exempt_torch

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

It sounds like you're saying that being alpha is just being an overall successful well-developed man, and as part of that, you should be able to do the full range of both providing and sexually attracting women.

I mostly agree, and for that matter, I think the whole comfort vs desire, alpha fucks beta bucks dichotomy is overstated. I've generally found that providing (both resources + comfort) IS dominant coded if done correctly, generally I've had success using comfort as a foundation and adding elements of creating overt sexual desire as a seasoning/spice. A lot of men obviously use sexual desire as the main thing and that's fine, but I don't even think of providing as a beta thing.

But what do you tell a guy who can provide but isn't sexually successful? This is a lot of guys nowadays, and of course women want both qualities but a lot of them will settle for a non-sexual provider.

It's easy enough to tell him, hey man, providing and sexual appeal are both alpha, and you have the providing part down, now you just have to work on the other stuff. But if he men who have sex appeal but no providership, and they're getting laid massively, he's going to think to himself, hell no, I'm not doing this for free anymore.

Generally I think dual mating theory comes from living in an unnatural world where providing and game are two distinct things, you can be good at one without being good at the other, and moreover it's pretty easy to just fall into that position by default if you're not super careful. The default developmental path for men doesn't really turn you into this provider-sex-god hybrid that you're describing.

Redpillers generally consider the idea of developing yourself as a man into this hybrid alpha type as purple pill, and they would argue that creating sexual desire is an isolated skill and when women are looking for sex they don't care at all about providership. From what I've seen this is pretty straightforwardly true. I personally agree it's good to be alpha in a well rounded way like you're describing but I think the redpill fear of losing to the guy who put all his stats into game/sexual desire is understandable.

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

> Accordingly, more of them are moving towards the synthesis position of (c).

This is especially annoying because it is entirely driven by the arms race of unreasonable demands. If women are going to insist they should be allowed to have sex fast with one guy and slow with another guy, and guys don't want to be the slow sex guy, then the optimal strategy for men who want a relationship is to start off as a fwb/hookup, and then convert that into a relationship. It's just extra steps added for no reason, and once again creating perverse incentives that reward what we don't want and punish what we do

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

From an analytical standpoint it's more that the two qualities are almost completely orthogonal, such that getting good at one doesn't necessarily make you better at the other one, and the grind (or talent) of getting/being good at each one individually is so hard (or rare) and you can't really optimize for two targets, or be a slave to multiple masters

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

In practice there are two ways to be undervalued, the woman could be smarter than everyone else and recognize the man as the contrarian-but-correct option, or attraction could be such an idiosyncratic thing for the woman that highly specific preferences that no one else has.

I have just never seen either play out in practice. In my experience the smartest women still care about status and what other people think of them. Intelligent women will have intelligent social circles but then within that circle the alpha would no longer exist. And attraction simply is not an idiosyncratic thing, there is nothing new under the sun. Eg liking smart/nerdy/autistic men is not remotely undiscovered alpha. Most things are like that.

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@RomeoStevens76 @QiaochuYuan real

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

I would have to think more about this but this whole basket of failure modes containing things like "retreats produce non-permanent highs" "you can meditate for 20 years and get nowhere" etc feels like it has a distinct shape/energy that is completely absent from action-oriented, extreme-chasing, high-variance ways of living

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@chrislakin brute de force has pretty much the only introspective life philosophy that makes sense and seems non-masturbatory to me, which is really noteworthy because he is about as different from me as a person can get, his way of thinking does not come naturally to me at all

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@wiggitywamy Lmao

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@Aella_Girl Are we really still doing the AI safety alignment alarmism grift

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@divya_venn Especially when the other person is higher energy than you

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@divya_venn This makes sense for conversations you initiate but what about awkwardness arising from the way you respond to other people initiating conversation with you?

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@UsingLyft Fake spirituality coded like the rest of his brand

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

I'm not really adding anything new or interesting here, but being a douche isn't really its own quality, it mostly acts as a subcomponent of other things.

Someone could be funny and cool in a douchey way and the doucheyness is itself part of how they're funny and cool. It's incorrect to say that that person could just be funny and cool without being douchey. When it comes to choosing your personality or persona, you only have a few preset bags of marbles to choose from, you can't really tune one marble without messing up the rest of the bag. I got this analogy from brute de force.

You could also be a bitter, ugly loser with poor social skills who is douchey as a result, and then your doucheyness would be part of being a loser. Again, mostly inseparable. The chivalry stuff can be part of being a charismatic dominant alpha guy, if that is the type of charismatic dominant alpha guy you are. It really just depends.

Women can be both attracted and not attracted to both chivalry and doucheyness. Neither is really a positive or negative on its own, it really just depends what type of person they're subcomponents of. But women like Diane, and really any woman on here whose m.o. is saying a lot of words to lawyer zealously for women as a group (RFH also comes to mind), obviously have an interest in making it sound like women are attracted to good-sounding traits (chivalry) and not bad-sounding ones (being a douche).

It's therefore also incorrect to say that women are attracted to douches in spite of them being a douche, which is typically the theory put forward by women like Diane. Men have always noticed that these women seem to be attracted to the quality of being a douche itself. It's kind of true that they're attracted to their alpha traits rather than the doucheyness itself but being a douche is PART OF how they're alpha. You could go down a completely different path and be a chivalrous alpha but then you would just be a different person who attracts and is interested in attracting different women.

As for whether it works to be more attractive by being a douche, there's is no good answer here other than that these things are holistic. You can become a douche variant of an attractive alpha guy, if you're in that regime then being a douche will make you more alpha, that's the game you're in. If you're not in that game, becoming more of a douche won't help, obviously. But actually sometimes acting like a douche accidentally puts you onto that path/game. Life is complex and hard to scrutinize.

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

I found it kind of striking when I heard Andrew Tate talk about what he would do in a sexless marriage. I don't have the clip but it was something like, okay, we can fuck, or I can fuck someone else, or you can leave, because I'm not going to stay in a sexless marriage.

Boom. Done. Whatever you may think about him, here is a guy who categorically 100% would never run into this issue, he just wouldn't, it's not even a concept that he ever would.

An intellectually curious guy in this situation, regardless of what he thinks of Tate, should think to himself here, hmm, how is this guy able to effortlessly solve this issue that I've devoted weeks and months of my life to struggling with? What is the paradigm shift needed?

If you pull on that thread, the solution that falls out is probably something like, you should philosophize less, be way more self interested, have way more balls, and be willing to be mean to women. That is the narrow answer to the narrow question of what would most efficiently and effectively prevent you from ending up or staying in or struggling with a sexless marriage.

I think it is important to start there, and then only once you're overflowing with abundance and security to dial it back and be more generous and less mean, rather than trying to solve the sexless marriage thing while still preserving the whole "being a good guy" identity. Most of dating is like this, I think.

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

I think this is largely patched. You might get lucky and catch a naive one but the risk is getting a false negative. Only foolproof method is to infer these things via gut feeling through the totality of your experiences with her. And even then the smart ones will hide it successfully

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@0x49fa98 Unfortunately this is one of my worse tendencies. When things are going poorly I find it hard to shake my deep belief/feeing that doomerism is factually true and high agency rhetoric/thoughts are a noble lie

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

Whenever women bring out this explanation, it just sounds like there is an underlying reality here, and you think saying a lot of words changes that base reality.

The specific phenomenon men don't want, concretely, is for a woman to sleep quickly with another guy and slowly with him. We don't care why you do it or what narratives you are telling yourself as you do it or how it feels.

We don't need you to sleep with us immediately. Specifically the thing we are not fine with is: sleeping quickly with other guy, slowly with us. You can remedy that by sleeping quickly with us, or by not sleeping quickly with that other guy. We don't care how you fix it, or even that there is a solution. This reality where you slept sooner with another guy is what is simply unacceptable.

You know this, we know this, which is why the standard solution forever has been for the woman to either try to finesse a long term relationship out of the guy she's actually into, or to settle for a guy she makes wait and then brush off the past quick sex guy as "none of his business" or to simply lie.

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@QiaochuYuan Why is negative experience for her minus infinity?

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@ty_sheaff @MasterTimBlais this is the correct answer

[exempt_torch @exempt_torch]

@Aella_Girl @Flat6forever okay and the remedy to that is to have the account taken down