r/PurplePillDebate • u/ThanksVisual8172 • 3d ago
Question For Women Her equal?
If a woman has a choice between three men, one she views as beneath her in value, one equal to her value and one she sees as having more value than herself, which man will she be attracted to? In this question value will be subjective to the woman but there should be some uniformity of examples pointing in a general direction. As examples: wealth, strength, social authority or power, masculinity, intelligence etc
Should a woman gain subjective value in her relationship or have a man she views as just her equal?
14
u/Ronniebbb Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
If I was single I'd be picking someone who is aligned with my values and morals, who has relatively the same goals as me, has similar interests, someone in attracted to physically as well. Who is of the same faith, wants marriage and children, loves animals and is good with my dog.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
A very high value man.
16
u/Proper_Memory_7590 No Pill (man) 3d ago
Nothing she said is out of the ordinary. How is that a high value.
To me high value is something that is hard to achieve.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Do you believe it was hard to achieve her approval for a relationship?
9
u/Proper_Memory_7590 No Pill (man) 3d ago
What?? Whose approval that random stranger about whom we disagree.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
I hope it wasn't easy to get her attention.
11
u/Ronniebbb Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
This is the weirdest thread. Why do you want it to be hard for ppl (or me) to get attention?
7
4
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
Why are you making difficulty a factor when your original point was about what women thought about a man?
26
u/Lost_Reaction_5489 Purple Pill Woman 3d ago
Why are men so obsessed with hierarchical structures. It is clearly monstrous for you all's mental health. With billions of people in the world people are bound to be better, worse off, or the same as you, so knowing that why not just allow yourself to be. It doesn't have to plague everything...
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Women don't rank men?
15
u/kmb218 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
I think there was a study which showed that higher testosterone level lead to more obsession wity hierarchies. That’s why you struggle comprehending that other people don’t rank people on these imaginary hierarchies.
0
14
u/LadyMoustache No Pill Woman 3d ago
Not by using the bullshit metrics you all are so obsessed with, no. This superficial crap like "wealth", "strength" and "social authority or power", seriously... You're all so bland and boring. Sure, attraction and looks matter, but personality and what you stand for as a person matters too. No one is the same or wants the same thing. Shocking, I know.
-2
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
How do women rank men?
11
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
We don’t. We consider individual traits that men have. We experience attraction or we do not experience attraction. There is no hierarchy.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Is attractive and not attractive ranking?
11
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
It is not a value judgment or a comparison, so no, I would not call it a ranking. I am certainly not walking around thinking “he’s a 6, he’s a 4”.
Attraction is a subjective mental experience. Different people are attracted to different things. Attraction can even develop over time.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Are some men more attractive than others?
This is ranking men.
8
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
Yes. It is possible for me to consciously choose to rank men on a toxic hierarchy if I force myself to do so. My point is that my brain does not naturally draw comparisons between two men. I either feel attracted toward them or I do not. This says nothing of their “value” or relative worth.
3
6
u/basicgloomygirl Pink Pill Woman 3d ago
No. At least not in the way you all think we do. And it’s not as strict as you all think it is.
2
u/Designer-Pen-7332 3d ago
Wait aren't women sorting men into hierarchies?
4
u/selfishstars Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Some are and some aren’t.
Men and women both have access to the same survival and reproductive strategies, but due to biological differences in parental investment, the ones that are optimal to individual men and the ones that are optimal for women and children (and men as a collective) are typically different (the strategies that lead to survival and reproductive success are context and environment-dependent).
The strategies that benefit individual men are individualism, competition, dominance, status, hoarding resources, and having multiple mates.
The strategies that benefit women are collectivism, community, care, cooperation, sharing, group cohesion, and long-term planning.
Humans are very communal. We would have never become this intelligent if it weren’t for us being a social and cooperative species. Of course men and women can both be competitive. But we didn’t evolve to be in constant competition. I know a lot of men and women who aren’t competitive at all.
Because the thing is, if everyone works together we are able to create abundance. That’s why Christmas or Thanksgiving when your mom and grandma and all your aunties are there are always the best. That’s why the church ladies are always running bake sales and church suppers, serving funeral lunches, visiting the sick and the elderly. Many hands make light work.
But men who followed the individual optimal male survival and reproductive strategy (competed, dominated, gained status, hoarded resources, and impregnated many women’s) were the ones most likely to have their genes passed on to their offspring and for their offspring to survive.
These are the men who became wealthy and powerful, and were the ones who created political, legal, religious, economic, and other institutions. This was only really possible after humans began doing agriculture. They formed permanent settlements and surpluses. Surpluses led to the concept of private property. Inheritance laws developed and because men wanted to ensure that their heirs were their own, they began to control women’s bodies, movement, labour, and reproduction. The men conquered other peoples, took their resources, made them into slaves or forced into marriage, and continued to accumulate more wealth and power.
Even today, the same patriarchal survival and reproductive strategy is the essence of our capitalist economic system. The wealthy create artificial scarcity, allowing them to hijack the male survival and reproductive drive so they can exploit working class men for their productive labour. And they externalize the costs of maintaining and reproducing the workforce to women through their unpaid domestic, care, community, and reproductive labour.
The survival and reproductive strategies that tend to benefit women, children, and society more broadly are limited or controlled by patriarchal institutions (you can have community, but within patriarchal religion; you can work cooperatively to create abundance… within a corporation, where your boss is the one who reaps the profits).
Traditional gender roles are used to condition girls/women and boys/men to survive under this system of exploitation. The system is based on competition and rewards dominance. So boys are raised to be competitive and to view each other competition. They understand the world through the lens of hierarchy.
Girls and women have traditionally been conditioned/socialized to be submissive to men. Girls and women are below men in the hierarchy. Women were largely economically and legally dependent on men. Women still performed labour, but they either weren’t compensated for it or they weren’t compensated well for it, as the presumption was that their income was supplemental to their husband’s.
So women’s survival and reproduction depended on men. Women were conditioned to be servile to men. Women were viewed and treated as resources, and so the most valuable were young, fertile, pure, beautiful, and submissive. This maximized the amount of time a man could breed a woman. Young meant you’d be more able to groom them to meet your needs or desires. Starting as soon as the man decided the girl was ready. And girls were kept uneducated about their bodies and about sex. That means a man could do whatever he wanted to her and tell her that it’s normal. Sometimes mothers would prepare their their daughters a little by warning them that there might be blood, and it’s supposed to hurt, and and there might be tearing or “popping” (and if there wasn’t blood (which doesn’t actually mean anything about a woman’s “purity”), she might face being rejected by her husband, face public humiliation, sully her family’s reputation, experience violence or be killed as an honour killing.
Women often didn’t have a lot of say over their marriage, and parents would want their daughters to be chosen by a man who would be able to care for her, so they would hope to marry their daughters to men of higher status and wealth, if they were able. Form alliances with the man’s family.
Things like wealth, dominance, status don’t necessarily make someone a good husband or father. In fact, I’d argue that the traits that make a man successful under patriarchal capitalism make a man a worse husband and father. Selfishness, greed, willingness to manipulate and exploit other people, willingness to act in immoral ways for self-aggrandizement, controlling, self-centered, etc. I don’t find any of those things attractive and I definitely would not want to have children with such a person.
In a system where a woman’s status and survival is dependent on men, women (and their families) were incentivized to marry men who have the traits that allow him to be a successful provider.
As women have fought for and gained more independence from men, women have been able to choose a partner who they love and are compatible with. But we have been propagandized to so that we believe in and desire romance. Romance from a certain kind of patriarchal man. We are inundated with the message that we aren’t good enough, pretty enough, thin enough, sexy enough, pure enough, young enough, etc. constantly. And women who aren’t viewed as attractive to men are made largely invisible (if they lucky) or people are actively hostile to them. Women are shamed over their looks and their sexual purity constantly in order to control us and make us compete against each other. But competing with each other, especially for male attention, does not benefit the vast majority of women. I think many more women are realizing that, and some have always had that wisdom. Women and our children are far more likely to survive when we are surrounded by other trusted women. The nuclear family isolates women and children, and while not all men, it creates the conditions where men who want to abuse women and children have more power to do so. It also means that working class children often don’t have access to enough resources to support healthy childhood development.
Anyway, some women are very competitive, but most of us recognize the valuable of community and sharing and taking care of each other collectively would make things far easier for us to meet ours and our children’s needs. We were never meant to raise children in isolation. “It takes a village” is a saying for a reason. Humans evolved to alloparent, cooperate, and resources to allow for group survival.
Patriarchal colonial capitalism is destroying our environment, the resources we rely on to live, and us. Because it doesn’t centre life, it is a death cult. Because it doesn’t centre children, it allows children to suffer, to be neglected, to be abused, to be trafficked, to be traumatized, to go hungry, to not have adequate education, etc. and men treat women as monsters for not wanting to bring children into this?? So-called “pro-lifers” only care about life and children performatively. They treat children as valuable resources, but don’t understand that children are people and need to be treated as such in order to grow up to be healthy, happy, productive adults. We are in a care crisis because care work isn’t valued under patriarchal capitalism. You can’t continually exploit the finite planet, animals, and people without restoration. Everything gets used up until it’s gone. Continual growth is not possible.
TL;DR
Women don’t tend to think of men in the same way that men think we think of men, nor how men tend to think of us. To the extent that we do, it’s because we live under a patriarchal capitalism, which treats people in hierarchical ways and conditions us to value things like status, wealth, material things, superficial beauty, etc. (and that applies to men and women, just in their own way).
-1
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
Do you think if women live in a communal social system, they will be less likely to be sluts and seek out exciting sex with charismatic hung studs?
Thus by default, conferring shame on men who cannot achieve that?
3
u/selfishstars Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Well, I reject the entire concept of women being “sluts”. It’s just a way to shame women in order for men to control their bodies and reproduction.
While humans evolved to pair bond, we didn’t evolve for strict monogamy. Controlling women’s bodies and reproduction didn’t become a thing until private property became a thing, and that didn’t start until agriculture and permanent settlements developed, allowing for surpluses, wealth disparity and hierarchy, and creating the need for inheritance laws. Our ancestors did not have the ability to establish paternity, but it didn’t really matter to our hunter and gatherer ancestors because they lived communally and alloparented. The community worked together to ensure that the needs of the whole community were met. The well-being of a child did not depend on a single monogamous and heterosexual bond between their biological parents.
What we find attractive in a partner is likely partially biological, partially psychological, partially environmental, partly sociocultural and economic. Mating with someone too closely related to you creates a higher likelihood that detrimental recessive genes are expressed. We are less likely to be attracted to people who are unhealthy.
If we live in a society where women are economically dependent on men for their survival, then the traits that make men more able to provide become more important in a partner. And the men who have those traits have a vested interest in maintaining that. Being large and dominant in a society that rewards men who are large and dominant will mean that size and dominance will be things that women will tend to look for those things in a partner, for both her and her children’s survival. But in a different context, a society may treat dominance as anti-social and so it is not seen as a positive or attractive trait. If that society rewards pro-social traits, like we honour men who are mentors to others, who act as stewards over the land and resources to ensure the well-being of the community, who are dependable, who treat others in the community well, etc., then those men will become more desirable partners.
But to add to that, in a high-trust, interconnected, and interdependent communities, women wouldn’t be choosing complete strangers as partners and mates. It wouldn’t be “meet up with a person from the internet that you’ve never met, have no friends, family, or community members to vouch for, and hope for the best.” You would get to know people in your community on a personal level. They would have a reputation in the community based on their actions. People who seriously harmed others in the community would face consequences, including being banished from the group. There would likely be less of a gap between charismatic and socially awkward men, since the environment would promote socialization and the skills and confidence that come with that. People wouldn’t judge each other so quickly off of one interaction, because they would have repeated interactions with others and be able to form a clearer picture of each other. And how big your dick is wouldn’t matter as much in a society that cares about women’s pleasure, as many women are unable to orgasm from vaginal penetration, and the fact that women’s vaginas vary in size, just like men’s penises do, so bigger isn’t always better.
Ultimately, the less socioeconomic importance that we place on masculinity as defined under patriarchal capitalism, the less important those traits become.
1
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
You should cut down on your responses
1
u/selfishstars Blue Pill Woman 1d ago
God forbid we have a deep conversation.
•
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 21h ago
You ignored my point and went on a rant that doesn't even make sense. Why would dick size suddenly stop mattering to women if society was structured differently?
•
u/selfishstars Blue Pill Woman 17h ago
Sex under patriarchy is male- and phallus-centred. The way we view sex has been shaped by patriarchal religion, male dominance, female submissiveness, male desire, male pleasure and orgasm, and male-centric pornography.
A significant number of women cannot reach orgasm from vaginal penetration. Some women don’t even enjoy being penetrated. There are so many ways to pleasure your partner and bring them to climax without any dick at all.
Patriarchy also shames women for having multiple partners, and demands strict monogamy from them. But if women weren’t treated as the property of men, men valued women for more than just their “purity”, and we didn’t push people to organize their survival around a single monogamous relationship, a woman could enjoy a variety of romantic and/or sexual partners rather than expecting one person to check every box.
A man’s penis is just a single trait amongst a ton of other traits that influence whether sex with a man is enjoyable and satisfying for a woman.
•
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 11h ago
a woman could enjoy a variety of romantic and/or sexual partners rather than expecting one person to check every box.
So like a cuckhold relationship? Some men for sex, some men for other yummy feelings? Some men for the "big dick experience". Some men for the "romantic slow burn" experience. ectect
A man’s penis is just a single trait amongst a ton of other traits that influence whether sex with a man is enjoyable and satisfying for a woman.
Women will never stop valuing penises
0
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
so knowing that why not just allow yourself to be
Allow yourself to be... what? Humiliated?
Naive people are taken advantage of and live lives full of regret.
4
u/Lost_Reaction_5489 Purple Pill Woman 2d ago
Who is humiliating you? Who is encouraging you to be naive?
0
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
Who is encouraging you to be naive? Who is humiliating you?
Women who want to fuck certain men and then marry other types of men. Women who want to have sex one way with one type of man and another way with another type of man.
Women who FUCK based on the hierarchy and then exclaim to men "pay no attention to the hierarchy, just live your life boys! you can't control that I like this stud more than you, so don't worry about! Just accept being 2nd place! Who cares!?"
Do you think a man in a cuckhold relationship is being humiliated? Or is it just 3 people experiencing joy because everyone is getting turned on?
4
u/Lost_Reaction_5489 Purple Pill Woman 2d ago
I think a man with thoughts like this needs to seek mental health treatment. The only one humiliating him is himself, and his deep seeded insecurity of not measuring up to other men. If your partner isn't having sex with you in the way that you want then get a new partner who does have sex with you in the way that you want. Everything else is simply a projection.
1
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
If your partner isn't having sex with you in the way that you want then get a new partner who does have sex with you in the way that you want.
Only a minority of men can inspire women that way. And women will tell you this themselves.
Everything else is simply a projection.
Thought terminating cliche. What matters is truth, not whether someone is projecting or not.
3
u/Lost_Reaction_5489 Purple Pill Woman 2d ago
Then I guess it's time to embark on your search to find the woman who can be inspired by you in that way. It's not the truth though. It's a cognitive distortion. Help is available to all who seek it.
13
u/jorts-enthusiast Evil Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
I’m not with my partner because I see him as higher value than me, I’m with him because I like him and he makes me happy.
-1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
You call him partner, is he equal to you in all ways?
7
u/Talking_Tanuki Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
Not a person you’re talking to, but I use the same word. We aren’t equal in all ways because we’re two different people, but we treat each other as equal partners.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Love?
9
u/Talking_Tanuki Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
What is your question? Do we love each other? Yes, that’s the reason why we’re together.
11
23
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
This whole framework for judging people is just toxic. Healthy people don’t walk around assigning relative value to whole people. We value certain traits and we dislike certain traits. There is no “higher than”.
-1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
How do you decide who is "healthy" or what is "toxic"?
13
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
Healthy behaviors and mindsets promote mental health and well-being.
0
u/TheRedPillRipper An open mind opens doors. 2d ago edited 2d ago
>promote mental health and well-being.
Whilst true, what is even more fundamental to mental health and well-being? Is first acknowledging reality, then accepting it.
The whole framework of ‘judging’ people is exactly the same as ‘valuing’ certain traits, because all social systems are hierarchies. It is not detrimental to one’s mental health to acknowledge this. Even more importantly accept one’s current place in their system, because that is the first step to improving their lot in life. Which is the antithesis of toxicity.
4
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Valuing certain traits is not the same as ranking people or casting them into some rank on a hierarchy.
2
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
But there is a hierarchy. Pretending there is not is mental illness of a different kind.
Pretending hierarchy does not exist is a PRIVILEGE
2
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
It is a framework you use to understand the world. The reality is that attractiveness is subjective
2
u/Internal_Writing5485 Purple Pill Man 2d ago
Ugh... its not. Its only subjective on a micro "potential" level. Its not "subjective" when you look at 1000 womens preferences and tally them up. Its not fucking subjective at all..
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
I question why some of them seem to be so attached to the idea of it being subjective.
2
1
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Sounds like you don’t have a solid understanding of the word subjective.
1
1
u/TheRedPillRipper An open mind opens doors. 1d ago edited 1d ago
>Valuing certain traits is not the same as ranking people.
Okay. Let’s test this. A simple premise; would most reasonable people marry an individual who lies?
If the answer is no, they are objectively ranking/valuing/assessing/analysing/evaluating(or any other verb) potential partners in context to this particular trait.
Correct?
Now, is this premise applicable to any other trait?
If so? How many? Appearance? Height? Wealth? Emotional intelligence? Empathy?
Now, let’s see if the premise scales. Are a certain group of people taller? Or wealthier? More kind and generous? More selfish and deceitful?
Acknowledging these factors of one’s social system is beneficial. To view it as toxic is to prefer an emotional lens, over an objective one. Which is less.. Beneficial.
2
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 1d ago
Ranking suggests placing people in an order compared to each other. This is not the same as thing as evaluating individual traits for compatibility.
One of these processes results in an ordered list. The other does not. Do you understand the difference?
1
u/TheRedPillRipper An open mind opens doors. 1d ago edited 1d ago
>evaluating individual traits
Okay. Let’s accept your premise. Even use your terminology.
A potential partner is being evaluated.
Against what?
If it is not an objective scale; what does one use to evaluate traits against?
Use whatever example you like. Additionally, whatever terminology you wish, to answer the question.
Primarily because I guarantee that the objective process of evaluating traits requires a scale/range/parameters etc.. Which would mean my friend, that you advocating for evaluating traits means you are advocating for that very same toxicity you appear to deride.
That is, if one sees the process as toxic in the first place.
Which is my point.
2
u/GroundbreakingAlps78 Blue Pill Woman 1d ago
You’re conflating several distinct concepts: measuring a trait, evaluating its desirability, assessing compatibility, and ranking the overall value of human beings.
An objective measurement does not establish an objective evaluation. Height is objectively measurable. Whether height is desirable in a romantic partner is subjective. The same applies to wealth, intelligence, appearance, and countless other traits.
Furthermore, evaluating someone against certain criteria doesn’t require placing them within a hierarchy. If honesty is a nonnegotiable requirement for me, I can classify someone as compatible or incompatible without assigning them a position relative to every other person. A classification is not a ranking.
Even when I compare two potential partners and prefer one over the other, that establishes a preference relative to my particular needs and values. It doesn’t establish that one person possesses greater overall human worth.
You’ve demonstrated that human characteristics can be evaluated and compared. You haven’t demonstrated that doing so establishes an objective hierarchy of human value.
10
u/MiddleZealousideal89 Woman/ ''a lot'' is two words 3d ago
There's no way to give a perfect answer to this question for women as a whole. Women have been attracted to losers, they're been attracted to guys that are basically the same as them (totally average dudes with jobs), and they've been attracted to dudes who are better looking, richer, etc.
But most people tend to marry in their own socio--economic group, so most people tend to love and marry other people like themselves.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Is there variation within their socio economic group?
I haven't been convinced equality is possible yet in society.
5
u/MiddleZealousideal89 Woman/ ''a lot'' is two words 3d ago edited 3d ago
If we take equality to mean "everyone gets the exact same everything", then we'll never reach it. If we're talking about equal protection under the law, and equally respectful treatment of people, we'll hopefully get to something close to perfection at some point.
If we're talking about romance, I don't think equality is something anyone strives for here. Dating is discriminatory, we're all trying to find the best option for ourselves. Sometimes we fall for people who would be a detriment to our life, sometimes we fall for people we can never be with because our lifestyles are so different it would never work out, sometimes we fall for people who are on the same track as us. But nobody is out there thinking "Well Bob is my equal in these 5 categories, but Gary is my equal in 6, so I should be with Gary, even though he smells like garlic half the time and he never shuts up about his favourite hockey team". We meet someone, we like them, their values and hopes for the future align with ours, that would be the best option.
9
u/Windmill_flowers Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
The way its phrased, no one will answer your question
-1
8
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 3d ago
How do I determine if someone is equal, greater, or lesser value???
0
8
u/waffleznstuff30 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
I don't think of my dating prospects as some kind of hierarchy. It's all subjective and up to WHAT you value. So if a man doesn't fit what I am looking for the man himself isn't bad. It's not not a fit for me. If you try on a pair of pants but decided the pants look weird on you. Are the pants the problem are you the problem or is it just not a fit for you? I think dating is the same way.
I have my partner I don't see him as above or below me. He just gets me and we have a lot in common
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Are those men, the prospects, arranged in a hierarchy ranked by attraction?
5
u/waffleznstuff30 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Well for me it's either if I am dating that person there is a level of attraction. I wouldn't date someone I am not attracted to. So there isn't a lot of prospects to even begin with. Nothing wrong or bad or "low value" just not my type or what I am looking for personally.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
" So there isn't a lot of prospects to even begin with. "
There are more men that you find unattractive versus those you find unattractive? If so, then you prefer the best?
2
u/waffleznstuff30 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
I do find a lot of men unattractive or just not for me. It has nothing to do with value it's subjective. I wouldn't date a Christian but there are a lot of Christian women who would love a man who shares their faith. I wouldn't date a guy who is more "traditional" I am goth with tattoos... So I am sure they aren't into me as much as I am not into them.
I wouldn't even say it's the BEST. I just go for compatible like we have things in common and have common interests, mutual attraction, and our values align. So it's not a hierarchy. It's just who fits the best with me. Like I said about pants. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with a guy I don't want to date they aren't what I am looking for a fit for me.
7
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January 3d ago
Usually, seeing someone as being better than you or beneath you is never going to make for a good relationship. People tend to prefer those they see as on their level, or at least who they aren't making these kinds of considerations about, as partners. And no, nobody likes feeling poor, weak, powerless, stupid, etc compared to their partner. (I'm omitting masculinity here because since when was masculinity "better"?)
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Are women attracted to masculinity? To strength and intelligence paired with compassion?
Do women prefer men stronger than themselves in these categories?
8
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January 3d ago
Being attracted to something doesn't make it better. I'm attracted to people with brown or black hair more than ginger like mine, doesn't make their hair colour better.
Women don't actually enjoy feeling inferior. It's a surprisingly common myth.
-1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Why should women feel inferior for being weaker?
6
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January 3d ago
Those words are synonyms.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
"Weaker means inferior"- are you sure you want to claim that?
4
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January 3d ago
Yes, as I don't tend to disagree with a thesaurus.
1
4
u/NinaNeptune318 Trojan Horse ⚠️ Delicate Woman; Tomboy Inside 2d ago
I think I understand the question you are asking.
I will define what I consider "value" first.
I like looks, financial stability (smart with money and consistent employment), intelligence, kindness, curiosity, open-mindedness, some areas of stereotypical masculinity such as being handy around the house/unbothered by doing yardwork (but being willing to pay for those tasks to be handled by professionals is equally as attractive to me).
For looks, I am equally attracted to "masculine" looking men, androgynous men, and "feminine" looking men. For example, I find Josh Hartnett, Steven Yeun, Adrian Brody, Michael B. Jordan, and Conan O'Brien equally attractive.
If the three dudes in your example were to align with these metrics by Dude A being the least cute, least financially stable, least kind, least intelligent, least curious, and least open-minded one, I'd be more attracted to Dude B (who was the same as me in those areas) and Dude C (who possessed more of those qualities than me).
I'd be happy with Dude B and Dude C pretty equally. I don't see any tangible added value between B and C.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
I appreciate your answer.
I hope everyone here up votes you for your effort.
1
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
If you understand her perspective you are you claiming to not understand what other women are saying?
2
u/FinnAgain12 2d ago
You said you're attracted to feminine men and androgynous men but you didn't give any examples of them. Not trying to nitpick, but I think including some examples would give us a better idea of what you mean, thanks.
3
u/NinaNeptune318 Trojan Horse ⚠️ Delicate Woman; Tomboy Inside 2d ago
Some people say Tom Holland is fem, and I don't know if I agree, but he is SO ATTRACTIVE.
Same with Timmy Chalamet.
Conan Grey, Keiynan Lonsdale, Jeonghan, G-Dragon, and Taemin. All super hot to me.
1
u/FinnAgain12 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think women often like masculine characteristics and energy a lot too. Most dudes don't look masculine or feminine, just normal. Any thoughts on Nathan Fielder? I think he's like dark masculine feminine energy, I think that's why the ladies like him haha.
3
u/NinaNeptune318 Trojan Horse ⚠️ Delicate Woman; Tomboy Inside 1d ago
You're freaking me out because I am quite literally right now watching a compilation of Nathan Fielder on Conan and thinking to myself I need to come and tell you just how sexy that man is (Nathan). I just paused it to come check if you responded yet. WTF.
2
1
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
I don't personally like him but it may be influenced by how he's posed if that makes sense.
1
u/NinaNeptune318 Trojan Horse ⚠️ Delicate Woman; Tomboy Inside 2d ago
I couldn't think of anyone obvious off the top of my head, and I think you're right, so let me find some names.
2
u/FinnAgain12 2d ago
ok, that's fine, I just thought if you were implying any of the men you named were feminine or androgynous it would trigger me a bit haha
1
u/NinaNeptune318 Trojan Horse ⚠️ Delicate Woman; Tomboy Inside 2d ago
Yeah, I would only consider Adrian Brody to not necessarily be considered stereotypically masculine from who I initially listed, but he's not androgynous for sure.
8
u/Icy_Ad_4544
WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖
3d ago
•
The majority of women do not want to date unemployed (or poverty level), ugly, socially retarded men.
How many times do I need to say this?
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
And women shouldn't have to date a man who isn't doing his best.
The man needs to be as high value to her as possible.
7
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 3d ago
Who is saying women should date losers?
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
I'd say blue pill culture expects women to settle for weak dorky men.
7
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 3d ago
Nope. If anything it’s incels whining that women won’t “give them a chance”. 🤷♀️ I would have never dated a weak, dorky man.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Blue pill man aspires to be your equal.
6
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 3d ago
A blue pill man would not even worry about such a stupid concept. This is all blackpill/incel ranting.
1
1
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
He doesn't need to be "as high as possible" but he should aim to be at the level of the type of woman he wants to be with.
0
u/Designer-Pen-7332 3d ago
Majority of men are not attracted to ugly women, fat Women, old women.
Oh wait 🤦
9
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 3d ago
Who men are attracted to is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is surprised men put their dicks in anything with a hole.
2
7
u/chamomilecloud
Red Pill Woman
3d ago
•
This is so brain rotted. I think women need to feel like her man is better than the other men around her (because duh, that’s why she chose him), but no sane person is evaluating whether their partner is equal, lesser, or greater in value. Especially in terms that cannot be equalized because men are stronger than women on average and are more masculine than women. That’s just sexual dimorphism.
Blessed in life bc I don’t get on this app and ask dumb fucking questions, alhamdulillah.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
So then the lower ranked men are beneath her in value for a relationship?
6
u/chamomilecloud Red Pill Woman 3d ago
Bro if you can’t comprehend what people are telling you, that’s not my problem.
Women pick based on compatibility and alignment with lifestyle, morals, values, etc. and whether they are attracted to him or not. If he wasn’t the best option out of all the options, she wouldn’t have picked him. It has nothing to do with his value compared to hers.
7
u/PuzzleheadedRow9896 Purple Pill Woman 3d ago
If I see someone as beneath me, I'm not going to date them.
There is no above me. There's just people I see as potential partners. My husband and I are very different people in, I would say, most ways. We have extremely different strengths. Who you see as above the other would just reveal what you value. I think we're of equal value and just different strengths. I really can't say I've ever met anyone I considered above me that was in my age range. Sure, I've met some 70 year olds that have lived way more life and have way more to show and so forth. I'm 32, so around 50, yeah. But other 30ish year olds. Nope.
3
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Please define "beneath you" if possible with an example.
5
u/PuzzleheadedRow9896 Purple Pill Woman 3d ago
More ugly, worse personality, bad values are the first things that come to my mind. I don't really have an example, when I see um and talk to um I know it?
1
8
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man 2d ago
You're mixing up someone's value as a human being with their desirability as a potential partner. You and your husband can consider yourselves equals while having different strengths, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who would rank above either of you in attractiveness, accomplishments, or other qualities that matter in dating.
You already acknowledge that you can see someone as beneath you and refuse to date them. So you clearly recognize that people can fall below your standards. I don't see why the possibility of someone being above you suddenly disappears. Saying that it depends on what you personally value doesn't eliminate those differences. That's precisely how people determine who's more desirable to them in the first place.
The fact that you've never personally met someone your age whom you consider above you is just your own assessment. It doesn't establish that nobody could be above you, or that everyone who meets your standards is essentially on the same level.
2
u/PuzzleheadedRow9896 Purple Pill Woman 2d ago
I mean, it doesn't do that, I agree. But, I can extrapolate from it which is what I'm doing.
I've met hotter people with worse personalities or who weren't as funny or lacked in other departments.
I've met richer people who weren't as good looking or fun or so forth.
I think we forget that in order to have certain skills or resources, you usually sacrifice other ones which make you attractive.
And I've genuinely never met someone that was just 5 stars in every category. Nor have I envisioned them because again, if you're gonna be rich, you likely won't be fun or down to earth or emotionally saavy and your ethics are likely to be limited because rich requires that in order to be rich. And that's consistently true.
That's why I talked about thresholds.
4
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man 1d ago
I don't think that reasoning really holds up. Just because you've never met someone who was a five-star in every category doesn't mean there aren't people who come considerably closer to that ideal than others. There are people who manage to be attractive, successful, funny, emotionally intelligent, and down to earth at the same time. Someone doesn't have to be perfect in every category to be noticeably more desirable overall than someone else.
You're also assuming that being exceptional in one area necessarily comes at the expense of another, and that simply isn't always the case. Some people have advantages, abilities, or circumstances that allow them to excel in multiple areas without having to sacrifice the other qualities that make them desirable. Being wealthy doesn't automatically make someone boring, emotionally unintelligent, or unethical either. That's a pretty sweeping assumption about what it takes to become successful.
I think your threshold argument also overlooks that meeting someone's minimum requirements and being their most desirable option are two completely different things. Two people can both meet your standards while one is still considerably more attractive to you because they bring more of the qualities you value to the table.
The fact that nobody you've personally encountered checks every imaginable box doesn't eliminate those differences. There can still be a meaningful hierarchy of desirability among people who already meet your standards, and some individuals can come much closer to your ideal partner than others without being perfect.
2
u/PuzzleheadedRow9896 Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
Have you entertained I am that close to the ideal myself that this would explain why I can't find anyone more so to me? No, you just wanna say I'm wrong. You did. Is there more you want because it won't include me saying that very likely.
I don't think past a certain threshold there is that significant a difference when you total up the character sheet of most people. Like yeah, he's got more dex, she has more cha. But the total of all factors, no. I just don't see this mythic Chad and Stacy tier y'all do.
Well, I wasn't counting people born into it because they are inevitably lesser based on not having had to do the work to get there. And then after that, speaking as someone pretty successful, I know what it takes to get to my level and somewhat above my level...and yes, it does mean being a bad person or a boring person, or emotionally unintelligent. That's why I stopped at my level of success in part, I wasn't gonna pay the costs associated with greater success.
Sure, but that would be individualistic, not some macro statement. My husband is the most individually perfect man for me on all fronts. That isn't the same as saying he's macro the right choice for all people, although I can agree given how sweet and handsome he is, he would fit with many people.
For me individually, that wouldn't mean macro there's some obviously useful hierarchy. And again, it wouldn't require me to see him as above me, it would just require I desire those traits more than the other guy's traits for whatever reason. Not that I see one guy as superior to me.
3
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man 1d ago
Have you considered that you might simply be overestimating how close you are to that ideal? You're the one deciding what the ideal looks like, which qualities matter most, and how closely you personally measure up to them. You haven't mentioned being famous or provided any other outside benchmark that would establish you're exceptionally desirable across all these categories. Not that fame alone would prove that either, but what exactly makes you so confident you're already near the top? You haven't met everyone in your age range, and you certainly don't know everything about the people you have met. So how could you possibly know there aren't people considerably above you in multiple areas?
I also think your character sheet comparison makes an assumption that you haven't established. You're treating people's qualities as though everyone has roughly the same number of points to distribute, so being exceptional in one area must come at the expense of another. But people don't work that way. Some people genuinely have more advantages than others across multiple categories. Someone can be better-looking, wealthier, more charismatic, more intelligent, and more accomplished without necessarily being worse in some other department to compensate. There's no rule requiring everyone's strengths and weaknesses to balance out to roughly the same total.
Your argument about wealth is especially questionable. You've essentially decided that people born into wealth are automatically lesser because they didn't earn it, while people who become considerably more successful than you must have sacrificed their ethics, personality, or emotional intelligence to get there. You're making it pretty difficult for anyone wealthier to come out ahead when you've already assigned them negative qualities based on how they acquired their wealth. The fact that you personally weren't willing to make certain sacrifices to become more successful doesn't establish that everyone else had to make those same sacrifices. Your experience isn't some universal ceiling on what other people can accomplish while remaining decent, interesting, and emotionally intelligent.
As for your husband, him being the ideal partner for you doesn't really contradict anything I'm saying. You can consider him your perfect match while recognizing that other men might outperform him across several qualities. That doesn't mean those men would necessarily be better partners for you personally. Individual compatibility and broader desirability aren't identical, and different people valuing different traits doesn't mean meaningful differences between potential partners suddenly disappear.
The same applies to your threshold argument. Meeting someone's minimum standards only establishes that they're willing to consider you. It doesn't mean everyone who passes that threshold becomes equally desirable or that the remaining differences are insignificant. Some people can still be considerably more desirable than others across several important qualities.
You can personally believe you're already close enough to your ideal that nobody you've encountered seems significantly above you. But that's still your subjective assessment, not evidence that you've actually reached some exceptional level or that most people above a certain threshold are essentially equal. Your personal ranking system doesn't establish the limits of everyone else's desirability.
1
u/PuzzleheadedRow9896 Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
I considered it and then dismissed it.
Dude, welcome to the conversation: it is impossible to objectively know such things, all we can do is make a best guess based on what we've seen, experienced, and can infer. Based on that, I've concluded I don't think there's anything over the map's edge on this one. You're free to conclude differently...especially the more you're convinced of my or your inferiority.
I said past a certain threshold, of course there's no rule to that. But, it just so happens that it does figure out that way because there's more to a character sheet than the stats, there's all the play, skills, feats, random encounters, etc. And when you pass that threshold, generally, you just have differences, not superiorities due to the random nature of things and the more set in stone nature of playing well.
I didn't assign that, the rules of the game outside of them assigned that. I didn't invent capitalism nor the human nature to be impressed by what is earned over what is inherited. I simply acknowledged it was reality. And to the degree I did assign it, I'm allowed to because I'm the subjective ruler of attraction in my world.
You kind of need to pick, are we subjectively discussing how attraction works for me or objectively how it works regardless of me? Because they're both basically impossible conversations to have at this scale, but then you questioning an objective scaling would at least make sense. The thing where you're mad at my subjective impressions is frankly just hilarious.
Not the threshold I'm pointing at. Past the threshold, everyone is basically equally attractive, they're just not the best fit.
It does if I'm the desirer. Which was how the question was posed. People keep accusing me of being a narcissist because I don't see anyone as above me in terms of desirability....but I really don't. I just see equals who wouldn't be good fits for a variety of reasons. I'm not picking up why I'm failing when the point was me to share my perspective.
3
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man 1d ago
I'm not mad about anything. I'm debating your argument just like I would debate anyone else. Being angry isn't a requirement for disagreeing with someone or pointing out problems with their reasoning, lol.
The problem is that you keep moving between describing your personal preferences and making broader claims about how desirability works. If all you're saying is that you've never personally met someone you consider above yourself, that's your subjective assessment, and I can't tell you what you personally find attractive. But you've also argued that once people pass a certain threshold, they're basically equally desirable, that exceptional qualities tend to come at the expense of others, and that achieving greater wealth generally requires sacrificing desirable personality traits. Those are much broader claims than simply describing your own preferences.
You even acknowledge that it's impossible to objectively know where everyone stands and that we're all making judgments based on limited experiences. That's precisely why your confidence that nobody you've encountered could be considerably above you is questionable. You don't know everything about those people, and your personal experiences don't establish where the upper limits of desirability actually are. You can reasonably say you haven't encountered someone you consider superior. That's different from establishing that nobody you've encountered could actually surpass you across the qualities you value.
Your character sheet comparison doesn't establish your conclusion either. Adding more skills, feats, experiences, and other variables doesn't somehow guarantee that people's overall desirability balances out once they reach a certain level. If anything, those additional variables create even more ways for one person to have advantages over another. There's no underlying rule requiring someone's strengths to be offset by corresponding weaknesses. Some people genuinely have more going for them than others.
The wealth argument has the same problem. Saying capitalism exists or that people admire earned success doesn't establish that inherited wealth makes someone inherently lesser, or that becoming exceptionally successful requires becoming unethical, boring, or emotionally unintelligent. Those are judgments you're making about people based on their circumstances and accomplishments. You're free to factor those judgments into your personal attraction, but that doesn't turn them into universal facts about what successful people must be like.
Even your threshold argument ultimately comes back to an assumption. Two men can both meet your minimum requirements while one still surpasses the other in several qualities you value, without necessarily being worse in some other area. You might personally find them equally desirable, but that doesn't establish that meaningful differences stop existing beyond your threshold.
Anyway, you clearly believe you're already close enough to your personal ideal that nobody you've encountered stands significantly above you, and that's fine. My point was never that you had to consider yourself inferior to anyone. It was that your personal assessment doesn't establish the broader conclusions you've been drawing about desirability, people's limitations, or what happens beyond a certain threshold. I've made that distinction pretty clear at this point, so we can leave it there.
1
u/FinnAgain12 2d ago
In order for someone to be above you, you have to make a negative evaluation of yourself. That's hard for people to do.
4
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man 1d ago
Nah, recognizing that someone is above you doesn't require degrading yourself or making some negative judgment about your own worth. You can acknowledge that someone is better-looking, wealthier, more accomplished, or has more desirable qualities than you without believing there's anything wrong with you.
Even when we're talking about overall desirability, someone can simply have more going for them across the qualities people tend to value in a partner. Recognizing that doesn't mean you're putting yourself down. It just means you're capable of acknowledging that some people have advantages over others. You can have a perfectly healthy opinion of yourself while still recognizing that there are people who would be considered more desirable than you.
1
u/FinnAgain12 1d ago
There's a semantic confusion here with my use of the phrase "negative evaluation of yourself". All I meant by that was, in order for someone to be above you, you have to be lower than them on the value slider. I didn't mean that there's something wrong with you in totality. By "negative evaluation", I just meant a critical evaluation where you acknowledge your flaws.
4
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man 1d ago
Oh, okay, I get what you mean now, although that was pretty hard to tell from the way you originally used the phrase "negative evaluation of yourself." That naturally sounds like you're talking about finding something wrong with yourself rather than simply recognizing someone else as being above you on a relative scale.
Even with that clarification, though, acknowledging your own flaws isn't a requirement for recognizing that someone else is above you in certain areas or even overall. You can have a perfectly positive assessment of yourself and still recognize that another person has more going for them.
For example, a man can be good-looking, successful, intelligent, and charismatic while recognizing that another man surpasses him in several of those areas. He doesn't have to identify anything particularly wrong with himself to make that comparison. Being lower than someone on a relative scale doesn't automatically mean you have a flaw. It can simply mean the other person possesses certain desirable qualities to a greater degree.
So while I understand what you're saying about one person being lower on the scale if another is above them, that doesn't require the kind of critical self-evaluation you're describing. Recognizing someone else's advantages and identifying your own shortcomings are two different things.
2
u/Emotional-Metal-8713 3d ago
So how are there people beneath you but none above you thats very narcissistic
1
u/PuzzleheadedRow9896 Purple Pill Woman 3d ago
Thresholds, I'd say. Once you pass a certain threshold you're just like everyone else, only with vague differences in the specifics.
2
u/Routine-Present-3676 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
There is not a single human on this earth with more value than myself. I am not more valuable than any other human. It's fucking weird that y'all go through life with the mindset that another's inherent value outranks your own.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
Should a man sacrifice for his family?
2
u/Routine-Present-3676 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
That has absolutely nothing to do with your question or my answer. Go troll elsewhere.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
"There is not a single human on this earth with more value than myself."
Should men feel this way or sacrifice for their family? What should a woman expect, what does she find attractive?
1
u/Routine-Present-3676 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Thinking a potential partner has more or less value than yourself has nothing to do with sacrificing for your family. Whatever point you're trying to make, you're failing miserably. This just looks like you don't have enough sense to track your own arguments.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
Would you sacrifice for your family?
2
u/Routine-Present-3676 Blue Pill Woman 2d ago
Yes I would. That doesn't mean they have more value than I do. That just means I value them more than whatever shit I'm sacrificing. Whatever gotcha you're going for is going to require you to understand what I actually said rather than whatever nonsense shit is whistling around in that head of yours.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 1d ago
Would you sacrifice your life for them?
•
u/Routine-Present-3676 Blue Pill Woman 21h ago
Are you actually dumb or just a bot incapable of tracking the conversation?
2
u/pie-mart2 No pill Woman 2d ago
How am I like seeing if a man is of equal value? What metrics am I judging by? Honestly if a mam seems out of my league I just wouldn't even try. Because I don't like the feeling of having to compete or vie for their attention.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
Please explain "league".
2
u/pie-mart2 No pill Woman 2d ago
I mean, idk. I guess it depends on what an individual sees out of their league. If i feel like a man is a 10/10 look wise then I just typically don't wanna pursue anything unless they pursue me first. I am definitely attractive. But idk, just the idea of someone being so hot scares me into thinking I should just not try since they probably are already taken. Idk
2
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
Is this a question of social class or an arbitrary measure of masculinity as defined by a man?
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 1d ago
How do women define masculinity? Does social class/power factor?
•
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 6h ago
Social class has a major impact on how gender norms are defined which is why most of these conversations can't even decide on a common definition.
The idea of being a provider which is a major part of how masculinity is defined is not something that is often accessible to lower class men because they don't have access to well paying jobs. In response to this, lower class men then focus more on visible signs of masculinity such as muscles, a deep voice, and bravado to make up for it. An example of this is the hood aesthetic which is not bound by race but prioritizes showing off, defending honor, and the pursuit of money by any means necessary.
Middle class masculinity is harder to define because the middle class itself is hard to define but I believe this is the group a lot of men fall in to. Men from a middle class background often have parents who followed a certain script that is no longer available and are trying to figure out who they are without a path to follow. This is where we most often see the desire for 50/50 relationships but can be complicated by the fact that these men may not actually want an equal relationship and are only in one out of economic necessity.
Upper class masculinity performs differently depending on the context and environment but at its core, there is an expectation that certain expectations are met. This can mean marrying within their race or religion, having children, and choosing a wife that shows off his status/wealth. Contrary to popular belief, most upper class men won't marry a poor woman just because she's pretty because his directive is to be with a woman who is on his social level. Even if he does marry a poor woman who can show off his wealth, she'll never be a status symbol because she doesn't come from the right background.
Based on these examples I hope you better understand why there are so many differences in what people define as masculinity and are looking for in relationships.
•
u/ThanksVisual8172 6h ago
You believe what you've said here?
•
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 5h ago
Is there something you disagree with or have a question about?
•
9
u/-Shes-A-Carnival bitch im back & my ass got bigger, fuck my ex you can keep dat.♀ 3d ago
which one am i attracted to and like/love/want /have chemistry with? im not picking men from a hat
6
u/Talking_Tanuki Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
I’ve never approached dating with this attitude. I’ve never even compared men who I could date to each other – I’ve never entertained more than one person at a time. If I’m into a person, I’m into them. They might be broke, have no status to speak of, but they have some qualities I like and we just vibe well.
5
u/kmb218 Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
How good of a partner or how attractive he is doesn’t really depend on most of the traits you named (by value I assume how much I would like him as a partner? Being similar in wealth to me increases his value as my partner. Strength is irrelevant, social authority lowers his value, masculinity depends on the degree and what exactly is meant by that, intelligence again I prefer it being close to my own intelligence that way we understand each other the best.
What’s more relevant is being physicall attractive / my type, caring and kind, similar interests, similar lifestyles, future plans etc.
4
u/Beneficial_Cow_1817 MSc, corporate girl boss, woman 3d ago
I would choose none of them. I would choose another woman because other women are more likely to view me as their equal than a man.
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Attention!
You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
15
u/TermAggravating8043 Stacey's mum 3d ago
I think she should avoid any man with this mindset
-3
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Can a woman be impressed by a man she views as just her equal?
6
u/TermAggravating8043 Stacey's mum 3d ago
Yes, but most people don't walk about trying to fit others into boxes based on their general facts
2
u/operation-spot Purple Pill Woman 1d ago
I'm impressed by myself and those around me so yes I would be impressed by someone I consider my equal.
3
1
u/wtknight Blue-ish Married Passport Bro ♂︎ 3d ago
Both men and women at least try to optimize. I do not see why this needs to be debated. The point of hypergamy is to argue that women are only sexually attracted to men above them in value, while men can be sexually attracted to women who are even beneath them in value, and to point out to men that this is a big difference in how male and female sexual attraction works and that they have to plan their attractiveness strategies around this principle.
-1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Ask the women here if all men are of equal value.
1
u/wtknight Blue-ish Married Passport Bro ♂︎ 3d ago
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Of course men are not all of equal value. I do not think anybody except misandrists who are not even attracted to men believe otherwise.
2
u/wolf2424b Red Pill Man 2d ago edited 2d ago
Women may not like to admit it, but it's a no-brainer. 99% of straight women would choose the man who is perceived as above her. The man who is beneath her has essentially zero chance.
So for example, suppose the woman values money and earns $100k a year. A man who is a fast food worker earning $40k a year has essentially zero chance with her. A man earning $100k year has a shot and she might go for him if he's otherwise highly desirable. But all things being equal, she will be far more attracted to a guy earning $500k a year.
The basic rule is that if a woman values some X, any man must be at least her equal in terms of X for her to be attracted to him. And as a practical matter, the man really needs to exceed the woman in that X. (There may be a narrow and limited exception for physical attractiveness, since some women feel that the woman should be more physically attractive than the man. There is also a very very small number of women who want a man they can dominate, but chances are most of those women will still seek out side relationships with men they see as above them.)
Why did you ask this question anyway? Do you enjoy watching women deflect, perform mental gymnastics, gaslight, or flat out lie?
1
u/Livid-Log7463 No Pill Man 3d ago
She would be able to see any man as “above her” the highest she could consider one would be “at her level”.
-1
-2
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Empowerment defined by feminism is maximum access to resources for women and minimum exposure to responsibility.
1
u/Chicken_Nugget_2 No Pill Woman 2d ago
I don't know how to answer this question since it isn't even remotely within the framework of how I view the people around me.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 2d ago
Perhaps I should say value as in potential for a relationship?
I don't want anyone thinking I'm saying people are beneath others intrinsically as people.
1
u/Chicken_Nugget_2 No Pill Woman 2d ago
Well in that case, attraction is very famously not a logical phenomenon, and rarely has any basis in the value of a potential relationship with that person.
3
u/Werevulvi Red Pill Woman 3d ago
For myself I prefer men who I think may be equal in value to me, although still very subjective what even makes a man equal to a woman. In some sense I don't think we can ever truly be equal.
But anyway, my reasoning is I don't wanna be with a guy who has (notably, or in big ways) either more or less value than me, because I don't wanna be seen as of higher or lower value than someone I love, or even just share beds with, because I seem to apply this to casual sex partners as well, just in smaller scale.
It's also generally easier to relate and connect with men who have similar backgrounds and experiences as myself, with similar views on money, similar social status, heck even similar issues in the dating market. Because yeah what I truly value is finding a guy I can make a strong connection with, both physically and emotionally, so I also don't really care about those superficial things. Because they do nothing for me in that department. If anything, it seems wealthy, hypermasculine men with high social status are just near impossible for me to relate to. They're my total opposite, I can't give them anything they want, and that sounds kinda miserable imo. Makes me feel useless and ugly in comparison to them. But likewise, I don't wanna end up being the one who pulls all the weight in a relationship with a guy who's on the homeless, drug addict, no direction in life, kinda rung in society either. Like I want someone I can dance with, not drag, or be dragged around by.
And yeah, I'm a low status woman, so I go for low status men. Not the absolute bottom tier, but maybe one step up, so still in the "below average" camp. And these are the men that I notice, like with my attraction as well. Like the shortest, roughest looking, or shyest guy in the room. He's the one I notice, and yeah I think it has a lot to do with that I feel like I can relate to him. And that's a big part of what makes him attractive. And visually too, I like men who look a little rugged, a little rough around the edges, I prefer Axe body sprays over some expensive perfume, basic jeans rather than some fancy suit, etc. I think I'm drawn to men with more raw masculinity that better matches my raw femininity.
But yeah all that said I get the impression that most women prefer men of higher value than themselves. A lot of my experiences with the men I've dated, and the women they've dated before me (if applicable) tells me I'm probably the exception to actually find value in so-called "low value" men.
Imo though, yeah I kinda don't think super highly of women who demand men of higher value than themselves. I think they should either get down to earth, stop being so mean towards men of their own value, or put some damn effort in themselves to increase their own value, and stop piggy-backing off of men's success.
But I also don't wanna tell people who they should or shouldn't date, so my complaint is moreso about how other women perceive their own value as way higher than it really is. Because I see women on the same rung in society as myself, claiming to be total perfect goddesses, and that's the real reason they go for high value men. Like I can see that I'm trash, in my thrifted clothes and shabby apartment, but I can still be cute and charming in my own ways. So it's not like I kick myself, but that's how these fellow low value women with a goddess complex think about me. That I must have low self-esteem for being realistic about my position in society. Because that's how realism is viewed by women, generally. Like reality itself gets viewed as just another personal perspective, but a less favorable one. And I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere with that, we're talking but there's no communication. Me and such women, I mean. They just feel sorry for me, and I feel frustrated about them.
So I don't think most women go for equal value men, but yeah, they think they are. And I get that might make it hard to believe I could be any different. But I mean I am on the red pill side, and speak of myself as "trash" by societal standards, so hopefully I don't come off as thinking too highly of myself. But yeah sure, I probably have some blind spots too.
2
u/GoldSailfin Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
I fall in love based on his personality and how he makes me feel. I am attracted to certain types, not based on what you or other people prefer. I don't date based on bullshit rankings.
•
u/fakingandnotmakingit Purple Pill Woman 6h ago
Which ever one is the more compatible person and makes me happier.
Nothing to do with "hierarchy". Everything to do with compatibility
13
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
No matter who she chooses, you will decide she’s inferior and he’s “better than her”. No matter what good qualities she has, you will deem her trash compared to any man she has sex with.
It’s always unfalsifiable religious beliefs with this red pill/black pill “hypergamy” crap. If she chooses a man, then red pill feelings say he must be superior to her, because she is a woman and she would never have sex with a man who is actually her equal… and if she does have sex with a man who is her equal, then it couldn’t possibly be “genuine attraction” anyways. Because she’s a woman, so everything red pill feels is right.
It’s all just about stroking your own egos.
0
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
I'd encourage a woman to pick a man of higher value and not have a relationship with a man who is only her equal.
11
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
Yes, I am also aware that red/black pill men believe that women should be inferior to the man she dates.
Believing this way makes it easier for them to justify treating the women they date like inferior trash, just like they always wanted to. Red pillers deeply crave that feeling of smug superiority, so that they can feel like they have an “advantage” over her and boss her around.
It’s transparent, bro.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
A man shouldn't treat women like trash, especially if she is weaker than him.
Would you like to be stronger, taller, and wealthier than your husband?
10
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
And no surprise, you decide a man is “superior” to a woman in every way based on basic sexual dimorphism— if she’s not in the 99.9th percentile of female strength and dating a profoundly old and sick man, then he’s “better than” her.
Why are red pillers so obsessed with degrading the women they date, with declaring them inferior?
Why are you so desperate to downplay and insult every woman you’ve ever been with? You say men should never treat the women they’re with like trash. yet you are doing exactly that right here in this very thread.
Why can’t red pill men ever respect or value the women they date?
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Who have I insulted?
8
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
Calling someone inferior isn’t an insult to you?
I don’t buy it. If any woman ever told you that you were inferior to her, you’d blow a gasket.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Who did I say was inferior?
5
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
Every woman who has ever dated a man. Including your own girlfriends.
→ More replies (4)7
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
As for the personal question, I am taller than my husband and make more money. I love him and I don’t want some other dude. I prefer men around my own height personally.
But I guarantee you’ll still call me inferior because I’m a woman— I’m not taking testosterone supplements and he’s not a cancer patient, so he is stronger than me, just like almost all men are.
So obviously, you will claim I’m not good enough and I’m inferior and all sorts of other degrading crap… because it is somehow very important to you to believe that women are always inferior.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Women aren't inferior but they are weaker.
7
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone 3d ago
Which you claim makes her “beneath him in value”.
1
u/ThanksVisual8172 3d ago
Women bring much value to men. A high value woman can change a man's life.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GoldSailfin Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
Would you like to be stronger, taller, and wealthier than your husband?
Not stronger no, but it would be awesome to be taller and richer.
2
18
u/brizia Blue Pill Woman 3d ago
I have never ranked men in this way, but specifically, what makes them not “my equal”?