I want to take a moment to express my appreciation for women's spaces where they feel safe to express everything that runs through their heads.

Thanks to these spaces, men who have been making the mistake of listening to what women say (as opposed to watching what they do) are finally hearing women tell the hard truths about attraction.

1. Physical appeal is the most important thing

2. Women will fuck men they don't like.

3. A woman can like a man and never have sex with him.

4. It doesn't matter how you treat women. If they want to fuck you, they will. If they don't, they won't.

5. Add "if he's hot" to any list of attributes a woman says she wants from a man. Add "unless he's hot" to any list of complaints.

Women will never ever want men that have to learn how to be alpha. They want men who naturally get it.

What are the odds she is ever going to bluntly tell a "sweet, nerdy, and not overly macho" guy what she wrote in this post so he can better himself and acquire women more easily going forward and avoid this pitfall she is roping him through?

Women withholding their own preferred criteria like this and then being left with a small population of such men who naturally have specific sets traits is their own damned fault.

Imagine a company that puts out a job description for their applications. They put some publicly stated criteria on the job requirements but withhold all of the requirements they actually want from the candidates.

They end up only hiring the applicants that mostly only have their covert criteria (tingles, sex appeal) and few if in any of the publicly stated criteria needed for the job (relationship potential).

They end up with candidates they want but who can't do the job while rejecting all the candidates who can do the job but don't meet their covert criteria, or worse, they hire the man, sign him up for benefits, and then fire him without warning and before he can prepare for a new job regardless of his job performance on the overtly stated criteria he was hired to do.

Now imagine a second company that puts all of their criteria on the application.

Which company would be more likely to attract more candidates to apply that could do the overall job, or at the minimum inform candidates what they might be missing (thus leading them to acquire those skills). Which company would have better retention and overall benefit to employee and employer in the long run?

This needs to be stickied!

I read so many comments from younger guys that are having issues because they are listening to what women are saying, not observing what they are doing.

This is a classic 'mask slip' from the woman's side. In a moment of accidental honesty, she is revealing what all women are like. They want beta boyfriends and husbands, but they want to be fucked by 'toxic guys' (chad, alpha, tyrone, whatever you want to call it).

This is essentially the entire modern dating car crash in one simple post.

Why are you like this? Because you’re damaged as fuck, for the streets, and your downfall is coming and it’s not going to be pretty. Wait til the next post she makes in a few years…..”waaaaa, why doesn’t the sweet nerdy guy want anything to do with me and my bastard kids, he laughed at me when I texted him about giving us a chance. All men are evil “

I was thinking recently about the concept of stoicism and that the ultimate form of discipline is driving oneself to improve and work when one is comfortable and has no need to do so. Women who live in a protected bubble of chivalry/feminism combined with high sexual value in their youth are like child actors who get millions and know where all the drug dealers are. Yes, they are biologically predisposed to muck up their own lives but our society doesn't help matters by super-enabling their worst tendencies.

So why do women get turned on by bad boys? Because they think it's SAFE to do so. Society will pity them and consider them victims. They think they can get a bailout somehow. They're told they're entitled to excitement.

We often hear how zoomers are the laziest generation in history but that's nothing new. I remember my father like it was yesterday losing his temper because I blew 2 bucks playing.. pinball! Yes, pinball was legal in the state because it was classified as a "game of skill" and my father was enraged and said he wanted to call the store with the machine shut down. I'm not making this stuff up. Oh, and WALKMANS! Rotten kids just listening to them all day!

I'm sure many zoomer men can be lazy but they probably are born into the toughest time to be alive, as a man, in our history. My father landed my mother by asking for her phone number and she made him look up her number in the phone book by giving him only her name. That was the shit test back in 1958. He bought a huge house for 25 grand, paid it off in 15 years. People often waited tables to pay for college.

She likely post wall since most young women rarely express being well built as attractive

I believe the only way for a marriage to work, long term, is if the wife views her husband as both AF and BB.

I know, it sounds unrealistic, it's as rare as a good marriage.

I've had this theory for years based on old Dalrock reading and my own experience. I'm not overly macho or alpha or even big or tall, but I'm the most manly man in my wife's universe for the simple reason that I keep her away from other men. I don't allow her to have male friends, that's stupid. She's never slept with anyone else so I'm the best sex she's ever had. I'm fairly poor but I'm the richest man in her world, and the only one allowed to give her money or alcohol or... well, anything.

So basically, the only way for this to happen is a lack of experience on the part of the woman (aka virgin when married) and some mate guarding on the part of the man, to the point of removing all male influence/temptation in her life. It's not really about the man being alpha/beta, it's about the woman choosing to see him as both.

Where can I read the comments on this post? Lmao.

Women like this are THE WORST! "How do I reconcile a paradox?"