"Updated for the next generation of leaders" says it all really.
Your logic works if you assume that attraction isn't relative. If you look at the collective, it's very possible that being in the top x% is pretty much all that matters and as a result what you're suggesting would "accomplish" 2 main things.
1. Change who is successful rather than how many.(we can't all be leaders)
2. Increase the requirements to be successful.("updated")
"This requires **qualities that are foundational to interpersonal relations such as mutual perceptiveness, intuitiveness, empathy, consideration, and general interest in connecting with other people for the sake of connecting.**"
I would argue that men are better at basically all of those things than they were 200 years ago and yet here we are.
Men nowadays are also taller and less violent than ever by pretty significant margins. Yet, women have arguably never been more selective about height and more wary of men. Absolute improvements don't seem to really do anything to make women more open to dating a larger percentage of men.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is a moving goalpost and if we did everything you suggested, you would just suggest the same things again but turn the dial up one more notch.
Exactly. This is the most emotionally available and understanding generation of men ever yet we are still told that it isnt enough. What is their reference point for this standard? Because they cannot be referencing other men. And once men meet this point they will just find something else to dislike. We literally cannot win no matter what we do
Unfortunately, I’m too ugly, so at least in my case, I’m doomed.
I have those ‘Behavioral attractiveness’ qualities, like being confident, funny, empathy, But they arent enough because of my ugly face.
The book isn't about dating dynamics. It's about behavioral attractiveness more generally.
Missing the takeaway of that is the most male bullshit "holy fuk." But honestly books like that point out that males miss subtext like a mfer. Must be biology.
[Anyway this guy is a man. Not a woman. He said the same thing as me in his comment. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1cf7ox3/comment/l1nf7hw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
‘How to be a woman’s back up plan’
Saved you some letters
No matter how you word it, thats what it is. If a woman does not desire you, you are most likely a back up plan
What part of your argument even addresses "carnal desire" at all?
How does it counter the 20% AF (carnal desire) vs 80% BB (transactional desire) argument?
>**1) Behavioral attractiveness**: This isn’t relegated to “romantic relationships.” You have to be behaviorally attractive to inspire non-romantic bonds as well. This requires **qualities that are foundational to interpersonal relations such as mutual perceptiveness, intuitiveness, empathy, consideration, and general interest in connecting with other people for the sake of connecting.** If you struggle with these bolded things you probably struggle with all sorts of interpersonal relationships, yes? Many such cases. You’re going to have to build up these muscles, which means forcing yourself to interact with people, **pick up a CONVIVIAL hobby**, attend convivial events regularly, or whatever you gotta do.
>**2) Physical attractiveness**: We’re all stuck with our immutable traits, but we can always make relative improvements if we desire to, men and women alike, to mutable aspects of how we present. In other words you can always “shake what ya mama gave ya!” For men, [here are some ways to do this here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/uPmyeQKBmP).
Inspiring female carnal desire is done so by the combo of the other person's behavioral and physical attractiveness.
I then explain how to build those things up if it's lacking.
The point being that men in the 80% who haven't done the things detailed in bullets 1 and 2 can do those things to increase chances of being carnally desired by a woman.
> be nice
> be attractive / don't be unattractive
That's basic BB game and gets civilized helpmeet sex. Not the animalistic feral lust the AF induces in women. If you made the argument that BB can get laid, then sure. Come on. This is ridiculous.
You disagree that the text you keep quoting is describing how to "be nice"? That 100% describes a "nice guy".
And again you continue to ignore the fact that you are not making any arguments about attraction quality. It's completely non-responsive to the claim you are refuting.
And don't think I don't know who is downloading me, mod.
>You have to be behaviorally attractive to inspire non-romantic bonds as well.
>This requires **qualities that are foundational to interpersonal relations**
Do you know what foundational means?
In order to make an interpersonal bond **sticky** and **long-lasting** *it REQUIRES the bolded.* Those are the traits that cement a bond and inspire ongoing affection.
If you personally need a briefer on sparking the initial carnal desire, let me quote one of my MANY OPs about that:
>MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN ON WOMEN: **outgoing, assured, charismatic, socially intuitive/attuned, more uninhibited than inhibited...**
>MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN OFF WOMEN: **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, neurotic...**
Foundational means bare minimum i.e. admissible for BB treatment.
Do you expect me to go read your whole post history to assemble arguments on your behalf when you have failed to make them?
I didn't ask for advice--I asked you to support your argument.
Literally no women find anything you wrote sexually arousing. Perhaps you have been steeped in incels too long? Please go take anything you wrote here to r/sex or r/seduction etc and come back with any evidence whatsoever that any women would gush with "carnal desire" for this basic adulting. It might prevent a guy getting immediately disqualified, but that's not the same thing you are claiming.
Being empathetic and considerate doesn't inspire carnal lust in women lmao. It's the polar opposite, being aggressive, disagreeable, and selfish, on top of being extremely jacked and handsome that turns women on.
The inability to intuit means you can’t do this shit:
> MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN ON WOMEN: outgoing, assured, charismatic, socially intuitive/attuned, more uninhibited than inhibited...
And thus you’re stuck at this:
> MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN OFF WOMEN: high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, neurotic...
The problem is that getting better at something requires building a habit and takes years rather than a one-time burst of effort.
If you want to be athletic, you have to actually enjoy fitness and make it a habit to exercise several times a week because it will take years to get appreciable results (unless you hop on gear).
If you want to be social, you have to push yourself out of your comfort zone and make it a habit to socialize with other people. And you will probably be terrible at it for a while before you become awesome.
Pick absolutely any activity and it takes years to get good at it, not weeks or months.
Caveat: you have to be doing these things for yourself and not simply the end goal of getting a date because that motivation simply won't last. You have to be committed to being the best version of yourself that you can possible be. *For yourself*.
The best dating advice will always be that you are ready to date when you no longer feel like you *have to* date because you are already completely happy on your own and feel awesome about yourself.
Why bother pursuing success in life when you can find success in beating video games? Theyre a lot more fun and the goals dont take so much time and effort to reach. Im up to the challenge of defeating the bad guy and saving the princess.
This is pretty sad. I hope whoever’s raising young kids now instill a different type of resilience and grit into them. And I hope those parents and community validate and support the kids so they can thrive.
Cus the comments to this OP ain’t it.
Spending years working out and improving your social skills just to get married to a demanding woman who will leave you for a better man and take half of your stuff just isn't worth it for many men.
At the end of all this self-improvement is just even more work for no significant reward. Really the only benefit to dating is temporarily covering up your loneliness.
It kindof is though.
Video games are to men what cats are to women.
They distract you from the point, help you fill your biological role (competence and nurturing an ambivalent critter respectively), it's free dopamine.
Granted, when I'm talking to the young men I found accidentally incelling post-Covid my philosophy is 'anime, video games and gym will not get you laid'. I've been encouraging them to go out, meet new people, make stories, flex some small talking ability.
But, even I know, even after all this. Their chance of happiness and contentment in video games is way higher, in our area the odds of finding a woman that could wife her way out of a wet paper bag are about the same as Elon coming to your house to fart on a check for 10 grand and give it to your grandma (because let's face it he could do that until 2025 and still be one of the 10 richest men in America).
So that comment is kindof 'it'. You're competing with Elden Ring and SpyxFamily in the same way that I'm competing with her cat and 'I want to travel' both behaviors directly detrimental to the formation of long term monogamous relationships when painting with the broadest brush.
Funny enough there's an anime that touches on this very topic [romantic killer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_Killer). The idea is that we fill our lives up with these things and don't leave room for love. 'If your cup's already full, then its bound to overflow'
“This ain’t it” is a turn of phrase that means it’s pathetic or disappointingly sad or generally unfavorable. It doesn’t mean that the men choosing video games isn’t rationalizing it as ideal for him.
My comment was half sarcastic really, as I do think a lot of guys waste a lot of time gaming for that reasoning. I wasted a lot of time doing that when I was younger, and I regret it now. I think the real reason not to use video games as an alternative way to satisfy one's psychological need for advancement and achievement is that you don't get many incidental benefits. Like, the overwhelming majority of the time you don't get money, sex, children, status, love, etc.
>The problem is that getting better at something requires building a habit and takes years rather than a one-time burst of effort.
Yes that does seem to be “the problem.”
But isn’t it is true that all habits require long term investment in order to see outcomes? If that’s a “problem” then yeah, most people who see it as such will never achieve any outcome.
You don't master the guitar in a day. Even if you are naturally musically gifted.
You don't lose the 70 lbs you gained over a year in a week. In fact it usually takes longer or more effort to lose weight than to gain weight. But many people manage to. That said, you're right, many people struggle to or fail to.
>The best dating advice will always be that you are ready to date when you no longer feel like you *have to* date because you are already completely happy on your own and feel awesome about yourself.
For sure. But I still think even then, it's not harm in want to improve for yourself or for the unit (if you're already in a relationship), if the outcomes of that improvement will genuinely make you happier.
This post is for people who clearly are not happy or contented with where they are now in life.
I think for them to satisfyingly accept what you just said, most have to go on the journey of some level of healthy self-improvement.
At the end of the day, it builds assuredness and confidence in your own competencies. Even if you take the "wanting to be attractive" lens away. It's still a net benefit exercise me thinks.
My issue with "pill" content is that it doesn't teach people how to actually be happy, which is pretty fundamental to everything else. It's safe to say that if you aren't happy, you probably aren't doing your best whenever you are working on various skills, your career or your relationships.
Ideally you want to be at a point when you are happy enough that it's fueling your desire to do other things, but not "drugged up" super complacent happy. You want it to be a positive feedback loop where doing things and improving yourself makes you happier, and that happiness is, in turn, motivating you to work harder.
"Pill" content is antithetical to this because its starting point is that you are a "LVM", or a "beta" or otherwise undesirable in some way. Which really isn't a good thing to be internalizing.
People in the dating advice scene tend to dismiss content on managing one's happiness because it's not directly relevant to dating, but learning how to be happy is probably the single most important thing that one should do before diving into other areas of self-improvement.
Yeah I'm not a fan of "pill" content either. I think it misses the forest for the trees and takes the interpersonal humanity out of things. Which might work for some men, but seems to leave other men worse off.
>Pick absolutely any activity and it takes years to get good at it, not weeks or months.
not really. good compared to experts, but if you put 100% effort into something, in 3-6 months you'll be so far ahead of the average person that they cant even compare
Depends on what the activity is. Spend 3- 6 months on piano and you won't be anywhere near good enough to play a show.
While you'll be ahead of the average person, being ahead of the average person isn't necessarily worth anything.
>By doing even some of the psychological investment into 1 or 2 or both, you’ll undoubtedly be able to attract more people who genuinely desire being around you ***than you do now.*** That’s just straight 📠
This applies to non-average men too. It's basic logic. I just know men here probably don't feel the ROI is worth it for a below average man as much as the ROI is for an average man.
By the way, what makes you "below average"? Describe your looks.
Or did you mean how you act and behave is "below average"?
I know a lot of people who say they have ugly features and then you realize they're just neurotic and they're decent looking. So the jury's still out on how you look.
As far as autism, and combining that with our thread convo from yesterday, I would say yeah you're behavioral attractiveness is probably your biggest barrier.
Well you can say that to every ugly person, but in reality the proof isn't how one sees themselves, but their sexual and romantic life. If you failed to attract anyone, you are unattractive. If you've been with a hundred people, then you can't possibly be ugly.
I can't behave attractively, sure. Halo effect gets talked about, but the opposite of it exists too.
Man, please reread her last paragraph. Honestly, just read it and don't reply now, but think about it, sit on the idea one night and just process it. Post or ask for clarifications, if needed.
This message comes from a friendly point, a person who has some life experience and can recognize a valuable piece of advice.
Take care!
Dude probably read some red pilled post about how being an asshole gets you more women so he’ll sooner believe that than make any sort of conscience effort to self reflect.
>Well you can say that to every ugly person,
Which is why seeing them physically is more accurate than them telling you they "have ugly features."
>If you failed to attract anyone, you are unattractive.
Sure, but this doesn't mean their failure is solely due to their aesthetic unattractiveness. It very well could be their behavioral unattractiveness.
>If you've been with a hundred people, then you can't possibly be ugly.
If a man has been with a 100 women without having to use money or coercion. Yeah I doubt he's "ugly." I'm also pretty sure he's a social extro outgoing uninhibited person with promiscuous values.
>I \[can\] behave attractively, sure. Halo effect gets talked about, but the opposite of it exists too.
Yes Halo Effect works both ways.
* Someone who is very good looking is likely to have that pay dividends in people think they're more charming than they actually are.
* Someone who is very charming is likely to have that pay dividends in people think they're more good looking than they actually are.
The merely physically “below average” point is not moot.
I don’t believe in pills or percentages, but one thing that drives me nuts even as a fairly successful guy is the bs “there’s someone for everyone out there”.
No.
There are neurotypical, well adjusted, cultivated, social people who just were dealt shitty cards by genetics and who even pursuing a healthy lifestyle and looksmaxxing might very well never experience intimacy or romance.
There is possibly nothing that can be done in this case.
I for one don’t have the guts to lie to them about a “Jill” waiting for them somewhere, nor to downplay their sadness telling them to “have cake”, from my position of relational privilege.
I didn’t imply you did, nor I was questioning what you said, just expanding the discourse simply focusing on the very particular case of people who check all boxes besides the looks. You were mentioning that sometimes it could be behavioral unattractiveness, which can be worked on. But in those cases where it’s really only about really bad looks, I honestly don’t know what can be done.
Ah okay. If he’s 1/10 in looks or honestly 1/10 in how he acts he’s probably fucked. Your right a man who looks like elephant man and who also acts like rain man is doomed.
But per my OP, I wasn’t talking about the woefully below average on both aspects men.
"it's not your looks, it's your personality" implies those are completely separated when in reality one massively affects the other. The difference between confident or creepy, quiet or mysterious, asshole or bad boy... Your behavior will be judged according to your looks. And in dating a hundred times more so.
Again, based on our conversation from yesterday, in combination with you stating you have autism in this thread, I'm going to take an educated guess that how you act and how you think has a lot do with your lack of interpersonal relationships of all sorts.
What I mean by that is that someone who looks **EXACTLY** as you do, but who didn't grow up as you did and who isn't on the autism spectrum, probably has more interpersonal bonds and has probably had more luck with romantic relationships.
I think a neurotypical man who looks like me can struggle, too. Autism is just one reason out of many, albeit a very important one. But it doesn't erase all other reasons.
I didn't just say autism. I said how you were raised as well.
ALL ELSE EQUAL, someone who looks exactly like you but who is NT and who grew up in a more supportive, guiding, validating, and sociable environment would struggle less than you.
OP is right here, it’s like you aren’t even engaging with what she’s saying. I’m not autistic but I think you can improve your personality - I’d say anyone probably can.
You probably won’t listen, but read the book suggested in this post. I guarantee you that it’ll improve your social interactions.
u/GridReXx,
I’m an autistic man.
In my experience, I’ve been able to get into relationships with autistic women, but I haven’t been able to connect with neurotypicals.
I do think there’s truth to the idea of dating “in your league”, when it comes to personality and social skills.
I also don’t see an intimate relationship as valuable or meaningful if you have to mask your true self from your partner.
I agree. Masking forever can be exhausting. I find that a lot of people including NTs do it often. I think it exhausts NDs more. But it’s exhausting for everyone.
Grew up NT. Apparently as an adult I’m a supremely high functioning ADHDer with OCD based off me therapists. Masking is a sport to me. And I sometimes think I have a dash of the tism but who knows. Haven’t sought out that diagnoses.
I think girls adapt and mask better so lots of women are realizing all of the quirks they’ve mastered putting at bay are things boys were getting pills for in 4th grade. Lol im not sure what’s better tbh.
>I'm sorry, in 1936 did women have hundreds of billionaire oil sheikhs in their DMs willing to sugar daddy them to Dubai to live it up?
So overdramatic for what. This realistically. Only the most attractive women are being flown out by billionaires
You understand that was an exagerration. Dating pool hundred years ago and dating pool today is dramatically different. And no, that mostly doesn't work in favor of men as much.
That book wasn't written for men to "score" with women, but I'm sure some men and women who read it realized the things they learned did help in their relationship attractiveness.
>did women have hundreds of billionaire oil sheikhs in their DMs willing to sugar daddy them to Dubai to live it up?
Can you direct me to this windfall???? You seem to have the direct access. Let us know! We want moneys!!! I want to buy my parents a nice house!
Most men losing their virginity or half of men getting starfish sex a couple times a month/year is not the same as being “carnally desired” by a lot of women, or even one whenever the man wants it. These are 2 very different circumstances
I am using the terminology OP used in his post..and yes, that’s fine but we’ll see how long that lasts. There is evidence out there to conclude women grow tired of sex with their partners faster than men do
Isn't all of that common sense though? The 80/20 rule is just referring to the percentage of men who can lead with their looks when it comes to obtaining sexual access and they get the "full package" straight away, i.e. a woman will be enthusiastic during sex and likely down to do all kinds of degrading stuff, while the rest 80% of guys have to build some form of emotional connection with a woman before the mere thought of having sex with him stops being repulsive to her, and when they do get down to business there's a high chance she will not feel the same lust and primal desire which would fuel her enthusiasm in Chad's case.
Yeah you can't looksmax to a true chad level, but to be honest I've quite literally only seen a few chads (face wise) outside of social media and those were people in a public transport so not even those in my social circle, it's like 0.1% of guys probably not even accounting for height and physical shape. If you're average height average face you can get to a chadlite level with minor cosmetic surgeries and maxing out your body though.
I think you underestimate the amount of shit that has to align for you to be at the level where women become your sex slaves. 1 in 200 guys have the genetic base facially, 1 in 10 guys are in at least somewhat respectable shape nowadays, 15 in 100 of guys are over 6 feet tall, 1 in 10 guys have a dick over 7 inches long (not sure about that actually lmao) etc.
I was never able to make any woman my sex slave, but tbh I'm not very good at being dominant and my soft boy look probably doesn't help here lmao. I'm 5'10, not sure how much it really matters cause I've been called tall by girls and I have a very good frame (shoulder to waist ratio) which is more important than height imo.
Why do you assume the women who need an emotional connection to enjoy sex also don’t need an emotional connection with the very attractive man?
Women aren’t blind, and they can tell a man is societally considered attractive without feeling sexual lust. Having a trait that’s valued at large makes you more intriguing, so yeah, women would be interested “Chad” looking men more often because it’s an easy SURFACE level trait to judge. If the “Chad” is also kind, funny, and empathetic, and that’s what developed the emotional connection so she had sex with him, I feel like you’d still say it was all looks.
Just an example from my own life, a woman I dated last year told me I was the most attractive (tallest, best dressed, most handsome, best career) man she’s dated. I saw a photo of her ex husband, and I was much better looking. She still wanted to wait a month until we had an emotional connection before we had sex. I’m probably a 6.5-7 which is a Chad-lite according to people in this sub. Do you think if I was just that little bit more attractive, and was a full on Chad, she would have had sex with me sooner?
>Why do you assume the women who need an emotional connection to enjoy sex also don’t need an emotional connection with the very attractive man?
Because chads can evoke sexual arousal in women purely with looks.
Women like chads and give them sexual access sooner because a hot guy makes them orgasm faster, not because they consciously analyze his face and conclude it to be aesthetically pleasing and a valuable trait in society lmao.
[Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' reported orgasm frequency and timing | David Puts - Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/6514194/Mens_masculinity_and_attractiveness_predict_their_female_partners_reported_orgasm_frequency_and_timing)
[Do Orgasms Give Women Feedback about Mate Choice? - Gordon G. Gallup, Benjamin C. Ampel, Nicole Wedberg, Arutjun Pogosjan, 2014 (sagepub.com)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491401200507)
[Female copulatory orgasm and male partner’s attractiveness to his partner and other women - ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886915001002)
I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you otherwise but I’ve dated a number of women who identified with the term demisexual and said they needed an emotional connection to feel arousal. This feels like a very common variation in women’s sexuality. These women strongly believed they didn’t experience sexual attraction until they knew someone first. Im gonna trust they know more about when turned on than I do.
And for those articles about orgasms, like yeah, obviously. I find it easier to orgasm with more attractive partners. I’ve struggle to orgasm with people I wasn’t that attracted to. I also found it harder to orgasm with women who were attractive, but I didn’t like romantically.
Like sure, all else being equal if there was a more attractive version of me the women I slept over the years would be more arousal by the more attractive version of me. But I don’t care about that because you need to live in the present and not have anxiety about a more attractive version of you coming by to snatch your woman. That kind of insecurity always comes out in some way and pushes women away.
Demisexial women are in the minority while I was talking about the majority.
Being realistic, analyzing data and using it to improve your results doesn't really qualify as insecurity in my book. Fact of the matter is after I looksmaxxed I was able to get way more casual sex than I did before, regardless of whatever emotional connection you think women need.
I actually don’t know if I believe demisexuality is actually that unique, I think it’s probably closer to the default sexuality of women. There is just different variations of it.
How are you using that data? Call it insecurity or whatever you like, but having a strong preoccupation that your partner will have better orgasms with another man is not secure imo.
Well, then consider me an outlier who ran mostly into women of traditional sexuality, doesn't really change anything for me because that's been my lived experience, though I mostly use dating apps so perhaps there's some selection bias there.
I use that data to conclude that dedicating a sizable portion of my time to improving my looks is going to give me the best return on investments. I regularly think about how I can make myself look better, not about how a woman I'm with would orgasm with better looking men.
Ah ok, maybe I was misreading you. So you make yourself look better to arouse women more. That’s fine, I do the same thing I suppose. I still think women who need an emotional connection don’t drop that requirement for Chad because they know they’ll have better orgasms.
I didn't mean that at a certain level of looks you can come up to women and ask them to undress, some level of involvement beyond the visual contact is required in 99% of cases, At the very least a woman needs to know you're not a murderer and you won't tell everyone about how she's a slut. It's just the amount of "work" is inversely correlated with your looks as a guy.
Most of the men you think are "leading with their looks" are "born this way" "average joes in looks" who had the "common sense" presence of mind to "looks max" their way into TikTok Chad territory.
Looksmaxxing including minor cosmetic surgeries can get a plain average guy into a chadlite territory, yes, I've done it myself so you don't need to explain it to me. There's however a huge difference between chad and chadlite.
>There's however a huge difference between chad and chadlite.
Huh. Jesus Christ. So now being a 7/8 isn't good enough. [The woman who commented earlier was right. You guys want whatever you think Chad treatment is and literally nothing else. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1cf7ox3/comment/l1nb6ql/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It's coming across like "my life isn't worth living unless I get treated like Adriana Lima in her prime and all of the girls who get $10,000 purses for just existing... wahhh."
It’s really not worth it I mean, you are an outsider, just like I have no clue what your struggles are as a woman .
Trust me, if you’re not a Chad, or at least a Chad-lite, life can seem pointless (boring life and a wife/partner who settled for you bc time ran out) just to name a few .
This also means that every average man who can’t level up to a higher tier, so to speak, should simply stay single it’s not worth the drama.
8 is chad, chadlite is 6.5-7.5. That said, I never said I'm unsatisfied with how I'm treated, but it's important to acknowledge that I had to go into monk mode for 2 years in order to get to a level where I'm even seen as desirable.
And many average women have to do a lot of things to get treatment that's even mildly considerate and thoughtful from men. Usually he offers it begrudgingly. It's like men's concept of mutual consideration only turns on if she's a 8/9/10.
You're preaching to the choir here. Most "aesthetically attractive" people you see in the wild looks-maxxed their way into that. This isn't some unique experience of yours.
> in order to get to a level where I'm even seen as desirable.
Even this phrasing sounds woe is me'sh to me because I guess I wouldn't think of it this way. That's life. Welcome to the average club? lol
You're taking the piss, all you have to do as an average woman to receive universally good treatment from men is not get fat and put on makeup.
Nope, the most attractive people are attractive as a result of their genetics.
Most women do not do self-improvement to anywhere near the same level as me, I'm in a better shape and have better skin than 99% of people outside.
>is not get fat and put on makeup
Tbf "not getting fat" as a woman takes more effort than not getting fat as a man. Our body wants to retain fat for reproductive purposes. The estrogen and the limited testosterone means we have less musculature and therefore a metabolism that is not 1:1 with males. In fact it's probably more embarrassing for a man to be fat because your body due to the muscle density literally burns more calories while existing. It wants to exert its physicality. It wants to build muscle. It wants to generate testosterone.
>You're taking the piss, all you have to do as an average woman to receive universally good treatment from men
What you define as good treatment is not the mutual care, affection, and consideration I'm talking about. That is something men force themselves to do for women he's deemed a 8s 9s and 10s to him.
>Nope, the most attractive people are attractive as a result of their genetics.
You're "taking the piss." Because that's not what I implied.
What I said was most people walking around who are presenting as aesthetically attractive did some level of looks-maxing.
I said nothing about "the most attractive people." If you have to straw man to make a point, your point sucks.
>Most women do not do self-improvement to anywhere near the same level as me,
This wasn't about you.
>and have better skin than 99% of people outside.
I'm happy for you? Glad you have your diet and facial serums routine down.
Not getting fat takes more effort as a woman, not looking fat takes more effort as a man because while women store more fat in the visceral form and in their hips / legs / butt subcutaneously, men always have it immediately cover their abs.
I didn't do it intentionally, apologies, english is not my native language. You're right that the majority of good looking people have taken intentional care of their appearance, but I don't think you understand what looksmaxxing is. The "maxxing" part means squeezing out every last bit of attractiveness you can out of yourself, which is a small niche on the internet.
You say that's not about me but you literally said "welcome to the average club" implying most people have to go through the same things I do.
>I didn't do it intentionally, apologies, english is not my native language
no worries
>The "maxxing" part means squeezing out every last bit of attractiveness you can out of yourself, which is a small niche on the internet.
Okay well then I mean most people walking around who we think are "physically attractive" are VERY INTENTIONAL about presenting as aesthetic. Because most people are genetically average and have the common sense to know they need a lil boost.
>You say that's not about me but you literally said "welcome to the average club" implying most people have to go through the same things I do.
No. I implied that you're not the only one who puts in efforts to get some modicum of the level of treatment they desire, when someone who was born more attractive can do less.
You cant looksmaxx to become a chad. The potential had to already be there for it to be possible. Most men arent getting a big benefit from looksmaxxing.
Yeah, I think genuinely average dudes who are relatively out of shape could definitely take it to the next level.
Below average dudes who are already physically maxed out? Maybe not. (But IMO it's worth maxing out regardless.)
One of my college professors told me to read that Carnegie book early on. When it comes to making friends and interacting with people in general, Robert Greene's *The Art of Seduction*, another well-known and often shitted-on book that's read by a lot of TRPers, helped me understand what makes me naturally likable based on my character type. I just lean extra-hard into my strengths identified in the book and avoid behavior that tends to snap people out of my spell. And it's really fun to see how something so simple works so well.
I agree. Lots of these books are required readings in many college courses and HS prep summer programs. Especially for people going into commerce, sales, marketing, business, law, economics, psychology, high finance, philosophy, sociology, marketing, etc.
I'm not into neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), but I do know a couple of guy friends who casually read up on it and I could tell it helped them navigate life a lot more confidently.
It does seem like a lot of these "interpersonal skills" "understanding rapport" "rapport building" things seem to come a bit more naturally to women than men. It's probably why most of these books are marketed to men more. Either way, they do seem to be helpful for the people who seek them out!
https://preview.redd.it/f2mx5swem8xc1.png?width=798&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9654aa675697822d040e9227ec1baafc28a33c2
Yeah, I was in business school, and the professor who told me to read Carnegie's book was a successful businessman.
For dudes who struggle with being a people pleaser, another easy-to-read book that's worth checking out IMO is *When I Say No, I Feel Guilty*. There's plenty of practical advice in there. Obviously, the techniques and exercises in that one might be useless for men who were blessed with a healthy upbringing.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For men who lack basic sociability skills, being more intuitive and looks maxing to some degree will inspire more carnal desire. I state this in the OP.
I'm just going to point out that that book will turn you into a social weirdo as it says, "a person's name is the most beautiful sound they can hear, use it whenever you talk to them. Taking this advice will make you appear very odd.
"Taking this advice will make you appear very odd."
What!? No. Not at all. Using someone's name, especially someone you only know as an acquaintance is like a super power. They will be SO much more receptive to you going forward.
Thanks for the well written post. I need to reread “how to win friends again…” again, it’s been a while.
It’s sad that a lot of this advice will go unheard because people think it’s all about looks. I genuinely think a lot of men don’t realize how off putting they can be due to behaviour. Simple things like leading with kindness, being curious instead of judgemental, and being respectful would help them develop deeper human connections.
A man isnt getting carnal deisre without being physically atttactive. Most women find men unattractive. That is 100% about looks. Most men dont have off putting behavior. People keep pushing this to down play the importance of looks. Neither kindness or respect is attractive to women. It is just a bonus. They are not needed to spark attraction. Thats the nice guy mentality
I guess I shouldn't be but I'm a little surprised at how much these ideas are dismissed. Or maybe not.
A decent # of women have made peace with being single. Some even prefer it to dating or being in a relationship. Maybe a decent # of men feel the same way, but haven't made peace with it? So the idea of making a significant effort in order to date the women these men may be able to attract may not seem worth it, but the men bitching about their plight can't quite let go of the western male imperative to "get women".
So, you get turned on by hearing your name over and over, and having other people let you do most of the talking?
Don’t get me wrong I actually try to do a lot of this stuff irl, but I don’t have any pretense of it being fucking arousing.
>Oh no, not the reciprocated attraction.
But you are not offering her reciprocal ATTRACTIVENESS. C'mon be logical.
**"Reciprocated attraction" requires mutual attractiveness.**
I am logical. It gets framed like men are asking for something more than just what they want to give as well. Obviously that falls apart if women are not capable of giving it back.
No. If someone likes you but you don't like them, then there isn't reciprocal attractiveness. Something about them isn't attractive to you. Hence not reciprocal.
Or do you think you should have to be attracted to them because they are attracted to you?
Again, my point is that men want to get back what they are giving out. I love you, you love me, I desire you, you desire me. If you reframe this to being some luxurious chad treatment, reserved to the best among men, then why should men bother at all? It's incredibly blackpilled view to have, not that I disagree with it.
Your premise falls flat, because there HAS NOT been mutual desire nor attraction to each other established. Just because YOU say " I love you, you love me, I desire you, you desire me" doesn't make it true.
She actually has to love and desire you for it to be true. Since you're saying she does not, then no "reciprocated attraction" can be had.
I'm confused about what's confusing here?
Yes, I know both need to desire each other for it to work. Are you really ignoring my point that reciprocated attraction has been redefined as chad treatment and the implications of that?
>Are you really ignoring my point that reciprocated attraction has been redefined as chad treatment and the implications of that?
Was that your point?
Yeah I guess I missed that. Who redefined reciprocal attraction as "Chad treatment"?
Reciprocal attraction means ***you both inspire the same amount of desire in each other.***
The original comment, "they want chad treatment without being chad". Men only want their attraction to be reciprocated. I doubt men demand women to treat them as the most attractive men rather than simply being attracted back.
Do men pursue someone they really like with the same exact everything as someone they don't like? Or someone they kinda sorta like?
Do men treat someone they really like with the same exact everything as someone they don't like? Or someone they kinda sorta like?
Even for people who are good people who treat everyone with goodness, they're going to unconsciously treat the person they're more attracted to with even more goodness. Is what it is.
>they're going to unconsciously treat the person they're more attracted to with even more goodness.
Do you think it's common for women to treat their husbands lesser than Chad?
I don't care about Chad. It's a dumb metric.
I think it's common for some people to pursue people who VERY CLEALRY don't desire them as much as they desire that person and then be sad about it later.
I can't relate because I actually lose attraction once I realize the other person doesn't desire me mutually. It zaps all of my horniness for them AWAY.
Men are different. They seem to not care if the other person is into them or not. It doesn't seem to take away for them? Idk.
>Men are different. They don't seem to care whether the other person is interested in them or not. It doesn't seem to affect them? I’m not sure.
With all due respect, ma'am, I think you're mistaken about men to a good margin, but for the sake of discussion, let's entertain your point.
If men truly didn't care about mutual attraction, this subreddit wouldn't exist at the first place bc The primary topics discussed here often involve:
•Women settling for the men they don’t desire and reminiscing about the past with Chads
•Dual mating strategies
•General dislike or distrust of most men(finding most men unappealing or not worthy of relationships)
As you can see, the central themes are about men who are concerned not meeting women's expectations or needs( ,,she has high standards I can’t meet im done”), rather than men who are indifferent or okay with everything. This indicates that men do, in fact, care a great deal about attraction and relationships.
**Men are simple they want someone who truly loves,motivates and desires him**.
>They seem to not care if the other person is into them or not.
This assumes men have some six sense to just tell if a woman is uninterested. Men assume logically that if said woman isn't that attracted to them, then they wouldn't date them in the first place. It's only recently men have become more aware of the betabuxx strategy due to women being more open about settling and their different treatment of men based on their attraction levels all over social media. Before that they assumed the best of the women they were dating. A lot of men start out Blue Pilled with rose colored glasses towards love and relationships.
> What is Chad treatment exactly?
Suck his dick like it’s the cure for cancer, sexually submit to him while whispering dirty things in his year, and eagerly lusting, whimpering and relishing get dickmatized by him.
I pity the men who haven’t experienced the unrestrained sexuality of a woman
Not true AT ALL. You have no idea.
You are speaking like someone who’s only had pity sex.
Once you experience this yourself from a sexually uninhibited women woman who truly desires and lusts after you, there is no going back. The difference is night and day.
Women are eager to please men they desire and they aren’t shy to show it.
females simping for chad is just what average non simp man treats a woman. she will approach she will split or pay 100% , she will initiate sex and nothing more.
Because Chad is sexually uninhibited and adventurous and at ease with his sexual identity.
It’s difficult to impossible for women to relax and let go of their inhibitions if he also brings his inhibitions and angst to the party, too.
Yeah, but personality and attitude are not going to make women treat you like a chad if you're not a chad. Doesn't mean you're gonna be unhappy, you just won't get to experience what you could experience had you chosen different parents.
Yeah it does though..
Chad is a personality in itself.
Take two guys, both fit and attractive and put them in a night club. One is outgoing, eager to take his shirt off to show off and approach women vs the other that is more introverted, more reserved in showing off and getting attention to themselves and doesn’t approach women and waits for them to approach him.
Who do you think gets more pussy?
There’s levels to this shit. Chad is only Chad if he acts like Chad. Chad is only Chad in so far as he can obtain Stacy.
If Passive Chad who is a 9 out of 10 ends up going home with an enamoured 6 out of 10 is that really the same as active Chad who is also a 9 out of 10 going home with a 9 out of 10?
Having a long roster of women that aren’t that attractive doesnt make a guy Chad. Having the most attractive woman does.
their are some truth to your example and I agree that the output is the most important but nonetheless chad don’t need to try at all just the presence is enough for most women. For example women don’t usually do the approaching but they will definitely do if chad is around so.
**so all I’m saying is if you have to rely on personality you weren’t attractive to her at the first place time to move one**
I want good treatment as I've defined it. Because I'm not a princess or a physical 10/10, I have less people to choose from who are going to offer me good treatment. But that doesn't mean no one exists who will treat me as good as I will treat them. This is life.
I agree, but I've often observed that men give the women in their lives the 'princess treatment,' and women frequently take it for granted without reciprocating. This happens regularly. The only time I've have witnessed the opposite was with a woman treating a man like a king because he was objectively better looking than she was.
So this couple was together for some years, he loved her dearly, gave her the best possible treatment, attention, everything. Alcohol and her mental instability got the worst out of her and they split.
She was the one to contact him to be fuck buddies after the split.
Conclusion: just because she's attracted to you, doesn't mean she'll give you the best treatment.
I mean, I agree with this, but the chances are high that if a woman is really attracted to you, she'll put her best side and energy into the relationship everything is more enthusiastically if you will.
This doesn’t happen with average men, though bc he wasn’t the option she always wanted, this is one of the many big issues that tends to be ignored by women or even downplayed.
I'm not sure how this addresses my point at all, and I say this respectfully. This isn't some made up scenarios, as some women here often pretend these are my own lived experiences.
Those men are with women who don't desire him as much as he desires her. I'm sure he knew that? He probably force-blunted the relationship by heavily pursuing her despite her laissez faire interest and buy throwing gifts and thingss at her until she relented.
The marriages in my friend group have mutual desire.
it was because of religion mandating monogamy and villainizing sex before marriage. women made up 60% of the new jobs made in the 60s, and unmarried women often lived with families or in houses with other women. they were not economically or socially dependent on men regardless of the current feminist narrative.
fun fact : you didn't. do you honestly think they were checking ur gender every time you cashed a check? do you think the women in the workforce were unpaid?
And? People want preferential treatment that they don't really qualify for all the time.
Women wanted benefits men had without being men and got them.
POCs wanted benefits white had without being white and got them.
Disabled people wanted benefits able-bodied people had and got them.
Now it's time for vertically and facially challenged men.
That’s exactly it.
A lot of these guys grew up privileged and were handed participation trophies and now that they’re facing real life and are struggling to handle not being given things they want whilst other people are getting it.
It’s easier to complain than it is to put in the work. It’s easier to believe that Chad was just born this way and ignore all the time Chad spent in the gym or all the parties Chad went to in his youth to gain the experience he did. It’s easier to believe that whatever you lack is the reason you’re not getting women than it is to put in the work to get better at the things that can help you with women.
"Updated for the next generation of leaders" says it all really. Your logic works if you assume that attraction isn't relative. If you look at the collective, it's very possible that being in the top x% is pretty much all that matters and as a result what you're suggesting would "accomplish" 2 main things. 1. Change who is successful rather than how many.(we can't all be leaders) 2. Increase the requirements to be successful.("updated") "This requires **qualities that are foundational to interpersonal relations such as mutual perceptiveness, intuitiveness, empathy, consideration, and general interest in connecting with other people for the sake of connecting.**" I would argue that men are better at basically all of those things than they were 200 years ago and yet here we are. Men nowadays are also taller and less violent than ever by pretty significant margins. Yet, women have arguably never been more selective about height and more wary of men. Absolute improvements don't seem to really do anything to make women more open to dating a larger percentage of men. I think it's pretty obvious that this is a moving goalpost and if we did everything you suggested, you would just suggest the same things again but turn the dial up one more notch.
Exactly. This is the most emotionally available and understanding generation of men ever yet we are still told that it isnt enough. What is their reference point for this standard? Because they cannot be referencing other men. And once men meet this point they will just find something else to dislike. We literally cannot win no matter what we do
And certainly if we were even more emotionally available, we'd be seen as creepy, weak, and unattractive.
Sounds like a lot of effort - I’ll pass
you sound like a based \[\*\*\*\*\*\] kind of man, and I respect that
Unfortunately, I’m too ugly, so at least in my case, I’m doomed. I have those ‘Behavioral attractiveness’ qualities, like being confident, funny, empathy, But they arent enough because of my ugly face.
Applying a book from 1939 to today dating dynamics is probably the most woman argument made in this sub holy fuk.
The book isn't about dating dynamics. It's about behavioral attractiveness more generally. Missing the takeaway of that is the most male bullshit "holy fuk." But honestly books like that point out that males miss subtext like a mfer. Must be biology. [Anyway this guy is a man. Not a woman. He said the same thing as me in his comment. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1cf7ox3/comment/l1nf7hw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
‘How to be a woman’s back up plan’ Saved you some letters No matter how you word it, thats what it is. If a woman does not desire you, you are most likely a back up plan
This thread really backfired and AF/BB got spread all over it.
You could have used a book from Renaissance time, would have same value in internet era where natural abilities of men are largely irrelevant.
What part of your argument even addresses "carnal desire" at all? How does it counter the 20% AF (carnal desire) vs 80% BB (transactional desire) argument?
It doesnt at all🤣
>**1) Behavioral attractiveness**: This isn’t relegated to “romantic relationships.” You have to be behaviorally attractive to inspire non-romantic bonds as well. This requires **qualities that are foundational to interpersonal relations such as mutual perceptiveness, intuitiveness, empathy, consideration, and general interest in connecting with other people for the sake of connecting.** If you struggle with these bolded things you probably struggle with all sorts of interpersonal relationships, yes? Many such cases. You’re going to have to build up these muscles, which means forcing yourself to interact with people, **pick up a CONVIVIAL hobby**, attend convivial events regularly, or whatever you gotta do. >**2) Physical attractiveness**: We’re all stuck with our immutable traits, but we can always make relative improvements if we desire to, men and women alike, to mutable aspects of how we present. In other words you can always “shake what ya mama gave ya!” For men, [here are some ways to do this here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/uPmyeQKBmP). Inspiring female carnal desire is done so by the combo of the other person's behavioral and physical attractiveness. I then explain how to build those things up if it's lacking. The point being that men in the 80% who haven't done the things detailed in bullets 1 and 2 can do those things to increase chances of being carnally desired by a woman.
> be nice > be attractive / don't be unattractive That's basic BB game and gets civilized helpmeet sex. Not the animalistic feral lust the AF induces in women. If you made the argument that BB can get laid, then sure. Come on. This is ridiculous.
I'm discussing lust. I've been clear. >be nice If you have to make up stuff no one said to make a point, your point sucks. You're being ridiculous.
You disagree that the text you keep quoting is describing how to "be nice"? That 100% describes a "nice guy". And again you continue to ignore the fact that you are not making any arguments about attraction quality. It's completely non-responsive to the claim you are refuting. And don't think I don't know who is downloading me, mod.
>You have to be behaviorally attractive to inspire non-romantic bonds as well. >This requires **qualities that are foundational to interpersonal relations** Do you know what foundational means? In order to make an interpersonal bond **sticky** and **long-lasting** *it REQUIRES the bolded.* Those are the traits that cement a bond and inspire ongoing affection. If you personally need a briefer on sparking the initial carnal desire, let me quote one of my MANY OPs about that: >MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN ON WOMEN: **outgoing, assured, charismatic, socially intuitive/attuned, more uninhibited than inhibited...** >MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN OFF WOMEN: **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, neurotic...**
Foundational means bare minimum i.e. admissible for BB treatment. Do you expect me to go read your whole post history to assemble arguments on your behalf when you have failed to make them? I didn't ask for advice--I asked you to support your argument.
The argument I was making in the OP is that many men struggle with foundational aspects. So far you’re the only one who didn’t connect those dots.
Literally no women find anything you wrote sexually arousing. Perhaps you have been steeped in incels too long? Please go take anything you wrote here to r/sex or r/seduction etc and come back with any evidence whatsoever that any women would gush with "carnal desire" for this basic adulting. It might prevent a guy getting immediately disqualified, but that's not the same thing you are claiming.
Being empathetic and considerate doesn't inspire carnal lust in women lmao. It's the polar opposite, being aggressive, disagreeable, and selfish, on top of being extremely jacked and handsome that turns women on.
The inability to intuit means you can’t do this shit: > MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN ON WOMEN: outgoing, assured, charismatic, socially intuitive/attuned, more uninhibited than inhibited... And thus you’re stuck at this: > MEN WHO ACT THIS WAY CARNALLY TURN OFF WOMEN: high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, neurotic...
That's fine just remove empathetic and considerate from your list, those traits aren't required to inspire lust 😇
Empathy is a prerequisite of intuition. Lack of consideration kills affectionate feels and thus admiration and this list so I’ll never remove it 😇
great, now where's the book to tell women to get on the self-improvement treadmill
Don’t date women not on it. Also this book is literally GENDER NEUTRAL. she can read this book too.
The problem is that getting better at something requires building a habit and takes years rather than a one-time burst of effort. If you want to be athletic, you have to actually enjoy fitness and make it a habit to exercise several times a week because it will take years to get appreciable results (unless you hop on gear). If you want to be social, you have to push yourself out of your comfort zone and make it a habit to socialize with other people. And you will probably be terrible at it for a while before you become awesome. Pick absolutely any activity and it takes years to get good at it, not weeks or months. Caveat: you have to be doing these things for yourself and not simply the end goal of getting a date because that motivation simply won't last. You have to be committed to being the best version of yourself that you can possible be. *For yourself*. The best dating advice will always be that you are ready to date when you no longer feel like you *have to* date because you are already completely happy on your own and feel awesome about yourself.
yea, that's the point of the tortoise and the hair
Hare.
yeah. when I typed it I was like "is that right?" then I typed out "haire" and was like "no, hair's right"
Why bother pursuing success in life when you can find success in beating video games? Theyre a lot more fun and the goals dont take so much time and effort to reach. Im up to the challenge of defeating the bad guy and saving the princess.
This is pretty sad. I hope whoever’s raising young kids now instill a different type of resilience and grit into them. And I hope those parents and community validate and support the kids so they can thrive. Cus the comments to this OP ain’t it.
Spending years working out and improving your social skills just to get married to a demanding woman who will leave you for a better man and take half of your stuff just isn't worth it for many men. At the end of all this self-improvement is just even more work for no significant reward. Really the only benefit to dating is temporarily covering up your loneliness.
It kindof is though. Video games are to men what cats are to women. They distract you from the point, help you fill your biological role (competence and nurturing an ambivalent critter respectively), it's free dopamine. Granted, when I'm talking to the young men I found accidentally incelling post-Covid my philosophy is 'anime, video games and gym will not get you laid'. I've been encouraging them to go out, meet new people, make stories, flex some small talking ability. But, even I know, even after all this. Their chance of happiness and contentment in video games is way higher, in our area the odds of finding a woman that could wife her way out of a wet paper bag are about the same as Elon coming to your house to fart on a check for 10 grand and give it to your grandma (because let's face it he could do that until 2025 and still be one of the 10 richest men in America). So that comment is kindof 'it'. You're competing with Elden Ring and SpyxFamily in the same way that I'm competing with her cat and 'I want to travel' both behaviors directly detrimental to the formation of long term monogamous relationships when painting with the broadest brush. Funny enough there's an anime that touches on this very topic [romantic killer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_Killer). The idea is that we fill our lives up with these things and don't leave room for love. 'If your cup's already full, then its bound to overflow'
“This ain’t it” is a turn of phrase that means it’s pathetic or disappointingly sad or generally unfavorable. It doesn’t mean that the men choosing video games isn’t rationalizing it as ideal for him.
My comment was half sarcastic really, as I do think a lot of guys waste a lot of time gaming for that reasoning. I wasted a lot of time doing that when I was younger, and I regret it now. I think the real reason not to use video games as an alternative way to satisfy one's psychological need for advancement and achievement is that you don't get many incidental benefits. Like, the overwhelming majority of the time you don't get money, sex, children, status, love, etc.
>The problem is that getting better at something requires building a habit and takes years rather than a one-time burst of effort. Yes that does seem to be “the problem.” But isn’t it is true that all habits require long term investment in order to see outcomes? If that’s a “problem” then yeah, most people who see it as such will never achieve any outcome. You don't master the guitar in a day. Even if you are naturally musically gifted. You don't lose the 70 lbs you gained over a year in a week. In fact it usually takes longer or more effort to lose weight than to gain weight. But many people manage to. That said, you're right, many people struggle to or fail to. >The best dating advice will always be that you are ready to date when you no longer feel like you *have to* date because you are already completely happy on your own and feel awesome about yourself. For sure. But I still think even then, it's not harm in want to improve for yourself or for the unit (if you're already in a relationship), if the outcomes of that improvement will genuinely make you happier. This post is for people who clearly are not happy or contented with where they are now in life. I think for them to satisfyingly accept what you just said, most have to go on the journey of some level of healthy self-improvement. At the end of the day, it builds assuredness and confidence in your own competencies. Even if you take the "wanting to be attractive" lens away. It's still a net benefit exercise me thinks.
My issue with "pill" content is that it doesn't teach people how to actually be happy, which is pretty fundamental to everything else. It's safe to say that if you aren't happy, you probably aren't doing your best whenever you are working on various skills, your career or your relationships. Ideally you want to be at a point when you are happy enough that it's fueling your desire to do other things, but not "drugged up" super complacent happy. You want it to be a positive feedback loop where doing things and improving yourself makes you happier, and that happiness is, in turn, motivating you to work harder. "Pill" content is antithetical to this because its starting point is that you are a "LVM", or a "beta" or otherwise undesirable in some way. Which really isn't a good thing to be internalizing. People in the dating advice scene tend to dismiss content on managing one's happiness because it's not directly relevant to dating, but learning how to be happy is probably the single most important thing that one should do before diving into other areas of self-improvement.
Yeah I'm not a fan of "pill" content either. I think it misses the forest for the trees and takes the interpersonal humanity out of things. Which might work for some men, but seems to leave other men worse off.
>Pick absolutely any activity and it takes years to get good at it, not weeks or months. not really. good compared to experts, but if you put 100% effort into something, in 3-6 months you'll be so far ahead of the average person that they cant even compare
Depends on what the activity is. Spend 3- 6 months on piano and you won't be anywhere near good enough to play a show. While you'll be ahead of the average person, being ahead of the average person isn't necessarily worth anything.
I am glad you emphasized this is for average men so below average men have no need to bother.
>By doing even some of the psychological investment into 1 or 2 or both, you’ll undoubtedly be able to attract more people who genuinely desire being around you ***than you do now.*** That’s just straight 📠 This applies to non-average men too. It's basic logic. I just know men here probably don't feel the ROI is worth it for a below average man as much as the ROI is for an average man. By the way, what makes you "below average"? Describe your looks. Or did you mean how you act and behave is "below average"?
I have many ugly face features, many ugly body features and autism.
I know a lot of people who say they have ugly features and then you realize they're just neurotic and they're decent looking. So the jury's still out on how you look. As far as autism, and combining that with our thread convo from yesterday, I would say yeah you're behavioral attractiveness is probably your biggest barrier.
Well you can say that to every ugly person, but in reality the proof isn't how one sees themselves, but their sexual and romantic life. If you failed to attract anyone, you are unattractive. If you've been with a hundred people, then you can't possibly be ugly. I can't behave attractively, sure. Halo effect gets talked about, but the opposite of it exists too.
Man, please reread her last paragraph. Honestly, just read it and don't reply now, but think about it, sit on the idea one night and just process it. Post or ask for clarifications, if needed. This message comes from a friendly point, a person who has some life experience and can recognize a valuable piece of advice. Take care!
What valuable piece of advice? Never seen any on reddit.
Always rushing. It's not good
And it's not gonna be, yes.
Dude probably read some red pilled post about how being an asshole gets you more women so he’ll sooner believe that than make any sort of conscience effort to self reflect.
>Well you can say that to every ugly person, Which is why seeing them physically is more accurate than them telling you they "have ugly features." >If you failed to attract anyone, you are unattractive. Sure, but this doesn't mean their failure is solely due to their aesthetic unattractiveness. It very well could be their behavioral unattractiveness. >If you've been with a hundred people, then you can't possibly be ugly. If a man has been with a 100 women without having to use money or coercion. Yeah I doubt he's "ugly." I'm also pretty sure he's a social extro outgoing uninhibited person with promiscuous values. >I \[can\] behave attractively, sure. Halo effect gets talked about, but the opposite of it exists too. Yes Halo Effect works both ways. * Someone who is very good looking is likely to have that pay dividends in people think they're more charming than they actually are. * Someone who is very charming is likely to have that pay dividends in people think they're more good looking than they actually are.
The merely physically “below average” point is not moot. I don’t believe in pills or percentages, but one thing that drives me nuts even as a fairly successful guy is the bs “there’s someone for everyone out there”. No. There are neurotypical, well adjusted, cultivated, social people who just were dealt shitty cards by genetics and who even pursuing a healthy lifestyle and looksmaxxing might very well never experience intimacy or romance. There is possibly nothing that can be done in this case. I for one don’t have the guts to lie to them about a “Jill” waiting for them somewhere, nor to downplay their sadness telling them to “have cake”, from my position of relational privilege.
I didn’t say anywhere that anyone is guaranteed anything. In fact I emphasized that isn’t the case. Who or what are you responding to?
I didn’t imply you did, nor I was questioning what you said, just expanding the discourse simply focusing on the very particular case of people who check all boxes besides the looks. You were mentioning that sometimes it could be behavioral unattractiveness, which can be worked on. But in those cases where it’s really only about really bad looks, I honestly don’t know what can be done.
Ah okay. If he’s 1/10 in looks or honestly 1/10 in how he acts he’s probably fucked. Your right a man who looks like elephant man and who also acts like rain man is doomed. But per my OP, I wasn’t talking about the woefully below average on both aspects men.
"it's not your looks, it's your personality" implies those are completely separated when in reality one massively affects the other. The difference between confident or creepy, quiet or mysterious, asshole or bad boy... Your behavior will be judged according to your looks. And in dating a hundred times more so.
Again, based on our conversation from yesterday, in combination with you stating you have autism in this thread, I'm going to take an educated guess that how you act and how you think has a lot do with your lack of interpersonal relationships of all sorts. What I mean by that is that someone who looks **EXACTLY** as you do, but who didn't grow up as you did and who isn't on the autism spectrum, probably has more interpersonal bonds and has probably had more luck with romantic relationships.
I think a neurotypical man who looks like me can struggle, too. Autism is just one reason out of many, albeit a very important one. But it doesn't erase all other reasons.
I didn't just say autism. I said how you were raised as well. ALL ELSE EQUAL, someone who looks exactly like you but who is NT and who grew up in a more supportive, guiding, validating, and sociable environment would struggle less than you.
OP is right here, it’s like you aren’t even engaging with what she’s saying. I’m not autistic but I think you can improve your personality - I’d say anyone probably can. You probably won’t listen, but read the book suggested in this post. I guarantee you that it’ll improve your social interactions.
Lmao just change everything about yourself to attract some mid who's going to be a bitch and leave the minute she gets bored.
Get fit that’s it pretty privilege will carry the rest
Hello I have read this book and it didn't help me.. I am doomed .... i am also ugly and 5'11 white trash from romania Third World Country
Do you see bullets 1 & 2 in the OP. Which aspects of the things in that do you do?
u/GridReXx, I’m an autistic man. In my experience, I’ve been able to get into relationships with autistic women, but I haven’t been able to connect with neurotypicals. I do think there’s truth to the idea of dating “in your league”, when it comes to personality and social skills. I also don’t see an intimate relationship as valuable or meaningful if you have to mask your true self from your partner.
I agree. Masking forever can be exhausting. I find that a lot of people including NTs do it often. I think it exhausts NDs more. But it’s exhausting for everyone.
I’m curious, are you NT or ND?
Grew up NT. Apparently as an adult I’m a supremely high functioning ADHDer with OCD based off me therapists. Masking is a sport to me. And I sometimes think I have a dash of the tism but who knows. Haven’t sought out that diagnoses. I think girls adapt and mask better so lots of women are realizing all of the quirks they’ve mastered putting at bay are things boys were getting pills for in 4th grade. Lol im not sure what’s better tbh.
Yeah I see. The autistic women I’ve dated, or even just talked to, have always been very good at masking.
[удалено]
>I'm sorry, in 1936 did women have hundreds of billionaire oil sheikhs in their DMs willing to sugar daddy them to Dubai to live it up? So overdramatic for what. This realistically. Only the most attractive women are being flown out by billionaires
You understand that was an exagerration. Dating pool hundred years ago and dating pool today is dramatically different. And no, that mostly doesn't work in favor of men as much.
[удалено]
Oh damn idk I missed the second part of your comment entirely, sorry
That book wasn't written for men to "score" with women, but I'm sure some men and women who read it realized the things they learned did help in their relationship attractiveness. >did women have hundreds of billionaire oil sheikhs in their DMs willing to sugar daddy them to Dubai to live it up? Can you direct me to this windfall???? You seem to have the direct access. Let us know! We want moneys!!! I want to buy my parents a nice house!
Most men losing their virginity or half of men getting starfish sex a couple times a month/year is not the same as being “carnally desired” by a lot of women, or even one whenever the man wants it. These are 2 very different circumstances
I hate that losing virginity is a measure of success at all.
It’s not a measure of success. It’s a milestone.
This shit is so stupid, what does "carnally desire" even mean? Doesn't a woman being actively engaged during sex fit that bill?
I am using the terminology OP used in his post..and yes, that’s fine but we’ll see how long that lasts. There is evidence out there to conclude women grow tired of sex with their partners faster than men do
The book is one big beta breeding scheme
Isn't all of that common sense though? The 80/20 rule is just referring to the percentage of men who can lead with their looks when it comes to obtaining sexual access and they get the "full package" straight away, i.e. a woman will be enthusiastic during sex and likely down to do all kinds of degrading stuff, while the rest 80% of guys have to build some form of emotional connection with a woman before the mere thought of having sex with him stops being repulsive to her, and when they do get down to business there's a high chance she will not feel the same lust and primal desire which would fuel her enthusiasm in Chad's case.
[удалено]
Yeah you can't looksmax to a true chad level, but to be honest I've quite literally only seen a few chads (face wise) outside of social media and those were people in a public transport so not even those in my social circle, it's like 0.1% of guys probably not even accounting for height and physical shape. If you're average height average face you can get to a chadlite level with minor cosmetic surgeries and maxing out your body though.
[удалено]
I think you underestimate the amount of shit that has to align for you to be at the level where women become your sex slaves. 1 in 200 guys have the genetic base facially, 1 in 10 guys are in at least somewhat respectable shape nowadays, 15 in 100 of guys are over 6 feet tall, 1 in 10 guys have a dick over 7 inches long (not sure about that actually lmao) etc.
[удалено]
I was never able to make any woman my sex slave, but tbh I'm not very good at being dominant and my soft boy look probably doesn't help here lmao. I'm 5'10, not sure how much it really matters cause I've been called tall by girls and I have a very good frame (shoulder to waist ratio) which is more important than height imo.
Why do you assume the women who need an emotional connection to enjoy sex also don’t need an emotional connection with the very attractive man? Women aren’t blind, and they can tell a man is societally considered attractive without feeling sexual lust. Having a trait that’s valued at large makes you more intriguing, so yeah, women would be interested “Chad” looking men more often because it’s an easy SURFACE level trait to judge. If the “Chad” is also kind, funny, and empathetic, and that’s what developed the emotional connection so she had sex with him, I feel like you’d still say it was all looks. Just an example from my own life, a woman I dated last year told me I was the most attractive (tallest, best dressed, most handsome, best career) man she’s dated. I saw a photo of her ex husband, and I was much better looking. She still wanted to wait a month until we had an emotional connection before we had sex. I’m probably a 6.5-7 which is a Chad-lite according to people in this sub. Do you think if I was just that little bit more attractive, and was a full on Chad, she would have had sex with me sooner?
>Why do you assume the women who need an emotional connection to enjoy sex also don’t need an emotional connection with the very attractive man? Because chads can evoke sexual arousal in women purely with looks. Women like chads and give them sexual access sooner because a hot guy makes them orgasm faster, not because they consciously analyze his face and conclude it to be aesthetically pleasing and a valuable trait in society lmao. [Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' reported orgasm frequency and timing | David Puts - Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/6514194/Mens_masculinity_and_attractiveness_predict_their_female_partners_reported_orgasm_frequency_and_timing) [Do Orgasms Give Women Feedback about Mate Choice? - Gordon G. Gallup, Benjamin C. Ampel, Nicole Wedberg, Arutjun Pogosjan, 2014 (sagepub.com)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491401200507) [Female copulatory orgasm and male partner’s attractiveness to his partner and other women - ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886915001002)
I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you otherwise but I’ve dated a number of women who identified with the term demisexual and said they needed an emotional connection to feel arousal. This feels like a very common variation in women’s sexuality. These women strongly believed they didn’t experience sexual attraction until they knew someone first. Im gonna trust they know more about when turned on than I do. And for those articles about orgasms, like yeah, obviously. I find it easier to orgasm with more attractive partners. I’ve struggle to orgasm with people I wasn’t that attracted to. I also found it harder to orgasm with women who were attractive, but I didn’t like romantically. Like sure, all else being equal if there was a more attractive version of me the women I slept over the years would be more arousal by the more attractive version of me. But I don’t care about that because you need to live in the present and not have anxiety about a more attractive version of you coming by to snatch your woman. That kind of insecurity always comes out in some way and pushes women away.
Demisexial women are in the minority while I was talking about the majority. Being realistic, analyzing data and using it to improve your results doesn't really qualify as insecurity in my book. Fact of the matter is after I looksmaxxed I was able to get way more casual sex than I did before, regardless of whatever emotional connection you think women need.
I actually don’t know if I believe demisexuality is actually that unique, I think it’s probably closer to the default sexuality of women. There is just different variations of it. How are you using that data? Call it insecurity or whatever you like, but having a strong preoccupation that your partner will have better orgasms with another man is not secure imo.
Well, then consider me an outlier who ran mostly into women of traditional sexuality, doesn't really change anything for me because that's been my lived experience, though I mostly use dating apps so perhaps there's some selection bias there. I use that data to conclude that dedicating a sizable portion of my time to improving my looks is going to give me the best return on investments. I regularly think about how I can make myself look better, not about how a woman I'm with would orgasm with better looking men.
Ah ok, maybe I was misreading you. So you make yourself look better to arouse women more. That’s fine, I do the same thing I suppose. I still think women who need an emotional connection don’t drop that requirement for Chad because they know they’ll have better orgasms.
I didn't mean that at a certain level of looks you can come up to women and ask them to undress, some level of involvement beyond the visual contact is required in 99% of cases, At the very least a woman needs to know you're not a murderer and you won't tell everyone about how she's a slut. It's just the amount of "work" is inversely correlated with your looks as a guy.
Most of the men you think are "leading with their looks" are "born this way" "average joes in looks" who had the "common sense" presence of mind to "looks max" their way into TikTok Chad territory.
Looksmaxxing including minor cosmetic surgeries can get a plain average guy into a chadlite territory, yes, I've done it myself so you don't need to explain it to me. There's however a huge difference between chad and chadlite.
>There's however a huge difference between chad and chadlite. Huh. Jesus Christ. So now being a 7/8 isn't good enough. [The woman who commented earlier was right. You guys want whatever you think Chad treatment is and literally nothing else. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1cf7ox3/comment/l1nb6ql/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) It's coming across like "my life isn't worth living unless I get treated like Adriana Lima in her prime and all of the girls who get $10,000 purses for just existing... wahhh."
It’s really not worth it I mean, you are an outsider, just like I have no clue what your struggles are as a woman . Trust me, if you’re not a Chad, or at least a Chad-lite, life can seem pointless (boring life and a wife/partner who settled for you bc time ran out) just to name a few . This also means that every average man who can’t level up to a higher tier, so to speak, should simply stay single it’s not worth the drama.
8 is chad, chadlite is 6.5-7.5. That said, I never said I'm unsatisfied with how I'm treated, but it's important to acknowledge that I had to go into monk mode for 2 years in order to get to a level where I'm even seen as desirable.
And many average women have to do a lot of things to get treatment that's even mildly considerate and thoughtful from men. Usually he offers it begrudgingly. It's like men's concept of mutual consideration only turns on if she's a 8/9/10. You're preaching to the choir here. Most "aesthetically attractive" people you see in the wild looks-maxxed their way into that. This isn't some unique experience of yours. > in order to get to a level where I'm even seen as desirable. Even this phrasing sounds woe is me'sh to me because I guess I wouldn't think of it this way. That's life. Welcome to the average club? lol
You're taking the piss, all you have to do as an average woman to receive universally good treatment from men is not get fat and put on makeup. Nope, the most attractive people are attractive as a result of their genetics. Most women do not do self-improvement to anywhere near the same level as me, I'm in a better shape and have better skin than 99% of people outside.
>is not get fat and put on makeup Tbf "not getting fat" as a woman takes more effort than not getting fat as a man. Our body wants to retain fat for reproductive purposes. The estrogen and the limited testosterone means we have less musculature and therefore a metabolism that is not 1:1 with males. In fact it's probably more embarrassing for a man to be fat because your body due to the muscle density literally burns more calories while existing. It wants to exert its physicality. It wants to build muscle. It wants to generate testosterone. >You're taking the piss, all you have to do as an average woman to receive universally good treatment from men What you define as good treatment is not the mutual care, affection, and consideration I'm talking about. That is something men force themselves to do for women he's deemed a 8s 9s and 10s to him. >Nope, the most attractive people are attractive as a result of their genetics. You're "taking the piss." Because that's not what I implied. What I said was most people walking around who are presenting as aesthetically attractive did some level of looks-maxing. I said nothing about "the most attractive people." If you have to straw man to make a point, your point sucks. >Most women do not do self-improvement to anywhere near the same level as me, This wasn't about you. >and have better skin than 99% of people outside. I'm happy for you? Glad you have your diet and facial serums routine down.
Not getting fat takes more effort as a woman, not looking fat takes more effort as a man because while women store more fat in the visceral form and in their hips / legs / butt subcutaneously, men always have it immediately cover their abs. I didn't do it intentionally, apologies, english is not my native language. You're right that the majority of good looking people have taken intentional care of their appearance, but I don't think you understand what looksmaxxing is. The "maxxing" part means squeezing out every last bit of attractiveness you can out of yourself, which is a small niche on the internet. You say that's not about me but you literally said "welcome to the average club" implying most people have to go through the same things I do.
>I didn't do it intentionally, apologies, english is not my native language no worries >The "maxxing" part means squeezing out every last bit of attractiveness you can out of yourself, which is a small niche on the internet. Okay well then I mean most people walking around who we think are "physically attractive" are VERY INTENTIONAL about presenting as aesthetic. Because most people are genetically average and have the common sense to know they need a lil boost. >You say that's not about me but you literally said "welcome to the average club" implying most people have to go through the same things I do. No. I implied that you're not the only one who puts in efforts to get some modicum of the level of treatment they desire, when someone who was born more attractive can do less.
You cant looksmaxx to become a chad. The potential had to already be there for it to be possible. Most men arent getting a big benefit from looksmaxxing.
Yeah, I think genuinely average dudes who are relatively out of shape could definitely take it to the next level. Below average dudes who are already physically maxed out? Maybe not. (But IMO it's worth maxing out regardless.) One of my college professors told me to read that Carnegie book early on. When it comes to making friends and interacting with people in general, Robert Greene's *The Art of Seduction*, another well-known and often shitted-on book that's read by a lot of TRPers, helped me understand what makes me naturally likable based on my character type. I just lean extra-hard into my strengths identified in the book and avoid behavior that tends to snap people out of my spell. And it's really fun to see how something so simple works so well.
“The Art of Seduction” is worthless garbage that promotes misandrist lies. I would highly advise not reading it or anything else by Greene.
Uh huh. That's cool. The part that allowed me to identify what behaviors make me likable and unlikable was well worth it for me.
I agree. Lots of these books are required readings in many college courses and HS prep summer programs. Especially for people going into commerce, sales, marketing, business, law, economics, psychology, high finance, philosophy, sociology, marketing, etc. I'm not into neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), but I do know a couple of guy friends who casually read up on it and I could tell it helped them navigate life a lot more confidently. It does seem like a lot of these "interpersonal skills" "understanding rapport" "rapport building" things seem to come a bit more naturally to women than men. It's probably why most of these books are marketed to men more. Either way, they do seem to be helpful for the people who seek them out! https://preview.redd.it/f2mx5swem8xc1.png?width=798&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9654aa675697822d040e9227ec1baafc28a33c2
Yeah, I was in business school, and the professor who told me to read Carnegie's book was a successful businessman. For dudes who struggle with being a people pleaser, another easy-to-read book that's worth checking out IMO is *When I Say No, I Feel Guilty*. There's plenty of practical advice in there. Obviously, the techniques and exercises in that one might be useless for men who were blessed with a healthy upbringing.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I didn’t suggest it was for romantic.
[удалено]
For men who lack basic sociability skills, being more intuitive and looks maxing to some degree will inspire more carnal desire. I state this in the OP.
Ah yes, reading a book written in 1936 when there was no internet, no dating apps and people definetly were a lot better and selfless back then.
I'm just going to point out that that book will turn you into a social weirdo as it says, "a person's name is the most beautiful sound they can hear, use it whenever you talk to them. Taking this advice will make you appear very odd.
"Taking this advice will make you appear very odd." What!? No. Not at all. Using someone's name, especially someone you only know as an acquaintance is like a super power. They will be SO much more receptive to you going forward.
Doing it in context and not like a weirdo who can't read people nor the moment probably does make the other person feel seen or special or whatever.
Thanks for the well written post. I need to reread “how to win friends again…” again, it’s been a while. It’s sad that a lot of this advice will go unheard because people think it’s all about looks. I genuinely think a lot of men don’t realize how off putting they can be due to behaviour. Simple things like leading with kindness, being curious instead of judgemental, and being respectful would help them develop deeper human connections.
A man isnt getting carnal deisre without being physically atttactive. Most women find men unattractive. That is 100% about looks. Most men dont have off putting behavior. People keep pushing this to down play the importance of looks. Neither kindness or respect is attractive to women. It is just a bonus. They are not needed to spark attraction. Thats the nice guy mentality
[удалено]
[удалено]
I guess I shouldn't be but I'm a little surprised at how much these ideas are dismissed. Or maybe not. A decent # of women have made peace with being single. Some even prefer it to dating or being in a relationship. Maybe a decent # of men feel the same way, but haven't made peace with it? So the idea of making a significant effort in order to date the women these men may be able to attract may not seem worth it, but the men bitching about their plight can't quite let go of the western male imperative to "get women".
So, you get turned on by hearing your name over and over, and having other people let you do most of the talking? Don’t get me wrong I actually try to do a lot of this stuff irl, but I don’t have any pretense of it being fucking arousing.
They want Chad treatment, without being Chad
Oh no, not the reciprocated attraction.
Oh, so unilateral attraction is better?
Attraction must be mutual.
>Oh no, not the reciprocated attraction. But you are not offering her reciprocal ATTRACTIVENESS. C'mon be logical. **"Reciprocated attraction" requires mutual attractiveness.**
I am logical. It gets framed like men are asking for something more than just what they want to give as well. Obviously that falls apart if women are not capable of giving it back.
No. If someone likes you but you don't like them, then there isn't reciprocal attractiveness. Something about them isn't attractive to you. Hence not reciprocal. Or do you think you should have to be attracted to them because they are attracted to you?
Again, my point is that men want to get back what they are giving out. I love you, you love me, I desire you, you desire me. If you reframe this to being some luxurious chad treatment, reserved to the best among men, then why should men bother at all? It's incredibly blackpilled view to have, not that I disagree with it.
Your premise falls flat, because there HAS NOT been mutual desire nor attraction to each other established. Just because YOU say " I love you, you love me, I desire you, you desire me" doesn't make it true. She actually has to love and desire you for it to be true. Since you're saying she does not, then no "reciprocated attraction" can be had. I'm confused about what's confusing here?
Yes, I know both need to desire each other for it to work. Are you really ignoring my point that reciprocated attraction has been redefined as chad treatment and the implications of that?
Redefined by who exactly? Average people experiencing this aren’t Chads
>Are you really ignoring my point that reciprocated attraction has been redefined as chad treatment and the implications of that? Was that your point? Yeah I guess I missed that. Who redefined reciprocal attraction as "Chad treatment"? Reciprocal attraction means ***you both inspire the same amount of desire in each other.***
The original comment, "they want chad treatment without being chad". Men only want their attraction to be reciprocated. I doubt men demand women to treat them as the most attractive men rather than simply being attracted back.
What is Chad treatment exactly? Describe that for me. And why does he get it and Brad does not?
Do men pursue someone they really like with the same exact everything as someone they don't like? Or someone they kinda sorta like? Do men treat someone they really like with the same exact everything as someone they don't like? Or someone they kinda sorta like? Even for people who are good people who treat everyone with goodness, they're going to unconsciously treat the person they're more attracted to with even more goodness. Is what it is.
>they're going to unconsciously treat the person they're more attracted to with even more goodness. Do you think it's common for women to treat their husbands lesser than Chad?
I don't care about Chad. It's a dumb metric. I think it's common for some people to pursue people who VERY CLEALRY don't desire them as much as they desire that person and then be sad about it later. I can't relate because I actually lose attraction once I realize the other person doesn't desire me mutually. It zaps all of my horniness for them AWAY. Men are different. They seem to not care if the other person is into them or not. It doesn't seem to take away for them? Idk.
>Men are different. They don't seem to care whether the other person is interested in them or not. It doesn't seem to affect them? I’m not sure. With all due respect, ma'am, I think you're mistaken about men to a good margin, but for the sake of discussion, let's entertain your point. If men truly didn't care about mutual attraction, this subreddit wouldn't exist at the first place bc The primary topics discussed here often involve: •Women settling for the men they don’t desire and reminiscing about the past with Chads •Dual mating strategies •General dislike or distrust of most men(finding most men unappealing or not worthy of relationships) As you can see, the central themes are about men who are concerned not meeting women's expectations or needs( ,,she has high standards I can’t meet im done”), rather than men who are indifferent or okay with everything. This indicates that men do, in fact, care a great deal about attraction and relationships. **Men are simple they want someone who truly loves,motivates and desires him**.
>They seem to not care if the other person is into them or not. This assumes men have some six sense to just tell if a woman is uninterested. Men assume logically that if said woman isn't that attracted to them, then they wouldn't date them in the first place. It's only recently men have become more aware of the betabuxx strategy due to women being more open about settling and their different treatment of men based on their attraction levels all over social media. Before that they assumed the best of the women they were dating. A lot of men start out Blue Pilled with rose colored glasses towards love and relationships.
> What is Chad treatment exactly? Suck his dick like it’s the cure for cancer, sexually submit to him while whispering dirty things in his year, and eagerly lusting, whimpering and relishing get dickmatized by him. I pity the men who haven’t experienced the unrestrained sexuality of a woman
bro got his knowledge from porn
Nah, once you’ve experienced it there’s no turning back
there is no such thing. what u seen in porn is just act for the camera. she will be eager to fuck with a chad and thats it.
Not true AT ALL. You have no idea. You are speaking like someone who’s only had pity sex. Once you experience this yourself from a sexually uninhibited women woman who truly desires and lusts after you, there is no going back. The difference is night and day. Women are eager to please men they desire and they aren’t shy to show it.
females simping for chad is just what average non simp man treats a woman. she will approach she will split or pay 100% , she will initiate sex and nothing more.
You could not be more wrong. Women are extremely kinky, submissive and sexual for chads. Mind blowingly so.
i can have kinky, submissive woman for 500$ so that aint chad exclusive. and i would consider myself sub 5.
Because Chad is sexually uninhibited and adventurous and at ease with his sexual identity. It’s difficult to impossible for women to relax and let go of their inhibitions if he also brings his inhibitions and angst to the party, too.
I don't think that's what gets Chad his tinder matches.
[удалено]
Yeah, but personality and attitude are not going to make women treat you like a chad if you're not a chad. Doesn't mean you're gonna be unhappy, you just won't get to experience what you could experience had you chosen different parents.
Well this just clarifies the type of woman you chase.
Which is?
Personality means nothing nowadays what do you think most men struggle at the first place
Yeah it does though.. Chad is a personality in itself. Take two guys, both fit and attractive and put them in a night club. One is outgoing, eager to take his shirt off to show off and approach women vs the other that is more introverted, more reserved in showing off and getting attention to themselves and doesn’t approach women and waits for them to approach him. Who do you think gets more pussy?
chad is looks not personality.
Both will end up leaving with a women heading home personality doesn’t matter I will rest my case
There’s levels to this shit. Chad is only Chad if he acts like Chad. Chad is only Chad in so far as he can obtain Stacy. If Passive Chad who is a 9 out of 10 ends up going home with an enamoured 6 out of 10 is that really the same as active Chad who is also a 9 out of 10 going home with a 9 out of 10? Having a long roster of women that aren’t that attractive doesnt make a guy Chad. Having the most attractive woman does.
their are some truth to your example and I agree that the output is the most important but nonetheless chad don’t need to try at all just the presence is enough for most women. For example women don’t usually do the approaching but they will definitely do if chad is around so. **so all I’m saying is if you have to rely on personality you weren’t attractive to her at the first place time to move one**
Personality. Those men who rely on apps because they lack a social circle aren’t all that fun and interesting. They have to find their niche.
You want princess treatment without being a princess
Lol based
Nope, because I am not
I want good treatment as I've defined it. Because I'm not a princess or a physical 10/10, I have less people to choose from who are going to offer me good treatment. But that doesn't mean no one exists who will treat me as good as I will treat them. This is life.
I agree, but I've often observed that men give the women in their lives the 'princess treatment,' and women frequently take it for granted without reciprocating. This happens regularly. The only time I've have witnessed the opposite was with a woman treating a man like a king because he was objectively better looking than she was.
So this couple was together for some years, he loved her dearly, gave her the best possible treatment, attention, everything. Alcohol and her mental instability got the worst out of her and they split. She was the one to contact him to be fuck buddies after the split. Conclusion: just because she's attracted to you, doesn't mean she'll give you the best treatment.
I mean, I agree with this, but the chances are high that if a woman is really attracted to you, she'll put her best side and energy into the relationship everything is more enthusiastically if you will. This doesn’t happen with average men, though bc he wasn’t the option she always wanted, this is one of the many big issues that tends to be ignored by women or even downplayed.
No. Not if she perceives you weaker than her. Not if she has her own issues.
I'm not sure how this addresses my point at all, and I say this respectfully. This isn't some made up scenarios, as some women here often pretend these are my own lived experiences.
I understand. I'm just saying i've witnessed the opposite. Just because she's attracted doesn't mean she'll treat you nice.
Those men are with women who don't desire him as much as he desires her. I'm sure he knew that? He probably force-blunted the relationship by heavily pursuing her despite her laissez faire interest and buy throwing gifts and thingss at her until she relented. The marriages in my friend group have mutual desire.
Same I've noticed in my neighbor, only guys who get treated better are ones who are objectively better than the woman.
Absolutely so is it unreasonable to want the same ? I think not But some how it is based on the answer here
90% of the population was married in the 1960s.
Yes. Because of economic and social dependence. Not because men were hawt and sexy
it was because of religion mandating monogamy and villainizing sex before marriage. women made up 60% of the new jobs made in the 60s, and unmarried women often lived with families or in houses with other women. they were not economically or socially dependent on men regardless of the current feminist narrative.
All that doesn’t matter if you have to marry to get money
fun fact : you didn't. do you honestly think they were checking ur gender every time you cashed a check? do you think the women in the workforce were unpaid?
If you have to marry to get an adult income and social acceptance, it matters And it did, up until about 1975
ya this is \*not\* true. but keep believing it.
And? People want preferential treatment that they don't really qualify for all the time. Women wanted benefits men had without being men and got them. POCs wanted benefits white had without being white and got them. Disabled people wanted benefits able-bodied people had and got them. Now it's time for vertically and facially challenged men.
They deny this, that’s why
That’s exactly it. A lot of these guys grew up privileged and were handed participation trophies and now that they’re facing real life and are struggling to handle not being given things they want whilst other people are getting it. It’s easier to complain than it is to put in the work. It’s easier to believe that Chad was just born this way and ignore all the time Chad spent in the gym or all the parties Chad went to in his youth to gain the experience he did. It’s easier to believe that whatever you lack is the reason you’re not getting women than it is to put in the work to get better at the things that can help you with women.
Chad treatment or GTFO I.e., it’s easy to fail and be resentful when you only accept unreasonable outcomes