PATREON EXCLUSIVE (Full Video): How modern women created a dating market bubble
Added 2024-06-07 07:00:06 +0000 UTC
Comments
@RhodiumMaiden - You appear to easily conflate "The West" with "Whites". Here is my understanding of the etymology: https://chatgpt.com/share/672eea8b-f7c4-800a-8eeb-ab9128496cb4 I never got the convincing impression that European Peoples considered themselves as monolithic a phenotypical group as you seem to suggest -- I've actually heard certain people with Eastern European ancestry make it a point in the US to distinguish themselves from those of Western European ancestry (and vice versa). And the distinction between those of Northern European ancestry and Southern European ancestry is well known (I recently learned the meaning of the term "wog") -- again as far as the American context is concerned. You've lived for quite some time in America, but maybe not in certain areas (like the NYC metropolitan area), so your perceptions may be different from my own. I confess I'd never heard the term "canthal tilt" before, but from my brief research, you appear to be referring to the "positive tilt" in this regard, rather than the "negative tilt", correct? Interestingly, it appears that Timothée Chalamet may possess the latter (and thereby NEGATIVE) attribute: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0728/4860/5515/files/Mewing_with_an_overbite_480x480.png?v=1706295423 I admit that I am too new to the concept to fully appreciate the distinctions, but the concept of assigning "hunter/prey" contrasts IS interesting. The features you contend that "(White) women in the West have ALWAYS UNIVERSALLY liked" include certainly understandable phenotypical attributes, like "sharp facial features and narrow nose", as these match this North Western European region. But, although it is well known that "broad shoulders" is a TRULY universal positive male trait across humankind, I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that you think that MODERATENESS in "height, strength and agility" was ALSO "always universal". This does not appear to match at all what is popularly understood (at least in OTHER regions of the "West", like North America) -- are you SURE this does not actually reflect a PERSONAL or perhaps REGIONAL (North Western European) taste? "Moderate musculature" I DO think I understand, as being too gaunt OR too bulked-up are QUITE common female descriptors of negative male traits. Again, it is strange how Timothée Chalamet continues to match your preferences. My earliest exposure to Romance Novels was via my own mom, who read them AVIDLY. I have not kept up with the genre of course, but when ChatGPT describes "Bodice Rippers" as "tall, muscular, and assertive", this certainly would be VERY good descriptors of what I recall: https://chatgpt.com/share/672ef7f9-4a74-800a-b1ae-089ee27c4d64 Rock Hudson: https://chatgpt.com/share/672ee872-dad4-800a-9005-d40b9fa0c357 He peaked QUITE a while back now, and his name only stands out to me because of its visceral MASCULINITY (despite his closeted orientation), so the popularity of such names is certainly NOT a modern trend in my opinion. Though, of course, his was made up, and few mothers would feel comfortable actually saddling their infant baby boy with such over-the-top names, no matter their personal attraction to them. When you say "Pretty boy doesn’t say anything about a man’s personality so he could be just as mean as a buff, scarred man", it reminds me a bit of when @E C claimed (of herself) in one of her earlier bouts of delightful female naïveté: "I am 5'5 and medium built and I'm scrappy so I can do some damage." Adorable! In the absence of, say, the Spice Melange addiction and Bene Gesserit training, most "pretty boys" would be more likely to trigger death by laughter than inspire fear during a physical altercation with any given "buff, scarred man". "I think women do appreciate signs of resilience in a man but not as much as they do beauty & youth" sounds so evolutionarily contradictory and contrary to popular opinion that I can't help but again wonder at the uniqueness of your personal taste. Are your female friends ALSO of this opinion? "This makes sense given that as men age their sperm accumulate mutations, which are mostly negative. T levels also drop, and sperm quality is overall inferior." All of this makes PERFECT sense from the point of view of scientific and clinical analysis, but I wonder at the degree to which the average (especially young) woman in the throes of hormonal influence, possesses the cognitive skills AND meticulous discernment necessary to apply such criteria in her sexual decision making. Do you recall if YOU were of this opinion in your late teens and early twenties? "I think they [women] are more attracted to beauty and youth then they claim to be". I don't really see modern women claiming this at all -- quite the contrary in fact, which is what I was disputing, and theorizing instead that they are more the unconscious victims of their own susceptibility to the current fashions of "social contagion" than to any intrinsic evolutionary psychology. Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that you are NOT so affected yourself? How would you really know? "It is obvious that there is a minimum standard of physical appearance that must be met for a woman to be interested in a man". This makes perfect sense as well. It's just that I dispute that this minimum standard GENUINELY (ruling out societal influences and standards) lies along a dimension of "prettiness". This strikes me as evolutionarily bizarre, but I would appreciate your further input. Of course I'm mot disputing your personal opinion, but your impression that "Timothée lacks charisma and confidence" certainly SEEMS to contradict his ENORMOUS popularity with VERY many other women. Still, I CAN obviously see the how "mannerisms, voice and pheromones" would influence the sexual preferences of a female. Well, I DID say I admit it was "atypical", but if YOUR definition of "spiritual" does not match MINE, what would it mean for you instead? What did you think of my OTHER archetypal attractions: Beauty for the Beast, Esmeralda for Quasimodo, and Christine for the Phantom?
Joseph Omega
2024-11-09 07:09:39 +0000 UTC@JO I’d say women (in the West, can’t comment on nonwhites) have always universally liked broad shoulders, narrow hips, low body fat, height, symmetrical & sharp facial features, narrow nose, canthal tilt, moderate musculature, strength & agility. Idc about the beauty standards of nonwhites. According to all the (female written) romance that I have read there has not been much change overtime but female written romance is pretty new. The only real fluctuations I have seen is in how tan the hero is, and how muscular. Older romance does not have graphic descriptions of the male physique in the way that modern romance does though so it’s kind of hard to say. But I think women have always liked the same parts of the male body. I don’t really know who Rock Hudson is (& personally I don’t find the names like that appealing) but more masculine sounding names do seem to be a modern trend. Names have always been largely a fad as far as I can tell. Pretty boy doesn’t say anything about a man’s personality so he could be just as mean as a buff, scarred man. I think women do appreciate signs of resilience in a man but not as much as they do beauty & youth and I think they appreciate those signs more once they already have children. Again speaking purely about physical traits. And this makes sense given that as men age their sperm accumulate mutations, which are mostly negative. T levels also drop, and sperm quality is overall inferior. Yes, I think they are more attracted to beauty and youth then they claim to be. I don’t think that looks are everything but it is obvious that there is a minimum standard of physical appearance that must be met for a woman to be interested in a man. That’s why just based on physical characteristics alone Timothée would be acceptable, but given his lack of charisma/masculinity and confidence (that’s how I read bad posture), he probably wouldn’t make the cut in my book. There are plenty of attractive men, imo, but once they talk or once I see their mannerisms, their appeal plummets. Voice and pheromones are huge too. That is not remotely an accurate definition of spiritual. You’re describing masculinity, basically, which is of course highly desirable to women. I cannot relate at all to finding Gollum cute. Frankenstein’s monster is pitiable, yes. Everyone likes good stories, and women are more emotional & character driven.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-11-08 20:34:04 +0000 UTCThe comment about men having content that is telling them to get their shit sorted - taking accountability for the fact that they as an individual absolutely have a part in their own dilemma, the truth of that personal responsibility …. Vs the fact that women don’t have any content remotely close to that, if anything it’s the opposite. This is content that is akin to The View where everything is summed as “men bad waah” and the ratings jump through the roof because their target audience are divorced women, who initiated the divorced and are frothing at the mouth that the ex went up and got a new GF younger and better looking than her soon after. Zero accountability is the mantra for western culture when we set standards for women. Maybe I’m too cynical but I do not see this turning around,
Craig
2024-06-12 04:43:26 +0000 UTCIt took 50+years to learn that fact. Utterly dismissing fact and reality is unthinkable. Thanks Spock.. ;p
iamsamoth
2024-06-10 13:45:06 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - I like the irony of that conclusion, noticing that, on average, the two sets of standards approach the statistical mean (they are normalized), but from different directions. Very insightful observation.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-09 19:41:42 +0000 UTC@Peter - Ah yes, I understand.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-09 19:33:32 +0000 UTCRewatching the video , the end…. It kinda hit me in the gut. 3 years back to a year ago i made such strides. I really enjoyed my mirror image. But starting a new job has thrown back the physical And job wise.. ill be honest, that feeling a midlevel graphics artist is getting seeing the art work of ai. I get it. Doubt has really crept in Reality checks are valuable. I get it Yet i wonder how useful it is to watch car crash compilations before you want to join in a car race….
Peter
2024-06-09 18:21:58 +0000 UTC@ joseph - Not hypergamic, but they are so swamped with attention its like a high, a delirium. Chugging the atten juice to the max and blazed on the attention, black out delirium drunk on the attention juice
Peter
2024-06-09 17:50:19 +0000 UTCBoth men and women want two different kinds of partners. Women want Chad. Then later, when they figure out Chad only wants sex and won’t commit, they settle for good guy (not nice guy. They still don’t want him). Men are more consistent. They will have casual sex with anyone - fat women, ugly women, sluts, or single mothers. Then for commitment, they want a woman who is ‘hot enough’ (if he’s a 7, he will settle for a 5). So for casual sex, women only want Chad, but men will sleep with anyone. Then for commitment, women’s standards go down and men’s go up.
Eric Linden
2024-06-09 02:24:43 +0000 UTC🤣
Joseph Omega
2024-06-08 21:21:30 +0000 UTC🤭 😉 Emojis aside: im not actually much bemused.
Peter
2024-06-08 18:55:58 +0000 UTC@Peter - I don't know for sure, but I PRESUME the "abundance delirium" applies to hypergamic women, and the "starvation delirium" applies to desperate men?
Joseph Omega
2024-06-08 17:21:30 +0000 UTCThat's a very generous way of putting it! 😄
Joseph Omega
2024-06-08 17:16:08 +0000 UTCThey never got back together, I know that much.
David Anon
2024-06-08 05:47:22 +0000 UTCDrunk on abundance delirium and delirium out of starvation. Both are delusional But obviously there is a qualitative difference between them Opulence vs desperation Its hella disingenuous to morally equate the two versions of the admittedly same outcome Example I burnt down my own house for fun, coz the i have 10 more My house was struck by lightning and burnt down and now im bankrupt and homeless and can’t afford a replacement To say to the lightning guy “ but my house is burnt too” Bruv, that is true in a bubble but its a cruel jest to substantively equate them
Peter
2024-06-08 05:06:18 +0000 UTCPlot twist: the original bf took her back?
Peter
2024-06-08 04:57:46 +0000 UTCI have a female “mate” who has priced herself out the market. She is going event hostessing and looking for a more experienced teacher exciting polyglot with no kids or ex wives and she is 38. Like how often does that ceo guy go for a student dependent who wants equal decision making votes . And yet i see a not non zero chance of success. Coz she is open and friendly she gets enough attention and turns them all down. Life as a woman is something else. So hugely paradoxical
Peter
2024-06-08 04:56:58 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I DID have a couple questions though: 1. What about the "perceptivity" factor? One example is the degree to which one PHYSICAL factor (say "Face") influences the PERCEPTION of an entirely DIFFERENT one, like "Height" (Tom Cruise comes to mind). Another example may be that "Black" men are PERCEIVED (sight unseen) to have larger "P-Sizes" than other ethnicities. Or similarly, that "Asian" men are PERCEIVED (until tested) to have higher "IQ's" than other ethnicities. In addition, what about the effect of CLOTHES, which can either disguise (by enhancement or degradation) the perception of the "Body" factor. A similar thing holds for the "Money" factor--I would presume HOW you spend (or flaunt) it alters the perception of how much you actually have. Another significant missing factor would be VOICE--the deeper the better the perception, and the higher the SMV, I'd imagine. 2. Does "Location" mean WHERE the MARKETPLACE is? If so, why is there such a LARGE point penalty (1.5) for "The West, not in College" compared to "The West, in College"? Should there also be points added/subtracted for "Degree of Urbanization" under that measurement, as Urban versus Suburban versus Rural may have ENTIRELY DIFFERENT marketplace dynamics? Also, what if you're in "The South" (i.e., Africa)? Is the reason for adding points for "non-Western" locations due to the fact that, in these marketplaces, there is a "local bias" by women for "local men"? Then what would that do for "local biases" for "Ethnicity"? If the above points prove to have some validity, it suggests that there may be means by which an IMMEDIATE change of PERCEPTION (clothes, spending, voice) or LOCATION (see "Passport Bros") becomes possible to significantly alter the final SMV.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-08 03:39:48 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I must say that I am VERY impressed with the scientific-like rigour with which he has come up with his calculations for SMV--especially the choice of geometric verus arithmetic factoring--regardless of its actual accuracy or not. I can see why he would score 133 on an IQ test. Just for general dissemination, here are the two URLs I believe you are referring to: SIGNALLING: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kFP2IPXq9w SMV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqNkkX7oeE I can't wait to conduct my own self-audit under his system. 😀
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 21:28:46 +0000 UTCI worked with a girl many years ago. She was engaged and had been in a relationship with this guy for some 4 or 5 years. Another lad at work started to make a play for her. Very persistent. She eventually dumped her boyfriend and two weeks later the new guy dumped her.
David Anon
2024-06-07 20:21:04 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - That's a very useful and consise way of phrasing it. Another difference appears to be that men more tend to be "strategically delusional" (when they're not being "desperately delusional"). And, when you say "women get positive feedback", do you mean "reinforcing feedback", and that, in contrast, men receive "constructive feedback"?
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 18:53:15 +0000 UTCMen don't always act rationally either. We have our own delusions. Some men spend $500 on a first date. Some men pay a woman's bills when they have no chance of a relationship or sex. Some men are orbiters. I've had my own delusions in the past about women and other things in life. Men are not always logical about everything. The difference is that men have the availability of REALISTIC feedback from other men, women, the internet, and the culture. Women get POSITIVE feedback; men get REALISTIC feedback. That is the difference.
Eric Linden
2024-06-07 18:27:36 +0000 UTCThis appears to make logical sense and be consistent with my experience as well.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 18:24:43 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden - I'm sure that's true, but my fear is that it benefits women FAR more.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 18:22:16 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I wonder if he is not more stating "what we can do as men to better attract women". "Having better relationships" imply a relationship in the first place. I think men can (and have ALWAYS been) "sexually attracted to" PRETTY women, but, at the same time ALWAYS been "relationshiply attracted" to FEMININE women. Despite what women might wish to think or be aggrieved by (one of the MAIN points of this video), it bears reminding women that they are of TWO types in the mind of a man: "Those we want to f*ck, and those we want to marry". All else is intrigue. "Bringing the focus back onto us men" is useful up until the point where they carry all or most of the burden or responsibilities of forming stable and mutually beneficial relationships--after which we begin bordering on "simping". Again, what ARE the responsbilities of a "boat" to an "island"? I'm not convinced of the efficacy of absolving women of most (if not all) agency in such situations.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 18:20:35 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden - As one of the few women who communicate here, I always value your opinion, so would like more clarity on what exactly constitues "super hot" to the general female population--IS there REALLY some set of basic criteria that does so, the way that, largely, men have been near universally attracted to a "pretty face and soft physique" down through the ages, across ages, and across cultures? You said "Pretty boys like Timothée ... have always been the ideal for women". I KNOW you have your OWN personal taste ("[ultra] pale, lean, & elegant is totally my thing"), but how widespread IS that among the general female population--it SOUNDS a bit niche to me. Not too long ago (and for a VERY long time) the "bronzed, buff, grizzled, tall dark and handsome" once dominated the media (including "Romance Novels"), so I have to ask. I WOULD tend to agree that "In stories written by women, whether hundreds of years ago or now, the male love interests are always super hot", but have not the PHYSICAL attributes that constitute that description ALSO changed during that period as well? I mean, just the fact that a SPECTACULARLY "super hot" actor would change his name from "Roy Harold Scherer Jr." to "Rock Hudson" seems to support the contention that the term has previously been interpreted QUITE differently from what now appears the developing trend. Even evolutionarilly it seems as if "pretty boys" would tend to be selected against in favor of more mean, rough, battle scarred males, who display obvious signs of survival of the harsh environments against which a female and her offspring would need protecting. A physical manifestation you could say of the well-known "bad boy" trope to which women have traditionally been attracted. When you say: "I think all those women are just pretending with each other", are you meaning to suggest that they secretly are attracted to "pretty boys"? You also say that "I don’t think beauty standards are all that mutable", so I wonder how much of the "black pill" idea (that male looks are EVERYTHING) do you subscribe to? There SEEMS to be a slight disconnect between that and "if he had better posture & more charisma I’d find him attractive". Can you help me understand the apparent inconsistencies? You also said: "I don’t think most women care about the spiritual either - that’s a male fantasy". Are you SURE you're using MY defintion of "spiritual" (which I agree may be atypical) of "self-confidence or those who give the perception that they can effectively influence their environment, or effectively stand up to it", and not the more TRADITIONAL one closer to "religiously-minded"? In addition, I perfectly agree that "those stories were written by men", but they appear to remain HIGHLY popular among women, unless I have been VASTLY mistaken--I've witnessed cases where women, after sitting through some ostensibly "male stories" like "Lord of the Rings" or "Frankenstein" (ironically written by a woman), would come out finding Gollum "cute", or "the monster" pitied and unfairly maligned, so again, I must wonder the nature of female passive or active tastes.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 17:49:19 +0000 UTC@Joseph Omega His two most interesting videos are Choosing Signals and one containing his quadratic equation for SMV. I have used them for self-audits. Also, 3 of the 12 s level (top) choosing signals can be initiated by the man to qualify the woman’s interest. I prefer spending my time learning who is interested in me (collecting data) versus using game to make someone interested in me.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-07 17:19:03 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I agree with this, but would add the slight caveat that it is more like the "perception of competence". This nuance is necessary, in my opinion, to highlight the fact that no one REALLY knows who someone else is beyond what they effectively project to others. That's why I phrased it as "those who give the perception that they can effectively influence their environment, or effectively stand up to it". Because what you project can influence how you are perceived, "self-improvement" becomes possible.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 17:09:36 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - It seems "Wheat Waffles" (whom I'd never heard about before) is quitting Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8gGs7qdoMU Though, from what I can so far determine, I don't think "Wheat Waffles" really is one, your post forced me to actually investigate what "Black Pillers" are all about--I've so long heard the term, but was never inspired to look into it. I've since learned a lot, so thanks. PS. I get the impression that "Wheat Waffles" is within the "red pill" community, but nearer the end closer to the "black pill" edge of the spectrum compared to, say, Alexander. Am I correct?
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 17:01:17 +0000 UTCAnd that benefits us women too!
RhodiumMaiden
2024-06-07 15:05:01 +0000 UTCI really appreciate how Alexander always brings the focus back onto us men and what we can do as men to have better relationships.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-07 14:47:38 +0000 UTCThanks man. You make an excellent point about stress because it increases cortisol production which impedes testosterone production. Funny thing about my programme is the maintenance phase is not much different than the startup phase. In fact, with 5BX, it starts out easy and gets more demanding as my fitness capacity level increases. So, it is just maintaining the same lifestyle which works for me. I am also gauging my progress with various health calculators: ABSI, BAI, BMI, Waist to Height Ratio, and Waist to Hips ratio. It helps me keep my focus on myself. Another way to put is the calculators help me do an objective audit on myself.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-07 14:39:15 +0000 UTCI'm not sure that women looking for husbands are attracted to "game." Confidence and assertiveness, yes, but a high level of flirtatiousness and sexual aggressiveness, no. I think they see such guys as players who can't or won't give them what they really want - long term commitment. It is similar to how men who want to find a life partner view scantily-clad women - it is a red flag.
Cliff
2024-06-07 13:55:34 +0000 UTCGreat advice at the end.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-06-07 13:53:30 +0000 UTCEhh, I don’t agree. Pretty boys like Timothée (if he had better posture & more charisma I’d find him attractive - I like his face & body) have always been the ideal for women. Pale, lean, & elegant is totally my thing (though I’m not overly attached to my ideal, beyond the ultra pale skin). I think all those women are just pretending with each other, & hoping other women will go for losers so they can get the chads. Fundamentally I don’t think beauty standards are all that mutable. I don’t think most women care about the spiritual either - that’s a male fantasy, & those stories were written by men. In stories written by women, whether hundreds of years ago or now, the male love interests are always super hot.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-06-07 13:53:05 +0000 UTCRe branding myself has been interesting at times it feels and continuous and striking a balance between honouring what you are and becoming the best version of yourself without failing yourself in the weakest of ways, has been and still is a trip. And it does take time, especially if you can’t devote as much energy to the process as you would like Good luck to all that are working on yourselves and may the change, Be a sustainable and permanent one. 💪💪🙋♀️💪💪
Peter
2024-06-07 12:53:27 +0000 UTCGood on you I had never really prioritised myself but after corona I went in. Then a new job and the stress of it let me slowly slauch back down Not as low as before. But definitely not top form So I appreciate sticking with it for a year alot. Its easy to be excited for something initially when huge strides are made. But that slowing down or reaching the maintenance phase is hard. Good luck with that and getting to a phase where you can take on more and not sacrifice your health 💪💪💪
Peter
2024-06-07 12:03:35 +0000 UTCIn my opinion, women are attracted to competence. For example, men in uniform. Of course, there are other ways of signaling competence. Without question, it is not strictly looks.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-07 11:01:32 +0000 UTCI suspect women are FAR MORE attracted to whatever their own social media ecosystem SAYS they should be attracted to--what is currently FASHIONABLE to be considered attractive. If fat balding disabled midgets suddenly overnight became the "in" guys to be seen with, many, if not MOST women would crave one for their own. At one time, muscular brawny grizzled guys were most prized, at other times clean-shaven, well spoken educated men were, nowadays the fashion seems to be swinging towards pale gaunt weak-looking idols like Timothée Chalamet or Robert Pattinson--the so-called "soft boy" look. But, I think the GOOD news is that such social-media programming often CAN easily be overwritten, one-on-one, with sufficient CHARISMA. Unlike for men, who UNIVERSALLY across time seem to be attracted to a "pretty face" and soft physique, I don't get the impression women are so genetically HARD-WIRED towards the PHYSICAL, as much as they are towards the SPIRITUAL (as in self-confidence, or to those who give the perception that they can effectively influence their environment, or effectively stand up to it). What else can explain the appeal of Beauty for the Beast, Esmeralda for Quasimodo, Christine for the Phantom or even the Twi'lek and other slave girls for Jabba the Hutt? Okay, that last one was a bit of a stretch, but then again, why was the trope so natural and believable?
Joseph Omega
2024-06-07 09:14:54 +0000 UTCI had neglected myself. It has been over one year since I have worked on the fundamentals of diet and exercise. I am rigorous on diet and no alcohol and I do about 150 mins a week of fitness activity in my apartment. Wheat Waffles has a quadratic equation for Sexual Market Value. According to his equation, I have improved by one standard deviation just by taking care of the fundamentals for over a year. This very satisfying when I now engage women. On top of it, when I audit my health and fitness, I score well. My ABSI calculator score now shows I am a very low risk for premature death. When I neglected myself, I was a very high risk for premature death. That was a year and a half ago.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-07 08:34:19 +0000 UTC
