With most women being really picky...How do most women decide who to date?

[Chase]

@kestwanye77,

Because in this scenario they could fix a certain problem by taking more risks. If women have such a quality problem they would fix it by approaching.

The part that makes it funny is that women stand a much higher chance of getting what they want from approaching.

The guy is far more likely to say yes, feels more attraction because approaching is bold in itself, she can easily pick the guy she saw across the room as attractive who never approached.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of male-female dynamics.

Trust me, if approaching first was a more viable strategy for most female humans than waiting to be approached, they'd employ it. Women aren't stupid.

What happens when a woman approaches a man? What are the odds that leads to commitment, wedding bells, and babies?

When a woman cold approaches a man, she is almost ALWAYS approaching up -- going for a guy who is out of her league. He is not going to commit to her, and the very act of her approaching causes him to further devalue her. (there's also social circle approaching, which I'll get to in a moment)

Further, being the one who opens docks some points off your value. A good seducer has ways to compensate for this, but a woman opening a man who is then viewing her as lower value for opening him is already putting herself in a far worse position for getting commitment out of him than if she signaled him and he opened.

On top of all this, the signal-to-noise ratio on men women open vs. men who open women is atrocious:

1. The woman's goal is commitment
2. Most men out there are NOT going to commit to her
3. Many men out there WILL accept a sex layup with her if they can get it
4. If she waits for only the men who approach, it's a lot more likely these are highly motivated guys willing to overcome that fear and invest in her. They won't all be willing to commit, but the odds are in her favor
5. If SHE does the approaching, she is going to meet a lot of men who have zero interest in committing to her, but will happily take a layup they can stick their dicks into

What you end up with is that the only women who approach fall into one of three categories:

• Girls with unusually high sex drives who know what they want, aren't looking for commitment at all, and have buckets of confidence due to their truckloads of sexual experience with men. These girls can approach and open because a.) if all they get is sex, they'll be happy, and b.) their frame control in any event is ironclad, so they are going to come out on top even if it's a situation that would be unfavorable to most girls
  
  
• Girls who approach social circle guys they know WELL whom they have decided they definitely want, signaled to a ton, but the guy is just so shy or so in his own world he never makes a move, and the girl, typically after months of waiting, at last decides "Screw it, I'll do it myself"
  
  
• Girls who are just really naïve and have no idea what they're getting themselves into yet... they'll find out pretty quick though

Outside of falling into the first or second category, approaching the man first for a woman is a grossly inefficient strategy.

The woman's choices are a.) signal the guy you like and hope he bites or else b.) approach yourself and get pumped and dumped by a ton of guys who have zero interest in committing to you.

Of those choices, unless she's a sex hound, or she's really vetted the guy hard over a period of months, it is simply the more rational choice for her to sit and wait for the man to approach.

You are right. Females are usually risk adverse. But when it comes to a complicated species like humans the roles we can play are open to alot of exceptions.

The whole point if this site was to get women to chase you, asking you for relations, and get her investing more in you than her.

That doesnt sound like the stereotypical way most mammals operate. But we got plenty of seducers on this site who vouch for this material working.

You and the other guys spent years making a system that works out for us in the long run to help ourselves navigate around women.

So what... im supposed to not assume women arent capable of figuring out a system that works for them?

Is it the case that women arent smart enough to figure it out? Or is it the case that women have too much pride? Its probably the latter.

The way women chase is not spotting a man, walking up to him, opening him, running routines on him, and propositioning him. Women chase through hints, signals, windows, opportunities, suggestions, touch, and so on.

I wouldn't want to have a woman treating me like a man treats a woman. Who wants that? The few times it's happened to me it's felt SUPER weird.

Thinking "it must be pride that prevents women from treating a man like a woman" goes back to that fundamental misunderstanding of male-female nature.

You also are not taking into account the landscape by a wide margin Chase. Most of the time when men are approached by women now...most of the people dont see the women as desperate now. They see it as gutsy and admirable. More than likely due to how aware humans over themselves im comparison to animals.

Guys are exhausted at always having to make the first move and most girls wish they could push themselves to approach that one guy she could approach at work. And no this is not coming from just a social media standpoint. You can see this mindset in any nightclub venue.

You seem to be talking about the "shy guy she's been vetting for months" scenario. Yes, that will happen. I've had two girlfriends who got former boyfriends that way. When I was young and too shy to approach I had women ask me out that way too. I knew one married couple a long time back where the wife approached the husband that way, also after knowing him for months.

The fact is most women who've had a boyfriend this way will typically only have done it once in their lives. The girls who do it tend to be ballsy, confident girls, too. Most girls aren't ballsy and confident, and most shy guys will never get the girl they want asking them out (at best they will get some girls they don't want, whom they later start chasing once they realize that holy crap, that girl actually liked me... and typically by then it is too late).

Women wish they could do all kinds of things men do. I have had women tell me they wished they could go out alone to nightclubs like I was when I met them... they wished they could pee standing up... they wished they could fuck a woman with a penis and actually feel their penis inside her. Women have all kinds of things they will say they wish they could do. But they are women. Many of those doors are closed to them. It is their role to follow, not to take charge, lead, build, and overcome.

The whole feminist-generated modern Western thought behind this "women are just like men and can do anything men can do!" thinking is fundamentally off the mark. They aren't, and they can't, even if they might like to, or sometimes try to.

Blaming women for not being men is like blaming little children for failing to hold down a job or blaming turtles for sucking at flying. Technically, you can do it if you want to, but I'm not sure the point.

Where would anybody be if they wasnt willing to take any risks at all? This is a fact if life in general. Women take the risk when they pick the guy. Luckily nature helps women who dont want to take more risks but the ones who are willing to take more risks are likely to get what they want.

Not the case -- see above.

Of the women I know who approached their boyfriends or husbands first, they ALL either:

• Ended up dumping the guy after realizing he simply wasn't ambitious or masculine enough for them (should've realized that when he failed to approach!)
  
  
• Discovered the guy had weird behaviors they could not tolerate and broke up with him in frustration, often after a year+ of trying to make it work and feeling like they must be crazy when the guy complained or behaved in feminine ways trying to blame them for problems or whine about them not accepting things about him (but I guess that's the kind of guy you get when you as the woman have to do the approaching!)
  
  
• Found themselves in a marriage where they were neglected by the guy, undervalued, and perpetually belittled

From what I have seen, in at least a solid dozen examples of LTRs coming from the woman approaching first, the dynamic is whacked from the get-go and the woman universally ends up disappointed with the guy she got, even though she chose him herself.

If you cannot understand why that would be, go back and reread the stuff I wrote about differences between male and female humans and animals (humans being, necessarily, one particular breed of animal).

Well I told the guy before you that I dont women to approach. I dont expect that to change ever. Hell i wont waste my breath telling them too. I was just highlighting that the problem of there seemingly limited options is a problem they will continue to have because of ego.

It is an ineffective, inefficient behavior for women that typically produces little fruit, and what fruit it does produce is rotten.

It's silly to view that as a product of "ego." Anymore than it would be viewing men unwilling to spend 10 years working manual labor to try to move up to an assistant manager position, rather than applying directly for the assistant manager position if they're qualified, as "ego" -- if you have a better, far more efficient path available, why would you take the one that breaks your back and maybe doesn't even get you there?

It's not ego. It's called "not being a total idiot."

Women aren't men. Men have many paths open to them that women do NOT. And vice versa.

The thing with approaching is that the burden being on men to approach is both WAY BETTER and WAY WORSE for men, depending on whether the man has balls and drive. If he has balls and drive, being a man is so much better than being a woman, because he has an efficient, liberating way to meet prospective mates that for the most part is off the table for women. However, if he has no balls and he has no drive, being a man is so much worse than being a woman, because he is not going to take advantage of the superior paths open to him as a man, but neither does he have access to the inferior paths open to the woman.

There's not much you can do for the guy who won't take advantage of the paths open to him as a man.

Except I guess to say, "Welp, that's natural selection."


@Will_V,

Yet it seems to me that the development of a well-rounded person necessarily involves a lot of pain and confusion regardless. Maybe it's in the difference between the explanation of things and seeing them for yourself. What makes that part of life come to the most positive outcome, where someone not only sees things, not only perceives them, but perceives them in a way that results in a much more functional and constructive personality, is difficult to say.

Yes, very true.

Only so much you can be told. A lot of it you have to find out firsthand. Even if that just leads to realizing things you heard earlier were correct.

Same. I also think one of the best influences on my life was the library of 'golden era' science fiction that my father collected. Back then science fiction included the possibility of a non-dystopian future, with made it especially constructive to the imagination, and relevant to the past and the present as well.

Golden age scifi is great, yeah. The bright vision of the future they had back then was contagious.

The fiction an era produces tends to be pretty indicative of the general feeling embedded in the society then. Those were bright, hopeful times filled with invention and renewal, and the fiction they produced reflected it.

Absolutely. Although I believe that there is still a gulf between the knowledge of something and the experiental integration of it, within which there is still a disorienting realization that has to occur, that could have positive or negative effects.

All part of the hero's journey

I've wondered to what extent the striving for power over the individual that a society has is good and necessary. How much is the human psyche built for it? That's probably a different conversation, but I'll say that I think the social manipulation that used to occur was based more in something functional - rites, religions, cultural and tribal strengthening, that sort of thing - and today it threatens to be a case of a society that is sort of just consuming itself and its own foundations. Maybe that's the way it always was, in cycles, but today we have infinitely more capability to perpetuate something entirely disfunctional, maybe long enough to even be self-destructive.

In any case, the individual is always the level at which real positive changes occur, both in the short term and the evolutionary term, and that definitely hasn't changed.

You know, when I read Edward Gibbon's description of the behavior of the early Christians in the Roman Empire of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, I was gobsmacked by how completely identical in almost every way their behavior was to the social justice warriors of the past decade. Gibbon wrote 230 years ago, about a time 1800 years ago, and it's like he was writing about today, just switch "Christians" for "SJWs."

Reading how terrible and antisocial the early Christians were made me a bit less sympathetic to Christians' treatment at the hands of the woke mob today... I spent a while going, "Well, I guess now they're getting their comeuppance!"

But then you realize the chill Roman pagans of yesteryear are probably the same people who'd be chill non-denominational Christians today, so it's really not so much comeuppance as it is young fanatics adopting the religion of the day to reshape society.

You read the Greek and Hebrew ancients talking about how when a society starts worshipping actors, who in healthy societies are relegated to being low social status performers, you know that society is doomed. Or talking about how once men start listening to women, the society is doomed. They aren't speculating; they lived through it.

You read Confucius, who lived 2500 years ago on the opposite side of the globe, and the problems he is complaining about are the same exact problems you end up talking about in politically radical modern Western society. He is frustrated at all the government corruption... at words getting twisted around to mean things different from what they originally meant... at the breakdown in social trust and social cohesion... at weak rulers being led around by shadowy background figures only there for their own personal enrichment... at common people sliding into bad behavior because they have no good role models in a corrupt society... and he spends a lot of time studying great moral leaders of the past, and hoping for a time when a new moral leader emerges, that he might participate in a flourishing renewal of his society, instead of the sad crumbling and decadence he is living through.

The one thing I do wonder is that so much of these patterns appear to be nearly identical, but it's obvious that in the modern West's case there is some degree of deliberate social policy maneuvering to sow discord among the populace, distract people, confuse people, and breakdown social trust and cohesion to make people easier to control. As this always happens at the same stage (the empire has become vast and bloated, it is no longer producing like it used to, and unless the elites can find some way to quell the masses they will be dealing with a collapse or a revolt), it makes me wonder how much of it was the result of deliberate actions by the economic and social elites of other times, too.

Certainly Rome used the games in the Coliseum and Circus to distract the people; they put half the population of the city on welfare to keep them dependent on the government; and they started bringing in foreign mercenaries to scare the populace into not wanting to revolt (if the police are your family members, you know they'll take your side; if it's a bunch of armed soldiers who aren't even from there, much scarier prospect).

Constantinople created a LOT of discord with its meddling in religious affairs... you have to wonder too how much of that may have been deliberate (get the people to fight each other over minute doctrinal differences and then they aren't fighting the elites).

Anyway, we have all this digital stuff now... but you read enough history and it's kind of "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Chase

 

[kestwanye77]

The part where you said "Guys are exhausted at always having to make the first move.....". Well that's what makes them average. If you learn how to talk to girls and seduce them in a smooth manner, you'll automatically be above average and have a great sex life.

Again. Most guys arent in this category. I think its irrelevant to talk like this like I already didnt mention in my post that Im fully aware some guys are capable of this.

But thats not how most men operate. I was simply discussing in that comment that men are exhausted from making the first moves. Which is accurate. I never got into or not the exceptions can break those rules. Because that is hella obvious.

 

[Skills]

@kestwanye77,



This is a fundamental misunderstanding of male-female dynamics.

Trust me, if approaching first was a more viable strategy for most female humans than waiting to be approached, they'd employ it. Women aren't stupid.

What happens when a woman approaches a man? What are the odds that leads to commitment, wedding bells, and babies?

When a woman cold approaches a man, she is almost ALWAYS approaching up -- going for a guy who is out of her league. He is not going to commit to her, and the very act of her approaching causes him to further devalue her. (there's also social circle approaching, which I'll get to in a moment)

Further, being the one who opens docks some points off your value. A good seducer has ways to compensate for this, but a woman opening a man who is then viewing her as lower value for opening him is already putting herself in a far worse position for getting commitment out of him than if she signaled him and he opened.

On top of all this, the signal-to-noise ratio on men women open vs. men who open women is atrocious:

1. The woman's goal is commitment
2. Most men out there are NOT going to commit to her
3. Many men out there WILL accept a sex layup with her if they can get it
4. If she waits for only the men who approach, it's a lot more likely these are highly motivated guys willing to overcome that fear and invest in her. They won't all be willing to commit, but the odds are in her favor
5. If SHE does the approaching, she is going to meet a lot of men who have zero interest in committing to her, but will happily take a layup they can stick their dicks into

What you end up with is that the only women who approach fall into one of three categories:

• Girls with unusually high sex drives who know what they want, aren't looking for commitment at all, and have buckets of confidence due to their truckloads of sexual experience with men. These girls can approach and open because a.) if all they get is sex, they'll be happy, and b.) their frame control in any event is ironclad, so they are going to come out on top even if it's a situation that would be unfavorable to most girls
  
  
• Girls who approach social circle guys they know WELL whom they have decided they definitely want, signaled to a ton, but the guy is just so shy or so in his own world he never makes a move, and the girl, typically after months of waiting, at last decides "Screw it, I'll do it myself"
  
  
• Girls who are just really naïve and have no idea what they're getting themselves into yet... they'll find out pretty quick though

Outside of falling into the first or second category, approaching the man first for a woman is a grossly inefficient strategy.

The woman's choices are a.) signal the guy you like and hope he bites or else b.) approach yourself and get pumped and dumped by a ton of guys who have zero interest in committing to you.

Of those choices, unless she's a sex hound, or she's really vetted the guy hard over a period of months, it is simply the more rational choice for her to sit and wait for the man to approach.



The way women chase is not spotting a man, walking up to him, opening him, running routines on him, and propositioning him. Women chase through hints, signals, windows, opportunities, suggestions, touch, and so on.

I wouldn't want to have a woman treating me like a man treats a woman. Who wants that? The few times it's happened to me it's felt SUPER weird.

Thinking "it must be pride that prevents women from treating a man like a woman" goes back to that fundamental misunderstanding of male-female nature.



You seem to be talking about the "shy guy she's been vetting for months" scenario. Yes, that will happen. I've had two girlfriends who got former boyfriends that way. When I was young and too shy to approach I had women ask me out that way too. I knew one married couple a long time back where the wife approached the husband that way, also after knowing him for months.

The fact is most women who've had a boyfriend this way will typically only have done it once in their lives. The girls who do it tend to be ballsy, confident girls, too. Most girls aren't ballsy and confident, and most shy guys will never get the girl they want asking them out (at best they will get some girls they don't want, whom they later start chasing once they realize that holy crap, that girl actually liked me... and typically by then it is too late).

Women wish they could do all kinds of things men do. I have had women tell me they wished they could go out alone to nightclubs like I was when I met them... they wished they could pee standing up... they wished they could fuck a woman with a penis and actually feel their penis inside her. Women have all kinds of things they will say they wish they could do. But they are women. Many of those doors are closed to them. It is their role to follow, not to take charge, lead, build, and overcome.

The whole feminist-generated modern Western thought behind this "women are just like men and can do anything men can do!" thinking is fundamentally off the mark. They aren't, and they can't, even if they might like to, or sometimes try to.

Blaming women for not being men is like blaming little children for failing to hold down a job or blaming turtles for sucking at flying. Technically, you can do it if you want to, but I'm not sure the point.



Not the case -- see above.

Of the women I know who approached their boyfriends or husbands first, they ALL either:

• Ended up dumping the guy after realizing he simply wasn't ambitious or masculine enough for them (should've realized that when he failed to approach!)
  
  
• Discovered the guy had weird behaviors they could not tolerate and broke up with him in frustration, often after a year+ of trying to make it work and feeling like they must be crazy when the guy complained or behaved in feminine ways trying to blame them for problems or whine about them not accepting things about him (but I guess that's the kind of guy you get when you as the woman have to do the approaching!)
  
  
• Found themselves in a marriage where they were neglected by the guy, undervalued, and perpetually belittled

From what I have seen, in at least a solid dozen examples of LTRs coming from the woman approaching first, the dynamic is whacked from the get-go and the woman universally ends up disappointed with the guy she got, even though she chose him herself.

If you cannot understand why that would be, go back and reread the stuff I wrote about differences between male and female humans and animals (humans being, necessarily, one particular breed of animal).



It is an ineffective, inefficient behavior for women that typically produces little fruit, and what fruit it does produce is rotten.

It's silly to view that as a product of "ego." Anymore than it would be viewing men unwilling to spend 10 years working manual labor to try to move up to an assistant manager position, rather than applying directly for the assistant manager position if they're qualified, as "ego" -- if you have a better, far more efficient path available, why would you take the one that breaks your back and maybe doesn't even get you there?

It's not ego. It's called "not being a total idiot."

Women aren't men. Men have many paths open to them that women do NOT. And vice versa.

The thing with approaching is that the burden being on men to approach is both WAY BETTER and WAY WORSE for men, depending on whether the man has balls and drive. If he has balls and drive, being a man is so much better than being a woman, because he has an efficient, liberating way to meet prospective mates that for the most part is off the table for women. However, if he has no balls and he has no drive, being a man is so much worse than being a woman, because he is not going to take advantage of the superior paths open to him as a man, but neither does he have access to the inferior paths open to the woman.

There's not much you can do for the guy who won't take advantage of the paths open to him as a man.

Except I guess to say, "Welp, that's natural selection."


@Will_V,



Yes, very true.

Only so much you can be told. A lot of it you have to find out firsthand. Even if that just leads to realizing things you heard earlier were correct.



Golden age scifi is great, yeah. The bright vision of the future they had back then was contagious.

The fiction an era produces tends to be pretty indicative of the general feeling embedded in the society then. Those were bright, hopeful times filled with invention and renewal, and the fiction they produced reflected it.



All part of the hero's journey



You know, when I read Edward Gibbon's description of the behavior of the early Christians in the Roman Empire of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, I was gobsmacked by how completely identical in almost every way their behavior was to the social justice warriors of the past decade. Gibbon wrote 230 years ago, about a time 1800 years ago, and it's like he was writing about today, just switch "Christians" for "SJWs."

Reading how terrible and antisocial the early Christians were made me a bit less sympathetic to Christians' treatment at the hands of the woke mob today... I spent a while going, "Well, I guess now they're getting their comeuppance!"

But then you realize the chill Roman pagans of yesteryear are probably the same people who'd be chill non-denominational Christians today, so it's really not so much comeuppance as it is young fanatics adopting the religion of the day to reshape society.

You read the Greek and Hebrew ancients talking about how when a society starts worshipping actors, who in healthy societies are relegated to being low social status performers, you know that society is doomed. Or talking about how once men start listening to women, the society is doomed. They aren't speculating; they lived through it.

You read Confucius, who lived 2500 years ago on the opposite side of the globe, and the problems he is complaining about are the same exact problems you end up talking about in politically radical modern Western society. He is frustrated at all the government corruption... at words getting twisted around to mean things different from what they originally meant... at the breakdown in social trust and social cohesion... at weak rulers being led around by shadowy background figures only there for their own personal enrichment... at common people sliding into bad behavior because they have no good role models in a corrupt society... and he spends a lot of time studying great moral leaders of the past, and hoping for a time when a new moral leader emerges, that he might participate in a flourishing renewal of his society, instead of the sad crumbling and decadence he is living through.

The one thing I do wonder is that so much of these patterns appear to be nearly identical, but it's obvious that in the modern West's case there is some degree of deliberate social policy maneuvering to sow discord among the populace, distract people, confuse people, and breakdown social trust and cohesion to make people easier to control. As this always happens at the same stage (the empire has become vast and bloated, it is no longer producing like it used to, and unless the elites can find some way to quell the masses they will be dealing with a collapse or a revolt), it makes me wonder how much of it was the result of deliberate actions by the economic and social elites of other times, too.

Certainly Rome used the games in the Coliseum and Circus to distract the people; they put half the population of the city on welfare to keep them dependent on the government; and they started bringing in foreign mercenaries to scare the populace into not wanting to revolt (if the police are your family members, you know they'll take your side; if it's a bunch of armed soldiers who aren't even from there, much scarier prospect).

Constantinople created a LOT of discord with its meddling in religious affairs... you have to wonder too how much of that may have been deliberate (get the people to fight each other over minute doctrinal differences and then they aren't fighting the elites).

Anyway, we have all this digital stuff now... but you read enough history and it's kind of "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Chase

just on the point of women approaching.... some women can get trigger to approach:

- a performance
-dance
- peackocking...


And we all know sometimes they just make it obvious and put themselves in position to be open, proximity, bumping into you.

 

[Chase]

@Skills,

just on the point of women approaching.... some women can get trigger to approach:

- a performance
-dance
- peackocking...


And we all know sometimes they just make it obvious and put themselves in position to be open, proximity, bumping into you.

Yeah... there's also a whole nuance there, where if you are signaling her, and she is signaling you, and there's enough signaling going back and forth, she can feel bold enough to make the first verbal approach.

Then there are bumps and other not-quite-opening, more like a pre-opening moves...

One of the problems of having these sorts of forum conversations is how black-and-white things can end up sounding when you're trying to make some underlying point.

Chase

 

[Will_V]

You know, when I read Edward Gibbon's description of the behavior of the early Christians in the Roman Empire of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, I was gobsmacked by how completely identical in almost every way their behavior was to the social justice warriors of the past decade. Gibbon wrote 230 years ago, about a time 1800 years ago, and it's like he was writing about today, just switch "Christians" for "SJWs."

Reading how terrible and antisocial the early Christians were made me a bit less sympathetic to Christians' treatment at the hands of the woke mob today... I spent a while going, "Well, I guess now they're getting their comeuppance!"

But then you realize the chill Roman pagans of yesteryear are probably the same people who'd be chill non-denominational Christians today, so it's really not so much comeuppance as it is young fanatics adopting the religion of the day to reshape society.

You read the Greek and Hebrew ancients talking about how when a society starts worshipping actors, who in healthy societies are relegated to being low social status performers, you know that society is doomed. Or talking about how once men start listening to women, the society is doomed. They aren't speculating; they lived through it.

You read Confucius, who lived 2500 years ago on the opposite side of the globe, and the problems he is complaining about are the same exact problems you end up talking about in politically radical modern Western society. He is frustrated at all the government corruption... at words getting twisted around to mean things different from what they originally meant... at the breakdown in social trust and social cohesion... at weak rulers being led around by shadowy background figures only there for their own personal enrichment... at common people sliding into bad behavior because they have no good role models in a corrupt society... and he spends a lot of time studying great moral leaders of the past, and hoping for a time when a new moral leader emerges, that he might participate in a flourishing renewal of his society, instead of the sad crumbling and decadence he is living through.

The one thing I do wonder is that so much of these patterns appear to be nearly identical, but it's obvious that in the modern West's case there is some degree of deliberate social policy maneuvering to sow discord among the populace, distract people, confuse people, and breakdown social trust and cohesion to make people easier to control. As this always happens at the same stage (the empire has become vast and bloated, it is no longer producing like it used to, and unless the elites can find some way to quell the masses they will be dealing with a collapse or a revolt), it makes me wonder how much of it was the result of deliberate actions by the economic and social elites of other times, too.

Certainly Rome used the games in the Coliseum and Circus to distract the people; they put half the population of the city on welfare to keep them dependent on the government; and they started bringing in foreign mercenaries to scare the populace into not wanting to revolt (if the police are your family members, you know they'll take your side; if it's a bunch of armed soldiers who aren't even from there, much scarier prospect).

Constantinople created a LOT of discord with its meddling in religious affairs... you have to wonder too how much of that may have been deliberate (get the people to fight each other over minute doctrinal differences and then they aren't fighting the elites).

Anyway, we have all this digital stuff now... but you read enough history and it's kind of "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Chase

It all certainly seems cyclical and repetitious. Your knowledge of history seems to be much better than mine. The one example I know fairly well is ancient Rome, and there are definitely some parallels to what is happening now.

I do believe that we are living in a time that historically represents the end of Western civilization - that is to say, it has arrived at a place that, if things go according to these historical cycles, it will be a different power that dominates the globe in the near future.

There are several things that I think are particularly concerning this time around.
...

The first one is globalization. When an old, sick civilization dies, what makes it possible for a rebirth is that there are other 'civilizations' (perhaps nothing more than barbarians at the time) who represent a kind of unaffected potential for what comes next. The more globalized the world is, the more these other seeds become contaminated with the afflictions of the dying civilization - perhaps they have already imbibed some of the more pervasive ideas or habits going around, which they have been exposed to due to how tightly everything is integrated together. And perhaps it will inhibit their ability to spawn something necessarily new and highly functional.

Maybe we haven't reached that point this time around, but it's clear to me that in a fully globalized society it will be very difficult for anything new to be created at the necessary time. Perhaps in these cases the form of the new thing will simply change - rather than countries or distinct cultures it may be groups or subcultures formed by other means. Though, if you look at the most obvious means, the internet, it's hard to imagine it being a place for the growth of anything with even semi-permanence, and the internet can also be coopted by the dying civilization as well.
...

The second thing (related to the first) is that if you look at the new powers marshaling in response to the current demise of Western civilization, none of them represent a sort of 'pure chaos' from which something radically new has occurred. In the cases of the most obvious challengers, China and Russia, it is not as if they are simply taking the opportunity, but rather it is as if they have been observing what has already happened in the West, and somehow gone even further with the level of social manipulation and control. I wonder what would arise from a new society that ascends to power with certain aspects that usually would represent a society in decline?

Does this mean that in some sense the sickness of the dying civilization has already spread to the new before it has even taken its place?
...

The third thing I think is concerning, and maybe you will be able to say something based on your knowledge of history here, is that it seems to me that we live in a distinct sort of middle-age, end-of-history 'illusion' at a global level, due to several things, including how far technology has advanced beyond the comprehension of the general population, how much we already know about virtually everything within billions of miles from where we are. What other radically new things and ideas are there? Science fiction, which developed as a consequence to how fast everything seemed to be changing and how many new possibilities and potentials there were, has all but died out, to be replaced by Marvel comic movies that don't even pretend to deal with anything vaguely predictive of the future.

What does this mean for the seed of what comes next - what sort of 'libido' for lack of a better term will the new civilization have? Will it already be cynical of its own future?
...

In the end, the work of an individual is really at the individual level, and these are just observations. If enough people work on developing a healthy and idealized individual life, I think things end up in the best possible place at every level. And I do see a lot of that happening now, outside of the domain of politics and the machinations of history.

PS hope this isn't too far off topic, I'll remove/move it if needed

 

[sab]

@Chase "The thing with approaching is that the burden being on men to approach is both WAY BETTER and WAY WORSE for men, depending on whether the man has balls and drive. If he has balls and drive, being a man is so much better than being a woman, because he has an efficient, liberating way to meet prospective mates that for the most part is off the table for women. However, if he has no balls and he has no drive, being a man is so much worse than being a woman, because he is not going to take advantage of the superior paths open to him as a man, but neither does he have access to the inferior paths open to the woman.

There's not much you can do for the guy who won't take advantage of the paths open to him as a man."

I could not agree more. This to me is why so many men don't understand that seduction is so liberating and so powerful. Even when you get a ton of rejections.

 

[kestwanye77]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of male-female dynamics.

Trust me, if approaching first was a more viable strategy for most female humans than waiting to be approached, they'd employ it. Women aren't stupid.

Quick disclaimer because you and me have long reads. I got caught up at work yesterday and decided to wait till I was off fully read your post and look over it. Now back to it.

Lets apply that same logic that can to most things seduction artists teach? Why aren't most guys using chase frames, why arent most men realizing the friendzone is the worst place to be, why don't guys just approach alot more, why arent most men disqualifying themselves as boyfriend canindates?

Because....guys arent stupid right? They would have figured out by now that most of this stuff works right?

But yet when you go out and about you see dont see most men doing alot of the things you teach. Maybe the Naturals? It but how many men are naturals in area of seduction. You included in many posts thats its not many.

What happens when a woman approaches a man? What are the odds that leads to commitment, wedding bells, and babies?

Ill get to that below

When a woman cold approaches a man, she is almost ALWAYS approaching up -- going for a guy who is out of her league. He is not going to commit to her, and the very act of her approaching causes him to further devalue her. (there's also social circle approaching, which I'll get to in a moment

Sounds like women need to lower their standards so they can get more opportunities. If she's always going to approach up then of course she's going to have an uphill battle.

She's fighting above her weight class but, it's not predestined that the guy won't commit to her. Is that literally what we believe now? Because we have two totally different life experiences that tell us different.

The odds that a guy devalues her based on her approach is likely but it's also just as likely to be still neutral because attractive men are used to being approached. It heavily depends on how she approaches and how forward she is.

Further, being the one who opens docks some points off your value.

The same for guys

A good seducer has ways to compensate for this, but a woman opening a man who is then viewing her as lower value for opening him is already putting herself in a far worse position for getting commitment out of him than if she signaled him and he opened.

Why are writing off all the possible ways she can compensate her value? I mean its understandable that you teach women so your expertise is not going to be great in teaching women seduction but... you are not even willing to try to see that maybe those willing women can make her situation better without also devaluing herself.

On top of all this, the signal-to-noise ratio on men women open vs. men who open women is atrocious:

1. The woman's goal is commitment
2. Most men out there are NOT going to commit to her
3. Many men out there WILL accept a sex layup with her if they can get it
4. If she waits for only the men who approach, it's a lot more likely these are highly motivated guys willing to overcome that fear and invest in her. They won't all be willing to commit, but the odds are in her favor
5. If SHE does the approaching, she is going to meet a lot of men who have zero interest in committing to her, but will happily take a layup they can stick their dicks into

You are correct. Just like when a man approaches she's more than likely to try to slot you in a different category based on your value and your approach.

So yes you will meet more men want to fuck....but that's just a byproduct of approaching in general.

Just like it's a byproduct that most women you approach will want to slot you into a relationship or orbiter category. Most of the time subconsciously

Outside of falling into the first or second category, approaching the man first for a woman is a grossly inefficient strategy.

The woman's choices are a.) signal the guy you like and hope he bites or else b.) approach yourself and get pumped and dumped by a ton of guys who have zero interest in committing to you.

Of those choices, unless she's a sex hound, or she's really vetted the guy hard over a period of months, it is simply the more rational choice for her to sit and wait for the man to approach.

Most of the guys they signal dont even catch it tho. It's a mating strategy that most females do but it's also a diceroll because many men dont even pick up on these signals.

How many times have you went to a club and the women will spend the entire not signaling the guys they want to approach but still not getting approached because the women are way to subtle in the signals they send? Or maybe you didnt stop to pay attention because you were to busy approaching.

Most of those naturals you are talking about even have a hard time picking up those signals. Which is mostly why they prefer not to cold approach anyway and just make friends with the girls in the club instead so they look more savvy around group events. Most of the time guys dont pick up on these.

That would only be into play if you are only taking into account the guys that read this site.

And you are not taking to account the slim time frames she has to signal the guys she wants to approach. Most girls are not going to be in bars and clubs...so when they see a guy they actually like in public they are going to forced to give a subtle signal that a guy is almost never going to pick up because he's busy.

So signaling a guy she wants seems like a inefficient strategy anyway most of the time. She'll just wait on the opportunity to jump in her lap when most guys even the incredibly good ones wont make the approach because you miss also another crucial element.

So guys have not even built enough social momentum to approach. They arent going to Don Juan after getting off a 9to 5 job at the post office. They are mostly just tired and want to go home.

The way women chase is not spotting a man, walking up to him, opening him, running routines on him, and propositioning him. Women chase through hints, signals, windows, opportunities, suggestions, touch, and so on

That sounds like a self limiting belief. We don't expect women to do these things and the women dont expect themselves to do it. But this is precisely the mindset that holds women back.

Again women will do this for an attractive enough man anyway. We talked about this above and I'll adress this more down below

I wouldn't want to have a woman treating me like a man treats a woman. Who wants that? The few times it's happened to me it's felt SUPER weird.

Thinking "it must be pride that prevents women from treating a man like a woman" goes back to that fundamental misunderstanding of male-female nature.

She doesn't have to treat you like a man. She can take initiative without emasculating you.

She can open indirectly, talk to you in a way where she can signal she doesn't normally do this(approach), and she can still make the interaction an opportunity seemingly missed if the guys dont take the actions required. It's all a game.

Its because they dont like getting rejected. I think you even admitted this on your posts. If anything more than anything it's a combination of pride and fear.

Pride is a concern because she thinks she's a catch...so if she has to approach he doesn't want the guy getting a big head after the approach.

Also fear comes into play because the women doesn't want to feel she's not wanted.

A concern for both men and women but for women its stronger because they are more desired sex.

You seem to be talking about the "shy guy she's been vetting for months" scenario

No. I meant exactly what I said. Women are usually given the benefit of the doubt when she approach a guy. Even if he doesnt notice her. Hell they usually insult the guy and publicly shame him for being rude. Even if he wasnt.

The fact is most women who've had a boyfriend this way will typically only have done it once in their lives. The girls who do it tend to be ballsy, confident girls, too. Most girls aren't ballsy and confident, and most shy guys will never get the girl they want asking them out (at best they will get some girls they don't want, whom they later start chasing once they realize that holy crap, that girl actually liked me... and typically by then it is too late).

I agree. This is mostly on point.

Women wish they could do all kinds of things men do. I have had women tell me they wished they could go out alone to nightclubs like I was when I met them... they wished they could pee standing up... they wished they could fuck a woman with a penis and actually feel their penis inside her. Women have all kinds of things they will say they wish they could do. But they are women. Many of those doors are closed to them. It is their role to follow, not to take charge, lead, build, and overcome.

The whole feminist-generated modern Western thought behind this "women are just like men and can do anything men can do!" thinking is fundamentally off the mark. They aren't, and they can't, even if they might like to, or sometimes try to.

I agree. Alot if those scenarios that can't do the same things men do.

They won't occupy the dangerous job fields, they won't compete with men in sports, they won't overly join the military, etc.

Blaming women for not being men is like blaming little children for failing to hold down a job or blaming turtles for sucking at flying. Technically, you can do it if you want to, but I'm not sure the point.

I dont blame women for not being like men. I never said I expected women to get other women pregnant, fight our wars, and train to beat everyguy in walking distance in arm wrestling competition. That is futile. There are severe disadvantages in those scenarios and one is downright impossible.

If I however see women not taking advantage in an opportunity that they has a much higher chance of benefiting them that doesn't hold the same limitations of male vs females dynamics, then I won't be so lenient to play my tiny violin.

Not the case -- see above.

Of the women I know who approached their boyfriends or husbands first, they ALL either:

• Ended up dumping the guy after realizing he simply wasn't ambitious or masculine enough for them (should've realized that when he failed to approach!)
  
  
• Discovered the guy had weird behaviors they could not tolerate and broke up with him in frustration, often after a year+ of trying to make it work and feeling like they must be crazy when the guy complained or behaved in feminine ways trying to blame them for problems or whine about them not accepting things about him (but I guess that's the kind of guy you get when you as the woman have to do the approaching!)
  
  
• Found themselves in a marriage where they were neglected by the guy, undervalued, and perpetually belittled

It seems like you have only encountered guys who end up on the extreme scenarios. Either they are Leonidas from 300 or they are James McAvoy in the first half of wanted.

You have a multitude of reasons why guys won't approach. He could assume she has a boyfriend, she's busy, she's not I'm the mood, or maybe hes not in the mood.

Most guys dont even cold approach. So are women only limited to good partners if they fit our definition of what constitutes an alpha male.

You made an entire article about how most womens past are very similar to ours and even alot of the hot women are dating very average men.

So we are already not including the prime time alpha males I'm this scenario, how much more likely are the average guys to approach in this case?

Maybe me reference points are completely opposite of yours because I've seem tons of couples work where the couples have worked where the women approached. But maybe just sample bias. I'm also aware of that problem.

But somehow a guy not being ambitious is highly tied to his willingness to cold approach seems a little fetched.

From what I have seen, in at least a solid dozen examples of LTRs coming from the woman approaching first, the dynamic is whacked from the get-go and the woman universally ends up disappointed with the guy she got, even though she chose him herself.

If you cannot understand why that would be, go back and reread the stuff I wrote about differences between male and female humans and animals (humans being, necessarily, one particular breed of animal).

I read like 4 times now. Remember I was about to talk to you about that yesterday but I got caught up at work.

Its incredibly obvious that this disconnect is tied to what I have seen myself. But because like you mentioned about you. being more sympathetic towards women's side its tipped in favor of old school dynamic dating because it helps women get the fairytale dream she's after. Who most of the time she's not going to get because of her options and not willing to approach(Tehe,).

This is not what I have seen. But its pointless to argue those anecdotes because we'd be here all day.

It is an ineffective, inefficient behavior for women that typically produces little fruit, and what fruit it does produce is rotten.

It's silly to view that as a product of "ego." Anymore than it would be viewing men unwilling to spend 10 years working manual labor to try to move up to an assistant manager position, rather than applying directly for the assistant manager position if they're qualified, as "ego" -- if you have a better, far more efficient path available, why would you take the one that breaks your back and maybe doesn't even get you there?

What? How is that even remotely comparable? It is an example so not all examples are meant to be broken down in the same lens as the point being made but... that scenario you describes seems far more low chance related then women approaching.

A woman is not going to date a man she doesnt want to have sex with(unless he's rich). So even if we are going to pretend in this scenario that the only guy she meets cold approaching is going to want sex only she's in far better position to get a relationship if they never met at all. Which is very likely to happen.

That are way against you into the scenario you gave. The decision to stay longer and hope the higher ups call you is alot more inefficient than a girl cold approaching.

It's not ego. It's called "not being a total idiot."

How though? Being a total idiot is doing the same thing repeatedly and expect things to change. Most girls dont approach and they still have a very hard time finding partners according to you.

The thing with approaching is that the burden being on men to approach is both WAY BETTER and WAY WORSE for men, depending on whether the man has balls and drive. If he has balls and drive, being a man is so much better than being a woman, because he has an efficient, liberating way to meet prospective mates that for the most part is off the table for women. However, if he has no balls and he has no drive, being a man is so much worse than being a woman, because he is not going to take advantage of the superior paths open to him as a man, but neither does he have access to the inferior paths open to the woman.

It's no secret that men as far as most aspects of life are the biggest winners and losers. Some of those are tied to things women will very rarely win excel at. Like strength or bravado. The biggest reason the gap is so wide is because the threshold for being one of the best at doing what it you do requires a great deal of effort and strategy. Big Risk Big Reward.

Women are more in the middle ground is what you are basically saying. I agree. That's true.

But you basically kinda proved my point chase. If the burden is also way worse on men then the odds are stronger in her favor too approach because most guys will fall into the later category.

She will fall more into the middle which gets her more results than potentially waiting on a bad option to approach her.

There's not much you can do for the guy who won't take advantage of the paths open to him as a man.

Except I guess to say, "Welp, that's natural

Are we going to pretend that's not how it actual is?

 

[Warped Mindless]

Lets apply that same logic that can to most things seduction artists teach? Why aren't most guys using chase frames, why arent most men realizing the friendzone is the worst place to be, why don't guys just approach alot more, why arent most men disqualifying themselves as boyfriend canindates?

Because....guys arent stupid right? They would have figured out by now that most of this stuff works right?

But yet when you go out and about you see dont see most men doing alot of the things you teach. Maybe the Naturals? It but how many men are naturals in area of seduction. You included in many posts thats its not many.

Most guys really dont even know about seduction tech.

That said, even those who do, most dont have the balls to apply it.

Its a lot like the business world (I’m a business consultant).

There are millions of books, courses, videos, and consultants out there that will show anyone who listens how to run a successful business. Its a not a mystery, how to run a business has be SOLVED….

Yet many (most even) entrepreneurs still don’t run their business right. Many of them can’t even get down the most basic of fundamentals which is why the majority of businesses close down.

People are lazy, stupid, and ego driven (“I don’t need help I got this shit.”).

 

[Karea Ricardus D.]

Without having read the whole thread (cause it's half a book)... my 2c:

Its no secret that women are far more pickier than men when it comes to their dating prospects.

I actually think that men are far pickier than women when it comes to dating. We don't even SEE women who aren't physically beautiful... they don't even exist to us. Vision can maybe chime in here but dating is really difficult for women who aren't hot and even for many who are hot.

If you're not born beautiful as a woman you're shit out of luck, you're basically invisible to high value men (like many of us). We don't even look, don't even consider them. Whereas men can work on themselves and become that attractive guy with lots of options.

Women can do this to some extent, but it's mostly going to be physically based, long hair, gym body, sexy/stylish clothes. Her personality becomes important to men much later.

And if I don't like her face... then the sexy body and the great personality are still not going to matter. Women care about this to some extent too but far less than we do.

Second... not only do I think that men are pickier than women. I also think that women get rejected more than men do. Every time a woman likes a man, she can't just go up to him and talk to him.

She can only signal to the man... give him proximity (get near him) or approach invitation (eye contact). Theoretically she could do more than that but it's not common at all and it shouldn't be. It's the woman's job to initiate by signaling and it's the man's job to reciprocate by approaching.

Most men can't read the signals or even if they can, aren't interested unless she's hot. Women are in a rough spot, dude. Because men are mega picky and only want beautiful girls, and reject women all the time by not picking up on their signals.

Third... All of the above is still only the context of the initial approach and the first few dates. Later it gets even more difficult for women because then their job is to get commitment from a guy. And that's where many of them REALLY struggle... getting commitment, but from the right guy.

I'm glad I'm a man personally. I would hate to not have COMPLETE control over my dating life, which we do.

-Karea Ricardus D.

 

[Chase]

@kestwanye77,

Well all right, if you’ve seen a bunch of women approach men and those relationships worked out well and the woman is happy then I guess wherever you are it’s a viable strategy and it works. There’s all kinds of things that can happen with the sexual marketplace, and with things as topsy-turvy as they are these days, I wouldn’t rule out some place or situation where women have become the pursuers and men the pursued.

There was an old New York Times article about young women in Beirut chasing men down the street there right after the war because so many men had left the country seeking work (or maybe draft dodging?) and the female-male ratio was just insane. I had an ex-USMC buddy who was there around that period and he said it was every bit as good as you’d imagine.

There are some places in Japan where the women will approach from time to time, likely because so many of the men have dropped out of the dating game it’s flipped the sexual marketplace to a degree.

So it’s not without precedent. Could well be you’re in one of those inverted marketplaces and you are seeing that behavior, and the behavior even feels logical to you, simply due to your perception of the marketplace you’re in. (I hope you’re taking full advantage of it if you are in such a place!)

I will also say I have a few times seen guys who were in one of those rare inverted marketplaces where women worked a lot harder to get men, who then relocated somewhere they got pulled back down to earth… it is not always easy to witness that, lol. I watched one guy go from shagging one or two new girls a week and being totally chill to tearing his hair out complaining how stuck up and entitled women were all because he couldn’t get laid anymore within just a few months’ time… wholly because he switched locations from an inverted marketplace to a standard one.


@Will_V,

I do believe that we are living in a time that historically represents the end of Western civilization - that is to say, it has arrived at a place that, if things go according to these historical cycles, it will be a different power that dominates the globe in the near future.

It appears so, yes.

There are several things that I think are particularly concerning this time around.
...

The first one is globalization. When an old, sick civilization dies, what makes it possible for a rebirth is that there are other 'civilizations' (perhaps nothing more than barbarians at the time) who represent a kind of unaffected potential for what comes next. The more globalized the world is, the more these other seeds become contaminated with the afflictions of the dying civilization - perhaps they have already imbibed some of the more pervasive ideas or habits going around, which they have been exposed to due to how tightly everything is integrated together. And perhaps it will inhibit their ability to spawn something necessarily new and highly functional.

Maybe we haven't reached that point this time around, but it's clear to me that in a fully globalized society it will be very difficult for anything new to be created at the necessary time. Perhaps in these cases the form of the new thing will simply change - rather than countries or distinct cultures it may be groups or subcultures formed by other means. Though, if you look at the most obvious means, the internet, it's hard to imagine it being a place for the growth of anything with even semi-permanence, and the internet can also be coopted by the dying civilization as well.

Joseph Tainter makes this point very well in The Collapse of Complex Societies.

He discusses it / expands upon it in this interview as well:

Basically, civilizations can only collapse so long as they have no powerful neighbors nearby who will invade following the collapse (because the citizens giving up on the system won't be willing to give up the system if giving up on it merely means they'll become second class citizens for a powerful nearby uncollapsed civilization).

So when you have a civilization with powerful neighbors, even if that systems is under very heavy strain and the populace is being crushed under it, it cannot collapse, and is forced to keep going, competing with its neighbors, until all the interconnected neighboring systems are so mutually strained they collapse simultaneously.

Globalization puts you in a position where you get these zombie societies lurching on, that would probably have already collapsed and begun reorganizing themselves in a non-globalized world, but are forced to keep going because the alternative to continuing appears worse.

That said... I question whether we are really fully globalized to the point of becoming vassals if there's a collapse. If (for instance) the US split into a few smaller countries... like, say, "Patriotstan" in the south and middle and "Equalia" on the coasts... is there really going to be another dominant party coming in and taking those over? I suppose the US did quite effectively turn Europe into a collection of satellite/vassal states following World War II... that might suggest that yes, we are indeed fully globalized at this point.

The second thing (related to the first) is that if you look at the new powers marshaling in response to the current demise of Western civilization, none of them represent a sort of 'pure chaos' from which something radically new has occurred. In the cases of the most obvious challengers, China and Russia, it is not as if they are simply taking the opportunity, but rather it is as if they have been observing what has already happened in the West, and somehow gone even further with the level of social manipulation and control. I wonder what would arise from a new society that ascends to power with certain aspects that usually would represent a society in decline?

Does this mean that in some sense the sickness of the dying civilization has already spread to the new before it has even taken its place?

It's a good question.

With Russia and China, you get what appear to me two very different approaches to both being rising powers and handling the "dying tiger" that is the US. Russia is a lot more chaotic and doesn't seem to have much of a plan. China is far more controlled and has everything planned out more or less for the next 50 years. China, for instance, has effectively banned Western propaganda and moved to reinstate traditional morality at this point... they didn't let either of the Marvel films in last year, including the one Marvel made to try to entrench itself in China (Shang-Chi)... homosexuality is banned on TV and movies, feminism is basically banned, showing one-night stands is banned, they shut down all the pickup artist apps, including a huge Chinese PUA video training app that was turning over $20 million a year, they've banned showing effeminate men, and they told parents to limit kids to an hour of screen time a day and no more than 3 hours of video game per week, and only on the weekends.

The Russian approach seems to be "well, I don't know what's going on in the West, but we are just going to try and chill here until whatever that is stops." The Chinese approach meanwhile seems to be "the West is in active cultural revolution mode, trying to reshape the entire world alongside with itself, and we just want our populace as insulated from Western propaganda as possible."

Is one of those approaches going to end up being superior?

Will China pay a penalty for over-insulating itself, or will it be fine, and still able to handle international projects like belt and road (or end up not needing them, safe in its insular bubble as the outside world falls to pieces)? Will Russia be able to weather the West's collective insanity without it spreading there as well, or will its openness lead to it going down the same path?

Maybe we'll end up with some other force that emerges later on in the century that no one is talking about or considering right now.

It's difficult to predict...

The third thing I think is concerning, and maybe you will be able to say something based on your knowledge of history here, is that it seems to me that we live in a distinct sort of middle-age, end-of-history 'illusion' at a global level, due to several things, including how far technology has advanced beyond the comprehension of the general population, how much we already know about virtually everything within billions of miles from where we are. What other radically new things and ideas are there? Science fiction, which developed as a consequence to how fast everything seemed to be changing and how many new possibilities and potentials there were, has all but died out, to be replaced by Marvel comic movies that don't even pretend to deal with anything vaguely predictive of the future.

What does this mean for the seed of what comes next - what sort of 'libido' for lack of a better term will the new civilization have? Will it already be cynical of its own future?

Well, as you probably know from Roman history, Rome was at such a point itself, where it viewed itself as the crowning achievement of civilization, and saw itself as more or less an eternal civilization, likely to lead the world forever.

China has gone through phases like this. For a long time the ancient Chinese maps basically said "here is China, here are the mountains, and the deserts, and beyond those there are a few barbarians, then the end of the world."

If I had to guess, other powerful empires at the peaks of their civilizations, and for a time after, have viewed themselves this way.

Basically what seems to follow is a coming-back-down-to-earth period, where the civilization begins to suffer more and more defeats, and grows sort of depressed, as it is forced to face the fact that it is NOT an eternal civilization, and won't get to be on top forever. Then generally there are back and forths, some periods where it seems like it is coming back, some great new leadership comes to the fore promising to renew it, things get better for a while, then it goes back into decline.

In the end, the work of an individual is really at the individual level, and these are just observations. If enough people work on developing a healthy and idealized individual life, I think things end up in the best possible place at every level. And I do see a lot of that happening now, outside of the domain of politics and the machinations of history.

PS hope this isn't too far off topic, I'll remove/move it if needed

A good closing thought!

Yes, that's always the thing: regardless the nature of the world around you, if you improve your own self, and bring along the people you care about, your friends, family, immediate community, etc., then things will generally be improving for you. There are examples of strong communities that survive everything else melting down around them because they keep their own heads, stay on their grind, and avoid getting overly caught up in the goings on of all the other folks who are going nuts elsewhere (Venice is such an example; Rome fell apart but Venice, part of the empire, stayed fine, IIRC). Sometimes these places end up birthing new nations/empires; sometimes they just weather the storm a lot better than most.

Chase

 

[Skills]

I will also say I have a few times seen guys who were in one of those rare inverted marketplaces where women worked a lot harder to get men, who then relocated somewhere they got pulled back down to earth… it is not always easy to witness that, lol. I watched one guy go from shagging one or two new girls a week and being totally chill to tearing his hair out complaining how stuck up and entitled women were all because he couldn’t get laid anymore within just a few months’ time… wholly because he switched locations from an inverted marketplace to a standard one.

^ it can even happen in the same market place, location, venues...... The best examples are when the peak of online dating (about 6 years ago) and very recently CORONA....

One thing if you do pick up long enough, you will experience trend changes, society evolutions.... This incel fantasy of "women approaching" black pill mentality become and amazing chad and women will be approaching..... Is just a big cope, sign of helplessness to get rid of the responsibility burden of performance delay strategy....

 

[kestwanye77]

Without having read the whole thread (cause it's half a book)... my 2c:

I actually think that men are far pickier than women when it comes to dating. We don't even SEE women who aren't physically beautiful... they don't even exist to us. Vision can maybe chime in here but dating is really difficult for women who aren't hot and even for many who are hot.

If you're not born beautiful as a woman you're shit out of luck, you're basically invisible to high value men (like many of us). We don't even look, don't even consider them. Whereas men can work on themselves and become that attractive guy with lots of options.

Women can do this to some extent, but it's mostly going to be physically based, long hair, gym body, sexy/stylish clothes. Her personality becomes important to men much later.

And if I don't like her face... then the sexy body and the great personality are still not going to matter. Women care about this to some extent too but far less than we do.

Second... not only do I think that men are pickier than women. I also think that women get rejected more than men do. Every time a woman likes a man, she can't just go up to him and talk to him.

She can only signal to the man... give him proximity (get near him) or approach invitation (eye contact). Theoretically she could do more than that but it's not common at all and it shouldn't be. It's the woman's job to initiate by signaling and it's the man's job to reciprocate by approaching.

Most men can't read the signals or even if they can, aren't interested unless she's hot. Women are in a rough spot, dude. Because men are mega picky and only want beautiful girls, and reject women all the time by not picking up on their signals.

Third... All of the above is still only the context of the initial approach and the first few dates. Later it gets even more difficult for women because then their job is to get commitment from a guy. And that's where many of them REALLY struggle... getting commitment, but from the right guy.

I'm glad I'm a man personally. I would hate to not have COMPLETE control over my dating life, which we do.

-Karea Ricardus D.

You are amazing at Trolling

 

[Vision]

Its no secret that women are far more pickier than men when it comes to their dating prospects. Because of the risk they take with choosing plus the added bonus of having a ton of options at their disposal.

Now chase has made a ton of arguments to disprove the argument that 80 percent of the women go for 20 percent of the men. Mostly his article is summarized by saying the numbers dont add up.

And to be fair I dont thi k that argument was brought up as a hard rule but as a guide. Which is most women find most men unattractive.

Don't you find that most women are unattractive? I think most people, men and women, are very unattractive... any country I've been to, most of the people there are ugly af... that includes Ukraine.

There are more hot women than anywhere else there (that I've seen) but the number of ugly women far outweighs the number of attractive ones.

You don't find that to be true where you are? I think if you start paying attention to ALL the women around, not just the attractive ones, you'll notice a lot more ugly women are there that you wouldn't even normally see.

Now we are supposed to understand that alot of regular guys just get women.

Dude, just go out on the streets and look at all the old, ugly, fat people who are together. I was walking around Miami beach today and there were so many ugly people together, holding hands, etc... it was beautiful. I'm happy that the ugly people have all found each other.

Go walk around and see all the ugly "regular" people together. Just go out to popular areas on the weekends and you'll see them everywhere.

But how exactly? I know plenty of average men and dating seemed damn near impossible. Hell it seemed like the ones that didn't meet a highschool sweetheart he wasmt going to dating anybody for a long time.

For women, it's easier to find a guy to bang than it is for men to find a woman to bang... but getting into an actual relationship is something different.

So I wonder how do most men even get girls then?

Proximity, exposure, persistence, someone making a move and then the couple is together. They meet at a group or through friends or through work or school or a bar or whatever.

 

[sab]

Don't you find that most women are unattractive? I think most people, men and women, are very unattractive... any country I've been to, most of the people there are ugly af... that includes Ukraine.

There are more hot women than anywhere else there (that I've seen) but the number of ugly women far outweighs the number of attractive ones.

You don't find that to be true where you are? I think if you start paying attention to ALL the women around, not just the attractive ones, you'll notice a lot more ugly women are there that you wouldn't even normally see.



Dude, just go out on the streets and look at all the old, ugly, fat people who are together. I was walking around Miami beach today and there were so many ugly people together, holding hands, etc... it was beautiful. I'm happy that the ugly people have all found each other.

Go walk around and see all the ugly "regular" people together. Just go out to popular areas on the weekends and you'll see them everywhere.



For women, it's easier to find a guy to bang than it is for men to find a woman to bang... but getting into an actual relationship is something different.



Proximity, exposure, persistence, someone making a move and then the couple is together. They meet at a group or through friends or through work or school or a bar or whatever.

"Don't you find that most women are unattractive? I think most people, men and women, are very unattractive... any country I've been to, most of the people there are ugly af... that includes Ukraine."

Women are far smarter than men in improving their apparent attractiveness. Women will use all the tools available to make them appear sexy to men. Entire industries are devoted to that end including clothes/fashion, make-up, shoes, wellness, hair salon, plastic surgery, magazines....Imagine a woman with a short hair or in the morning when she gets up without the make-up....you realize it all smokes and mirrors which men don't always think about or at least me until recently. And on top of that mother nature is not very kind to them as their peak sexual attractiveness start to decline from the mid-20s. And it is all downhill from there in the looks department.

 

[kestwanye77]

One thing if you do pick up long enough, you will experience trend changes, society evolutions.... This incel fantasy of "women approaching" black pill mentality become and amazing chad and women will be approaching..... Is just a big cope, sign of helplessness to get rid of the responsibility burden of performance delay strategy...

You don't seem like to type to bring people down with incel shame. But hey the night was still young.

 

[POB]

Why aren't most guys using chase frames, why arent most men realizing the friendzone is the worst place to be, why don't guys just approach alot more, why arent most men disqualifying themselves as boyfriend canindates?

Because....guys arent stupid right? They would have figured out by now that most of this stuff works right?

Because most guys are lazy and don't wanna struggle to get better.

Sounds like women need to lower their standards so they can get more opportunities. If she's always going to approach up then of course she's going to have an uphill battle.

They will lower their standards for a short period once they reach a certain age (usually past 29) when they realize that the pool is shrinking, biology is kicking in and they better settle down if they want to raise a family. A little later they will raise their standards through the roof and start to complain there's no men available.

Also women at their physical prime (18-28) will have a hard time dating down just because their market value is at it's peak, even if they are not that beautiful. This is the time when they play the field and think the line of top tier handsome men chasing them is gonna last forever....when they realize it's not, they grab the first available provider or try to find Mr. unicorn and end up in the repeating cycle of cheating Alphas > boring betas > cheating Alphas on and on....then they'll go through longer and longer sexless phases until they finally end up with the last provider, who bores them to death but at least is a reliable safe man to be around. Or they just shrug and become "the cat lady" lol.

On the other hand, men don't have that disadvantage because their market value goes up, and up, and up until very late in life (providing they keep taking care of themselves). This is why seducing a 20 year old chick is different than seducing a 40 year old mature woman. Although they both want sex and the basics are the same, they need a very different approach.

She's fighting above her weight class but, it's not predestined that the guy won't commit to her. Is that literally what we believe now? Because we have two totally different life experiences that tell us different.

The odds that a guy devalues her based on her approach is likely but it's also just as likely to be still neutral because attractive men are used to being approached. It heavily depends on how she approaches and how forward she is.

Not true...in most cases the guy will see her as "easy" and put her through different lenses than a woman he has to chase. I feel very turned down when a woman comes too hard at me with blatant sex frames...it's not feminine at all!

Why are writing off all the possible ways she can compensate her value? I mean its understandable that you teach women so your expertise is not going to be great in teaching women seduction but... you are not even willing to try to see that maybe those willing women can make her situation better without also devaluing herself.

The only way women can do it is by becoming hotter: slimming down, dressing better, being sexier, etc.
It's not that different than what we have to do ourselves, but we can show a lot of other qualities that don't necessarily depend on looks, like material status, social awareness, conversational skills, sexual prowess, etc. Plus their physical peak is very short and that's what nature intended to be their procreative periods, hence why they feel more sexually attractive and desired in that phase. Even guys like myself, that love mature women, will never be 100% satisfied unless we fuck younger chicks from time to time. Simple biology at work.

Just like it's a byproduct that most women you approach will want to slot you into a relationship or orbiter category. Most of the time subconsciously

This is why the manual teaches to never be 100% player. A little bit of provider help to make her slot you into "possible relationship" at least. Then you set your lover frames and keep doing it for as long as you can.

And you are not taking to account the slim time frames she has to signal the guys she wants to approach. Most girls are not going to be in bars and clubs...so when they see a guy they actually like in public they are going to forced to give a subtle signal that a guy is almost never going to pick up because he's busy.

A lot of times they do it unconsciously. And yes, guys don't pick up on those signals.

So signaling a guy she wants seems like a inefficient strategy anyway most of the time. She'll just wait on the opportunity to jump in her lap when most guys even the incredibly good ones wont make the approach because you miss also another crucial element.

Yes, but societal programming teaches everyone that women don't have to chase: the right man will eventually come up because she is a princess that deserves it. If that's not true then E. L. James would not be filthy rich writing a shitty love story about a fucked-up billionaire who beats women for pleasure.

That sounds like a self limiting belief. We don't expect women to do these things and the women dont expect themselves to do it. But this is precisely the mindset that holds women back.

No, its not a mindset or belief. It's just societal programming+biology at work

You have a multitude of reasons why guys won't approach. He could assume she has a boyfriend, she's busy, she's not I'm the mood, or maybe hes not in the mood.
Most guys dont even cold approach. So are women only limited to good partners if they fit our definition of what constitutes an alpha male.

Yep, guys are lazy.

A woman is not going to date a man she doesnt want to have sex with

Oh yeah, she definitely will!!!
I've seen it too many times, usually because:
a) the guy has low sex drive, so she settles exclusively for companionship and maybe grab a lover on the side;
b) she is not in a sex phase, so she dates an orbiter to play fake sexless boyfriend for a while;

Women are more in the middle ground is what you are basically saying. I agree. That's true.
But you basically kinda proved my point chase. If the burden is also way worse on men then the odds are stronger in her favor too approach because most guys will fall into the later category.
She will fall more into the middle which gets her more results than potentially waiting on a bad option to approach her.
Are we going to pretend that's not how it actual is?

I find it very interesting that real seduction will never be mainstream. Much like real entrepreneurship.
Truth is, there's no way for it to hit the masses, because most men will never put in the work!

When proven guys have attempted to teach pick-up for a larger audience, it just became a watered down version of what they were really doing in-field. This is the nature of the beast I guess.

Everyone who has seen a great seducer up close can spot that he is not doing anything special...at least it doesn't LOOK special at first glance. Although much of what he does seem effortless, like Usain Bolt's 100m dash or Micheal Jordan's fadeway, it is the result of thousands of hours testing, tweaking, studying and applying a variety of skills and techniques to perfect their craft.

This is why guys like the OP won't be able to understand the real meaning of it through words on a forum (and will start to argue on rational points like "why women don't approach" and other typical guy logic stuff). It's just not possible! I stand corrected: the only way it's possible is if he really commits and starts to apply what experienced proven guys teach and then comes back with reasonable doubts created in-field.

Empathizing with women's struggles (the real ones, not the bullshit version from this woke/black pill era) and addressing them through seduction will seem too far fetched if he doesn't learn how to do it himself. Hence red pill, black pill and I don't know how many shitty pills being so popular these days.

It's always easier to blame the other half than it is to improve yourself.

 

[Will_V]

I feel very turned down when a woman comes too hard at me with blatant sex frames...it's not feminine at all!

Exactly. I don't want women approaching me.

What turns me on is when I put something out, and she trusts it. I could never have that satisfaction if she never let me risk that first move.

 

[DonHung84]

moderator's note: this is a message from a new account created by banned member @kestwanye77, aka @Shake&Bake. This new account was also banned.

actually think that men are far pickier than women when it comes to dating.

This should very interesting

We don't even SEE women who aren't physically beautiful... they don't even exist to us. Vision can maybe chime in here but dating is really difficult for women who aren't hot and even for many who are hot.

Well you know that is even more apparent when it comes to women right? Because that Bell Curve study showed that they voted more than half of men physically unattractive. So it's like double the effect with women.

Another factor that makes a strong case that women will see most men as invisible is the way they describe men. By the way most women describe them....most men aren't loyal, are fuckbois, selfish, and are afraid of commitment.

If you don't exclusively hangout with the cast of MadMen you'd know how untrue this is. Most guys struggle getting 1 partner...let alone juggling multiple ones. So most guys don't even have the option to cheat. And their are plenty of selfless guys ready to drop everything for their partner. But women dont. Guys are ready to drank these women bathwater nowadays because of how deprived they are.

Also it was revealed on this very site that men rated higher levels of romanticism and falling for partners harder than women did. So it's not that guys are cheating, lying, scumbags who dont want commitment.

Its basically women acknowledging that the only men that have enough value to get with them are the guys they describe above. And a guy who has more options is more prone to being selfish.

Women can do this to some extent, but it's mostly going to be physically based, long hair, gym body, sexy/stylish clothes. Her personality becomes important to men much later

Yeah that plays a huge factor in altering their attractiveness.

And if I don't like her face... then the sexy body and the great personality are still not going to matter. Women care about this to some extent too but far less than we do.

This is false. Guys rate women being slender to a very high regard. Even if her face is not all that appealing. It's no secret that men prefer healthy women so for most of them they usually dont prefer their women obese.

I think this is something that you individually hold to a high regard but most aren't like that. They will date a chick who has a nice body and personality with no face. Maybe your sample size was picky....but me growing up around a lot of men like that would date a women who has an unattractive face with an attractive body.

Hell most pornstars without makeup aren't all that good looking. But does that stop those women from having lots of men willing to date them?

If you are not big on ass and tits. It's simply not even gonna register to you. But for most men it will. Just take the women who get crazy implants in the industry. They get older and less appealing but they always still find a dude to settle down with.

Second... not only do I think that men are pickier than women. I also think that women get rejected more than men do. Every time a woman likes a man, she can't just go up to him and talk to him.

She can only signal to the man... give him proximity (get near him) or approach invitation (eye contact). Theoretically she could do more than that but it's not common at all and it shouldn't be. It's the woman's job to initiate by signaling and it's the man's job to reciprocate by approaching.

Most men can't read the signals or even if they can, aren't interested unless she's hot. Women are in a rough spot, dude. Because men are mega picky and only want beautiful girls, and reject women all the time by not picking up on their signals.

Someone not being good at catching signals or acting on them does not equal rejection. You just highlighting men's ineptitude to read signals then said men are mega picky. So which one is it exactly? That would imply they can read their signals and are simply ignoring it.

Third... All of the above is still only the context of the initial approach and the first few dates. Later it gets even more difficult for women because then their job is to get commitment from a guy. And that's where many of them REALLY struggle... getting commitment, but from the right guy.

This contradicts your initial argument. If they have trouble getting commitment from the "right " guy that means a lot men of by default dont make the cut for commitment. Which you didn't say applies for men.

 

[sab]

Exactly. I don't want women approaching me.

What turns me on is when I put something out, and she trusts it. I could never have that satisfaction if she never let me risk that first move.

I don't disagree as I am much wiser now. I had one woman approaching me once because I was too dumb to pick on her subtle signals via body language etc...out of desperation, she suggested we spend a weekend together in a major city even though she was in a relationship at the time and I was with another woman. Without her approaching me, I think I would not have slept with her and missed on a great opportunity to learn about women. She helped me figure out that I knew zilch about women.

 

[climbingup]

A girl I hooked up with ages ago, showed me her Instagram DMs. Apart from the thirsty guys, she had hooked up with some NBA players lol. She told me so unashamedly, she found him cute, followed him on IG, he DMed her, they talked, ended up meeting and hooked up. She said lots of her friends, have hooked up with NBA players. In their mind, by following the NBA players that's an approach to them, eventhough they didn't explicitly DM them. Women approach high value guys like that all the time and women do DM celebs and end up hooking up with them.

Women in my opinion are extremely socially intelligent. With the NBA player, she knew that it would just be hookup and that he was probably hooking up with tons of other girls. She didn't try to test him or play any games, it was just a straightforward hookup.

What I am trying to say, is that women have different sides (Men have different sides as well). If she sees you as an attractive, high value man, then she'll be down to hookup. If she's on the fence however then she'll start testing and acting funny. The key is to just do your best every day to become a high value guy. You don't have to be an NBA player to have a great sex life lol. Just have the behaviour of a high value man, know how to seduce women and give them a great experience emotionally. The only difference is as a guy who's not famous but has game, you have to go approach women face to face and talk with them to sleep with them.

Plus man, if women started approaching men more. She won't be approaching average normal 9-5 guys, she'll be approaching guys like the NBA players, celebrities and influencers.
Plus it won't be overt like a frontal stop while he's in public lol, it'll be through stuff like DMs. Which a lot of girls do already, a girl won't DM someone "Are you free tonight?" (Lol unless you're someone like Drake, I'm sure he gets crazy DMs). It'll be stuff like reacting to a celebrity's story, liking his stuff and sending him fanmail. Then if the celeb responds back she'll hook up with him. That way she can still rationalise it to herself that the guy started the hookup. This kind of stuff happens ALL THE TIME. Women are out there approaching guys but they do it in such a way that is discreet and keeps their reputation in tact.

That's what I've noticed from my experience, life as an average guy is pretty bad sex wise tbh. You've got to develop yourself.

Edit:

On the tangent of celebs sleeping with girls lol. A guy with fame and no game has a very high chance of getting me'tood (if that's the correct spelling) and being ruthlessly taking advantage of. Why? He doesn't know how to move from a girl being interested in him to banging her while making sure the experience is fun and leaves her feeling validated and enjoying herself.

Can you imagine becoming famous and then ending up getting blacklisted because a girl didn't like how you escalated on her????? Of course this kind of stuff is kinda rare but it does happen.

Why am I saying this? You should see the opportunity of having to learn game as a blessing because you get to learn about female psychology which if you do become famous or even just a person of influence and girls start "approaching", you'll know how to handle it to avoid any nasty situations in the future

Edit:
Plus we have the luxury of not having to look like Brad Pitt, Idris Elba or whatever celebrity is being portrayed as the epitome of manliness. There's a lot of women that have surgery not even for a health reason, they do it so they can literally become more attractive. Imagine the level of insecurity where one is seriously considering surgery to become more attractive.