all these great tips.

Being funny is a perk. A great perk. Being open is a perk. A great perk. Being the center of the room with no doubts is again a perk, a great perk. Being open and not holding back is again a perk, a great perk. Being "intuitive, naive, and looking forward" is a great perk.

Like smile loudly when you see someone. That will lighten their day. Yes 'smile loudly', because they know they are being seen and appreciated there.

And that's how you get appreciation. By appreciating others, like a chad.

THE NICE AND STRONG:

Being souave and sneaky helps a bit. Witty, sort of. "Come on, man", "incompetence", hanging up right away. Self-humor. "It's for disabled people, I'm a disabled person". Sorcery.

Be witty and smart. Be witty and smart. Making funs of them.

Makingfunering. Amuz.

Attitude: everyone is considerate of each other.

Warm welcoming enviroment

Betting in seme.

"I'm nice, very nice, but I'm not a wuss, I also have my own self-respect".

"But I'm also very respectful to people in return, very kind to them and helpful to them, and patient"

Heaven.



THE NICE AND STRONG:

Like "I'm heaven to them and for them".

Backstab or appreciate? I would say appreciate.

Calm and patient and so on, and helpful with them.

"This man is heaven" that's what's supposed to say.

Not out of wuss but because you have your own self-respect.



Be nice and kind. Being nice and kind is a strong quality. A nice and kind and wise. And strong. Interally strong. You can be strong and all of that.



Be open to communication.

"Here everybody is super open" (what I said above about open)

So make an effort to be super open as well.

And have genuine reactions, genuine thoughts and feelings.

And then you'll adjust based on niceness and the others being helpful.

Then you'll adjust based on trust in the people.

And having a good time with them, and commemorating with them, etc.



"Hey , I had an issue with this"

Jokes about being selfish.

Trust that people will respond and they will begin to.



Attitude: I have to show that I am competent. In all areas of life.

(Broken pc example. Tzday. And that I will always do what is right or necessary, communicate with the team, I work for a cause and have to be serious, communicate with the team (open, no inhibitions, all that good stuff), that's what's important, western culture standards, I am willing to work and want to work (in fact, I am quite eager to work - what do I do?)

Emotional support and encouragement. "Great job guys". That works a long way. Encouragement after they done something motivates people. It's not a culture like at home, it's a better one. A more warm and inviting yet strict and orderly one. One can be loving but strict, a perfect combination between the two, will motivate you to want to work on both sides, one that works for all. Because for some only the loving works, for others only the strict works.

I think it's necessary to be both truthful and considerate.

Not to say words that hurt. It's not motivating and it pushes people in the opposite direction.

If you made a mistake admit to it and own to it.

It will be more likely to be accepted.

"When I really wanted to fix the issue", "I have a task to do"

"The world doesn't have time to discern between the unskilled and merely unlucky".

Make them feel hot & cold and they will be yours. Feel good and bad. Lovely and annoying. Annoying and irritating and also very nice. Be that change and they will love you.

Have moments when you make them feel great, and moments when you make them feel bad, it's the fluctuation that matters. Make them feel heavenly and loved and annoyed. Sometimes hot, sometimes cold, that's hot and cold.

Moments of genuine helpful and nice gestures, moments of making fun and 'only thinking about yourself' seflish jokes or their opinion not being important. Hot and cold.

When having that technical issue.

Being like this is bad, no distinguishment between the unfortuante and unworthy. A job has to be done.

Humor is what's socially inappropiate, socially unjustifiable. Dark humor. But you have to make sure it's understood it's dark humor. And you mean it, the humor. As in, you don't really mean it, the joke. Very bad or ouch events that shock and awe. Clearly morally reprehensible. Bening violations it's what's funny. Clearly break of the social norms but ones that nobody gets hurt out of. And also that selfish jokes things, obviously selfish jokes. "I didn't think of that". And their opinion not important. Well, there's more. Socially inappropiate like a prist ringing a bell for a hot woman.

That's what humor is. With improper and weird stuff.

"why are you doing this? you bad for doing this. I did nothing wrong, you escalate for no reason".

That's the meaning and the frame behind the 'you are wrong' when someone escalates you want to show them that they are wrong, why are you doing this? a bridge between the gaps.

Social feedback. It's very important to get social feedback. So you can adjust. But you have to be open for it.

You have to be open for it so you get to adjust.

That's how people do it, that's how everybody does it, they are open, and then they get to adjust. Ok, they also brag a little and power project a little.

Just talk to everybody, say what the situation is, and what the solution can be done.

Alert everyone basically, so that they can know what's up, and ask how to fix it.

And if you feel a drawback? remember, just be open. As long as you're nice everything should be okay as well. If not, take feedback and adjust, that's how everybody does it.

Be open. And then take feedback and adjust.

That's how to be social.

And then pick up the intriquies, the little details. But still be warm and inviting to people. And playing around. Hot & cold. As a joke with a joke spirit.

Like I say this about you, then I also say that about you. It's like a joke, with a joke spirit.

Can you do it? it's all right if I do it later in the morning? ok, it's all right if I do that? ok. Don't worry, not your fault, nothing you can do, it happens.

Next step, I need to get rid of the lazy culture and remember my old mindset. The one with I do this and that, and do that before that. A and B, and remember to do J before C. And there was something else too.

No anger, no fighting, communication, be the better man.

And I seriously need to invest in this one and look competent, something in the lines of that. Need to explore my old mindset.

So as a note, be more open. And always say what you mean. Even if what you mean ends up bad. Have the courage to be more open and talky and get in the conversation, with genuine feelings and opinions, and you will reap the benefits. The benefits of more appropriation and a closer connection. So that's the job, be more open and always say what you mean.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 19 Feb, 2023 01:20 pm
@Apothecary,
Quote:
a) IMPORTANT:
How can I give this person a good time talking to me? what can I do or say to give this person a good time talking to me?

Make people have a good feeling after talking to you - that's the key.
Make sure your interactions are positive ones, that they feel good, because there's no neutral - that's also the key.

It applies everywhere, make people feel good when taking to you. Make sure they have a feeling of good, a positive feeling when talking to you. Make sure they have a positive interaction with you - that's also key.

If your goal is to maximize your followers and 'thumbs up', that was good advice. It’s also good for manipulating people, if you’re into that.

But being a people pleaser is not a formula for your own happiness, in case that’s important to you. I’d just go with being honest with yourself and others. They won’t all like you, but the ones that do will be worth the cost.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/30/2024 at 01:26:13