Are women attracted to three types of men? Is that why I'm single?

[Wolfhart]

1 minute ago, ExpatInItaly said:

Suicidal ideation is not something this forum can help you with 

I wasn't asking for help with that?

[ExpatInItaly]

1 minute ago, Wolfhart said:

I wasn't asking for help with that?

I know. 

Your posts are a cry for help, though. I hope you can find it soon. 

[Wolfhart]

4 minutes ago, ExpatInItaly said:

I know. 

Your posts are a cry for help, though. I hope you can find it soon. 

Thank you.

Side note, I don't believe in therapy. It's pseudoscientific and doesn't change external realities.

[Will am I]

1 hour ago, Wolfhart said:

When women are looking for a provider, they will obviously prioritise if a man is kind, supportive, generous, etc. This is more of an utilitarian consideration. While a woman is more sexually attracted to a man with "badboy" personality traits, these men don't tend to make good providers. Therefore, she will often turn to a guy who's more passive, humble and loyal, not because it turns her on, but because he's settling down material.

So what exactly is wrong with being “marriage material”?

Are you looking to spend some time on the path of dating a different woman every week? Or would you like to be in a long term relationship?

 

 

[Wolfhart]

7 minutes ago, Will am I said:

So what exactly is wrong with being “marriage material”?

Are you looking to spend some time on the path of dating a different woman every week? Or would you like to be in a long term relationship?

There is nothing wrong per se, as long as you reconcile with the likelihood your partner does not find you attractive.

None of this is part of the equation for me anyway. My socioeconomic status isn't high enough and I'm not normal enough to connect with women.

[smackie9]

Me being a woman I will tell you what women are attracted to. It's confidence. You don't have any obviously because you spent your whole life feeling sorry for yourself/being intimidated. Women can sense/feel your anger, resentment, and negative assessment of them. If you want to get anywhere in life, you need to change your perception because that's all it really is that's preventing you from finding a romantic relationships.

[NuevoYorko]

2 hours ago, Wolfhart said:

It might surprise you to learn that I do not spend my days reading incel-based literature. I already figured this out for myself, I simply borrow the terminology for the purposes of delineation and classification. 

 

The only humans on Earth who use that terminology are those who absorbed crap from incel / red / black pill places.   Most of it has never even made it into general parlance.

Being realistic, the whole thing is a profoundly immature approach to human relations.   I don't know how old you are, but you'll be stuck in an adolescent mind set for decades if you stick with it.

There is superficial truth within the archetypes.  Attractive people are attractive.   Attractive people get positive attention, which can help develop self confidence.  

A big hole, and fallacy of this whole deal is the role women get shoved into.   It has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Wolfhart]

42 minutes ago, smackie9 said:

Me being a woman I will tell you what women are attracted to. It's confidence. You don't have any obviously because you spent your whole life feeling sorry for yourself/being intimidated. Women can sense/feel your anger, resentment, and negative assessment of them. If you want to get anywhere in life, you need to change your perception because that's all it really is that's preventing you from finding a romantic relationships.

And where does confidence come from? It comes from positive reinforcement and success. Also, if you try to fake it you will get found out soon enough. 

[Weezy1973]

I’m a shorter than average guy and was diagnosed with a severe social anxiety disorder. This essentially manifested in extreme shyness. I’m 49 now and have never had a great career although I’ve always been employed with an average to slightly below average salary. I’d say pretty average in looks overall. Definitely not turning any heads, and never really did.

 

And all that being said, I’ve never been short of attention from women. I knew of girls that had crushes on me in school. I had many dates and relationships (including meeting my now wife) through online dating. I dated and had relationships with women I met at university, through friends and at work. And I don’t really fit any of your categories. Why were these women interested then? Because I’m smart and funny I suspect, and I’ve always been confident in that. And also, aside from when I was in high school maybe, I’ve just accepted that not all women will be into me, but those that are attracted to guys that are smart and funny, will be. So I was just myself. 

[Wolfhart]

31 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

The only humans on Earth who use that terminology are those who absorbed crap from incel / red / black pill places.   Most of it has never even made it into general parlance.

Being realistic, the whole thing is a profoundly immature approach to human relations.   I don't know how old you are, but you'll be stuck in an adolescent mind set for decades if you stick with it.

There is superficial truth within the archetypes.  Attractive people are attractive.   Attractive people get positive attention, which can help develop self confidence.  

A big hole, and fallacy of this whole deal is the role women get shoved into.   It has nothing to do with reality.

If the entire thing is immature and unrealistic, why do the vast majority of relationships conform to this pattern? 

It's just depressing and demoralising.

[ExpatInItaly]

Just now, Wolfhart said:

If the entire thing is immature and unrealistic, why do the vast majority of relationships conform to this pattern? 

They don't. You're choosing to ignore the vast variety of relationships because it doesn't fit into your over-generalized narrative. 

[Wolfhart]

4 minutes ago, ExpatInItaly said:

They don't. You're choosing to ignore the vast variety of relationships because it doesn't fit into your over-generalized narrative. 

I'm not choosing to ignore anything. There will always be outliers but that doesn't change the state of play.  

Just about every relationship I've known comes under at least one of these categories. The guy is either tall, good-looking, has a stable income, or is some kind of thug/douchebag. 

[Will am I]

37 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

A big hole, and fallacy of this whole deal is the role women get shoved into. 

This.

These kind of theories try to explain behaviour from evolutionary and hormonal factors alone.

That’s a huge oversimplification. Moreover it’s degrading to women, as they are made out to be creatures without a character or a will of their own.

 

There are also other theories which try to explain partner choice. One theory states that girls who grow up in a good relationship with their father tend to pick partners who in some part resemble their father.

The reality is that all these theories are only partially true and never very accurate. 

Luckily for the guys who don’t fit in any of your three predefined boxes, a large majority do find partners too. And yes, partners who are into them, who procreate with them, who usually stay faithful to them too.

[Weezy1973]

31 minutes ago, Wolfhart said: 

Just about every relationship I've known comes under at least one of these categories. The guy is either tall, good-looking, has a stable income, or is some kind of thug/douchebag. 

And what are the women like? 
 

But if you’re talking about psychology being pseudoscience, then you understand how meaningless anecdotal evidence is. You seem to be basing your entire theory on  “almost every relationship” you’ve known. Which renders it useless. What about your parents? 

[NuevoYorko]

39 minutes ago, Wolfhart said:

If the entire thing is immature and unrealistic, why do the vast majority of relationships conform to this pattern? 

It's just depressing and demoralising.

They don't.  That's why the point of view is immature.  It reflects a very limited perspective, typical of young people.  

Here on LS you have a lot of people of all ages, men and women alike, who are currently in relationships and / or have past experiences with them.  That is the situation out in the real world.

I assure you that "the vast majority" of these do not conform to the tropes you are concerned about.

Perhaps when we were younger we saw this around us.  Adolescence is a challenging time for most boys and girls too.  We always see the socially successful people around us and compare ourselves unfavorably to them.   if we hang out on the Internet in groups of people who buy into this, it gets magnified.  If we keep hanging out there, we will be stuck in that state of mind well past the adolescent years.  

 

[Wolfhart]

5 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

And what are the women like? 
 

But if you’re talking about psychology being pseudoscience, then you understand how meaningless anecdotal evidence is. You seem to be basing your entire theory on  “almost every relationship” you’ve known. Which renders it useless. What about your parents? 

It covers a variety of women, unfortunately. 

When my father was young, he was a cocky, brash, tough-guy.  My mother even admitted that's what drew her to him.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Wolfhart

[Stret]

19 hours ago, Wolfhart said:

As a disadvantaged guy who's had to spend his entire life on the sidelines, I have observed that women are only attracted to three male archetypes:

#1. The prototypical Chad and "Chadlite", a man with genetic advantages, i.e. height, bone structure (broad shoulders, strong jawline), race, low hairline, etc. If a man possesses these physical characteristics, he can afford to be scrawny (although ottermode is preferred) or even out of shape ("dad bod"). He can also get away with being a little shy and socially awkward. A woman will make these allowances because he's hawt and good breeding material.

#2. A dangerous and roguish persona aka "the badboy". Their profile is marked by impulsiveness, high-extraversion, low-agreeableness, low-empathy and hypermasculinity. They are not necessarily goodlooking, although at times they can be unconventionally attractive. They are possessed of superficial charm and excel at manipulating female emotions. Woman from all walks of life are suckers for badboys. They often ignore the red flags and make a calculated risk to date men like this, despite the risk of abusiveness. Of course, women will deny this but what women say they want is at odds with what they truly desire. 

#3. Betabux. A normie with a good job and stable income. Women settle for these guys, particularly later in life when they've been pumped and dumped too many times. Badboys typically don't make for the best providers, after all. The majority of relationships will fall into this category.

A combination of the above would be ideal. That's a woman's ultimate fantasy (e.g. Fifty Shades of Grey) but it's not realistic. For that reason, a woman's tastes will fall into one of the above, depending on her priorities and present situation. If you do not fall into at least one of these categories, you will struggle to ever have a girlfriend. Trust me, I'm living proof.

I think you are generalising things too much or you are talking about a particular type of women. Many women don't need a provider because they can provide for themselves and earn more than most men. Physical attraction is all in the eyes of beholder and chemistry. Many women want a man that they can trust, a man that will be a good friend, a man they feel attraction to, that have something in common with them... 

[Wolfhart]

14 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

They don't.  That's why the point of view is immature.  It reflects a very limited perspective, typical of young people.  

Here on LS you have a lot of people of all ages, men and women alike, who are currently in relationships and / or have past experiences with them.  That is the situation out in the real world.

I assure you that "the vast majority" of these do not conform to the tropes you are concerned about.

Perhaps when we were younger we saw this around us.  Adolescence is a challenging time for most boys and girls too.  We always see the socially successful people around us and compare ourselves unfavorably to them.   if we hang out on the Internet in groups of people who buy into this, it gets magnified.  If we keep hanging out there, we will be stuck in that state of mind well past the adolescent years.  

Well, I fundamentally disagree with you, of course. Trust me, I've tried to re-evaluate this position many times, and every time I've been brought back down to earth.

It doesn't pay to engage in self-delusion. You only end up with an even ruder awakening later down the line. 

[Wolfhart]

18 minutes ago, Stret said:

I think you are generalising things too much or you are talking about a particular type of women. Many women don't need a provider because they can provide for themselves and earn more than most men. Physical attraction is all in the eyes of beholder and chemistry. Many women want a man that they can trust, a man that will be a good friend, a man they feel attraction to, that have something in common with them... 

It's true. A lot of women these days earn as much, if not more, than men. However, when looking for a partner, they will still want someone with a good income in order to create the best the best lifestyle available. Not to mention some women still have an outdated mentality that the man should be the breadwinner.

As for "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I think I stopped believing that junk when I was 10 years old. 

[Will am I]

If you’re so conviced of all this, please explain why a majority of men do find a spouse or life partner?

I found a 2019 statistic that 62% of Americans aged 25-54 are either married or otherwise living together with a partner. On top of that number there are people who are not yet with a partner (large numbers in de 25-30 age bracket), or have been divorced.

A large majority of men will find a partner, and no way they all fit any of the three standard boxes.

[Lisa]

Thread has been closed as it's going nowhere

[Wolfhart]

As a disadvantaged male, I've never had a girlfriend or any female attention. How are you meant to attract a woman if you're not genetically endowed, superficially charming or have high socioeconomic status?

[Mrin]

24 minutes ago, Wolfhart said:

As a disadvantaged male, I've never had a girlfriend or any female attention. How are you meant to attract a woman if you're not genetically endowed, superficially charming or have high socioeconomic status?

Have a great personality. Listen to and talk to women. Good hygiene. Dress well. Be confident. Be interesting. Learn and tell some good jokes. If you want them to overlook certain aspects of you, You need to do the same of them. Whether that is looks, personality, socioeconomic status whatever. 

Contrary to the belief of some, women are far less superficial than men and much more varied as to who they are attracted to and who they aren't. One woman will go gaga over a man that another woman won't even give a second glance to.

Best of luck! 

Mrin