Tunia: Attraction

My dearest brothers and sisters,

This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.

As you might have noticed, many people evaluate information based on whether it's beneficial for them and whether it makes them feel good on an emotional or egoic level. If it makes them feel good or if it's beneficial for them to believe, they often accept the information as true. If the information makes them feel bad or is inconvenient or harmful for them to believe, they often reject the information. Regardless of whether it's actually true or not.

In particular, people tend to not be aware of things that make them feel bad or feel not in control or that are inconvenient for them. Instead, people tend to suppress or deny or ignore things that make them feel bad or feel not in control or that are inconvenient for them.

From a strictly biological perspective, this is actually quite useful. Biology just cares about reproduction, and on Earth it actually makes dating and relationships more difficult if you're quite self-aware. 

To give one example of this: a man who has suppressed his youth trauma will actually have an easier time being in a relationship with the average woman than a man who is actively working through said trauma, and is regularly crying and being anxious as a result. Now, yes, a woman will prefer the man who has completely worked through his trauma -- but a man who is in the present regularly crying and being anxious isn't very sexy to the average woman (unless he has a huge amount of other positive traits). She might respect him, she might think he's doing the right thing in working through his old pain, but that doesn't mean she wants to have sex with him.

But of course, if the man is consciously aware of the fact that he is suppressing his youth trauma, then he may feel awkward or bad about that and the woman will see that he's hiding or suppressing something. Or he will feel the urge to go heal. Both may very well lead to the man losing access to sex, which is what biology primarily cares about. 

So what's actually optimal from a biological perspective is for the man to not just suppress his trauma and youth pain, but also to not even be aware that he has trauma or youth pain. That way, he's not repelling his girlfriend by crying, and he's also not making her suspicious by being conscious of the fact that he's suppressing his youth trauma. This is why men often suppress their pain and are quite ignorant of their inner processes -- that stops his girlfriend or wife from either stopping having sex with him or dumping him. Actually working through trauma or youth pain takes years, and usually by the time that process is done, the woman has long ago left him. 

Now, what happens somewhat regularly in the spiritual community is that a youngish woman will start a relationship with a man who has suppressed his pain. They'll have children. But then once the woman is 40 or 50 or so and more spiritually mature, she will stop being attracted to the man because she can now see that he is clearly suppressing something. He might still say he's fine, and perhaps genuinely believe it, but now she can see through that. And so the relationship may fall apart. But, well, what was the guy supposed to do? There isn't really a venue or time in a man's life where he can safely heal from his trauma or youth pain, without being dumped by his girlfriend, and so most men just don't. Men often suppress their pain so deeply that they stop even being consciously aware of the fact that they have suppressed their pain. 

I don't blame men for this choice -- it's an awful and unfair situation that they're in. Suppress your pain, or quite possibly get left by the woman you love. Both are awful choices.

Yes, some women genuinely will support a man who is going through such a healing process. However, most women won't, including most spiritual women. Some women who think they will support a man in such a situation, actually won't if this situation really happens (although her conscious mind may come up with some pretty rationalization for why she's no longer attracted to him).

She may respect the man for going through an intense healing process and being anxious and crying. She may think he's doing the right thing. But that doesn't mean that she will want to keep being his girlfriend or want to keep having sex with him. Her mind might say yes, but her biology will probably say no to an anxious or crying man. In such a case, the woman likely follows her biology, and her mind goes along with that and conjures up some pretty-sounding rationalization.

So, this is an example of the point I made earlier, which was that people tend to not be aware of things that make them feel bad or not in control or that are inconvenient for them. In this case, many people aren't aware that women tend to dump men or stop having sex with men who cry or who are seriously anxious, and that as a result men tend to suppress their pain so deeply that they stop even being aware that they have suppressed their pain.

If people were aware of this, it could make them feel bad and it could sabotage their biological imperative. In other words, if a man was aware of this pattern, he might stop suppressing his pain, but then he may not get to reproduce. If a woman was aware of this, she might decide to ignore her biology and reproduce with a weaker, crying man, but then her children might starve to death or get murdered by bandits because her husband couldn't provide for them or protect them (because that's how the situation was for most of history). Really, for both men and women it's more biologically beneficial to just be unaware.

This is also why many Earth humans don't understand romantic and sexual attraction in general: the truth about it doesn't make them feel good. Being ignorant about it may be more beneficial from a biological, just-reproduce-with-a-high-quality-partner perspective.

Attraction is much more biological and ruthless than the pretty stories that people like to tell themselves of true love and soul mates and people falling in love with good, virtuous people. I'm not saying that soul mates don't exist, but I am saying that most often people are attracted to each other for pretty basic and often harsh biological reasons.

Attraction is actually pretty straightforward. I can explain it in this one message. 

So, let's get to it. This message will be about how attraction works for the average heterosexual person. Attraction won't work like this for everyone, not even for all heterosexual people -- people are different. Furthermore, people who do a lot of self-reflection and personal work and introspection may stop feeling the kind of biological attraction I describe here and may start feeling attracted to higher-consciousness people. That said, don't be too quick to think you're above all of this. For most people receiving this message, the following will at least be partially true.

With that out of the way, here is how attraction works.

ATTRACTION DUE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIETAL, RELIGIOUS OR ECONOMIC FACTORS

There can be psychological, societal, religious or economic factors that push people together. If people are pushed together or experience certain things together, they may become attracted to each other. I want to get these factors out of the way first, so that I can then later describe attraction as it happens without these factors.

Consider the case where someone feels awful about themselves, or is very lonely, or is in psychological pain, or feels that they won't be able to find anyone to date. Then this person may very well fall in love with the first person who is kind to them or who makes them feel safe. This is attraction, but it's attraction that comes from the psychological state of the person himself or herself.

What might also happen is that people fall in love with someone who is either good at or represents something that the person wants for themselves. For example, a woman is terribly bored with her life and wants some adventure and excitement. Such a woman might very well fall in love with an adventurous man, but she might not actually want this man at all -- she might simply want the adventure. It's possible that the best solution here is for her not to date this man, and instead to introduce some excitement into her life in another way. For example, pick up an exciting hobby or go and travel. Similarly, a very insecure person might be attracted to a confident person, but perhaps what she wants is confidence and not really the confident person himself.

Let's look at another factor that can cause attraction. A man who hasn't received enough love from his mother might subconsciously be attracted to a partner who can fill the hole in his heart and who can act as a pseudo-mother. I understand that some women get annoyed at this, saying that she's not his mother. That's true. I understand the frustration, and obviously no one should be forced to date someone they don't want to. I do also have compassion for these men however, because it's not their fault that their mother didn't show them enough love. Unfortunately, a lot of mothers are in resistance to masculinity, or even to boys and men themselves. And that can hurt their sons, sometimes quite deeply. A mother who views masculinity as bad might also think that she's doing a good thing by raising her son to not be particularly masculine, but the problem when those men grow up is that women often aren't attracted to these non-masculine men.

Now some women will disagree with this. However, most women are attracted to masculine men if you use a sensible definition of the word "masculine." Some people have defined the word "masculine" to basically only include negative traits, and have filed all the positive things about masculinity under the category of "both genders can do this." And true, women can have masculine-energy qualities too -- but these are still masculine-energy qualities. It's just that all women have some masculine energy too, just like all men have some feminine energy. It's like how empathy is related to feminine energy, but that doesn't mean that men can't empathize. And despite men being able to empathize, empathy is still related to feminine energy. It wouldn't be good to define femininity as basically only bad traits and to file all good things related to femininity under the category of "both genders can do this." Similarly, we also shouldn't define masculinity as only bad things and file all good things related to masculinity under the category of "both genders can do this." Yes, both genders can do it, but that just means that both genders have access to both male and female energy.

So if you use a sensible definition for the word "masculine", then women are attracted to masculine men. Which also means that it's good for boys to be raised by mothers who value masculinity, or who at least don't teach their sons to not be masculine. Similarly, of course, the father should also do his part in imparting masculinity onto his son, and not all fathers do.

Then there might be societal or religious or economic factors that basically force people together. Maybe there is arranged marriage, maybe the local religion basically forces people who have had sex together to marry, or maybe a woman lives in a society where she simply can't survive on her own without a husband to protect her and provide for her. Or someone might grow up in a tiny village and hence have only one or two dating options. In these cases, a couple can develop attraction for each other because the other person is the best person they can be with, within the current context. After all, it's biologically advantageous to be attracted to the best person available you can have children with. And if a person's dating pool is very small, even if only due to outside circumstances, they might become attracted to people they otherwise wouldn't be attracted to.

Alright, so if there are certain psychological or societal or religious or economic factors in place, then people might develop attractions that they otherwise wouldn't. But now let's consider the case where both people don't have pressing psychological needs, and society and religion and economic factors aren't strongly pushing two people together. How does attraction work then?

THE BASICS OF ATTRACTION

People feel romantic attraction towards people with whom it makes biological sense to have a baby with them and then raise the baby together with that person.

People feel only lust or sexual attraction towards people with whom it makes biological sense to have a baby with them, but not to raise the baby together with that person. Yes, for both men and women this can make sense, as we'll soon discuss.

Note that people often don't like admitting that they're being driven by lust, so it can be the case that someone thinks they want a romantic relationship with someone, when actually they just feel lust towards them. In that case, the relationship might start but may also fall apart relatively quickly.

So, those are the basics of attraction. Pretty straightforward, right? If it makes biological sense to have a baby with someone and then raise the baby with that person, then there's romantic attraction. If it only makes biological sense to have a baby with someone but not to raise the baby with that person, then there's only lust.

It's obvious why it can make biological sense for a man to impregnate someone and then leave. But for women too, it can make biological sense to have sex with a man who has great genes, even if that man either isn't likely to stick around, or if that man would make a bad partner and provider. In that case, the woman can get great genes from one man and then find another man to help her raise her children. Hence, yes, it can make biological sense for a woman to want to have a baby with someone but not to raise that baby with them -- and in these cases women feel lust but not romantic attraction towards someone.

Let's discuss this in more detail.

FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY

What's the biologically optimal reproductive strategy for a more or less average woman? We're not talking about a rich queen who can have dozens of high-quality partners and lovers, if she chooses. Instead, what is the biologically optimal reproductive strategy for women in more or less normal circumstances?

It is this: find an amazing man who has both great genes, and who is also a great partner to raise children with. And marry him, and live happily ever after. This is why women fantasize about their prince charming.

Talking about genes might sound a bit distasteful, but for most of history it was critical for women to be impregnated by a man with great genes. After all, for most of history, children had a high chance of dying. Therefore, being impregnated by someone with great genes may literally be the difference between life and death for your children. Get knocked up by someone with bad genes and your child dies when he's two years old. Get knocked up by someone with great genes, and your child survives. So obviously, the woman much prefers being knocked up by someone with great genes, and as a result having her child survive. Yes, this is harsh, but this is also what life was like for most of Earth's history -- and that's what attraction is based on.

Hence, you can't really blame women for being attracted to men with great genes (we'll discuss later what this means exactly). That basically just means that she doesn't want her children to die. The world is harsh towards women, and lots of women have been hurt very badly, including by them losing their children.

But of course, not every woman will be able to get commitment from a man who both has great genes and who is a great partner to raise children with. There simply isn't a huge amount of such men around, and as a result, such men are often picky. Young women love thinking about what kind of man they want, but women don't always ask themselves why the man that they want would choose to commit to her specifically, and not to any of the other women he has access to.

In earlier centuries, this issue of high-quality men being scarce was often solved by multiple women choosing to be with one man. Note that historically 40% of men reproduced while 80% of women did.

Yes, sometimes the man oppressed the women and forced them to be with him, but other times the women simply freely chose to be with a high-quality man, even though he already had a wife. That's not ideal, but it's also not ideal for a woman to be in a monogamous relationship with a man who has mediocre genes because then your offspring might die in childhood. For women, it often makes biological sense to share one high-quality man instead of having a mediocre man all to yourself. Even if the mediocre man loves her intensely and would do anything for her, and the higher-quality man doesn't.

Still, nowadays polygamy isn't very socially acceptable. So, what should a modern woman do if she can't get commitment from a man who has both great genes and who is a great partner?

Well, she could marry a man who has okay genes and who is okay to raise children with. Indeed, a lot of women choose to do just this. But if she does this, her children might still die when they're two years old.

Alternatively, she could marry a man with great genes, who isn't a great partner. But unfortunately, that might lead to him drinking or gambling away all the money, or it might lead to him abusing her. That isn't a good outcome. In previous centuries, the woman could literally get murdered this way, or she or her children might starve to death if her husband was a bad partner.

Or the woman could just freely offer up sex to a man with great genes and who would also make a great partner, hoping that he will stick around. But unfortunately, such a widely-desired man likely will not commit to an average woman. And so the woman may be left pregnant and alone. Even in modern society that's unpleasant and hard work, and in earlier centuries that might literally be a death sentence.

So all these options look pretty awful. All these options look like they might lead to the woman's children dying in childhood from having poor genes, or it might lead to the woman ending up with someone who just isn't a good partner (which in turn might lead to her children starving to death). So, what should the woman do?

Well, a woman has a couple of strategies that can solve this problem. All of these strategies involve getting great genes from one man, and having another man as a good partner. This way, she has both -- she has great genes, which means her children don't die in childhood, and she has a good partner, which means that she won't get beaten to a pulp and she and her children will have enough to eat.

The first of these strategies is: just freely offer up sex to men with great genes. Then once you're pregnant, if the great-genes man also seems like a good partner, try to leverage your baby to get commitment from him. If he refuses and walks out, say how terrible all men are. And then find Bob the accountant, who doesn't have great genes but who is a reliable, emotionally stable, financially well-off and a decently kind partner. Convince Bob to take care of you and your child, and voila, you have successfully secured both great genes and a good partner. Sure, you would rather have married prince charming who has both great genes and who is a great partner, but those men are rare, and biologically this is a pretty good outcome too. Congratulations, if you do this, your children probably won't die in childhood -- which sounds strange to say now, but was a genuinely huge danger in earlier centuries.

This is the strategy that a whole lot of modern women still use, mostly without realizing it. They spend their twenties having sex with men with great genes, get knocked up, possibly try to get commitment from the man, and if he refuses they simply find Bob the accountant. And so, both great genes and a good partner are secured. And this, plus state support for single mothers and women having an easier time earning money than they did historically, is why there are so many single mothers nowadays. Obviously in some cases the woman became pregnant through rape or the woman's husband died or whatever, but in most cases a woman becomes a single mother because she unconsciously pursued this strategy. In most cases, she knew deep down that this hot guy was unreliable or that he may not stick around, and yet she had unprotected sex anyway in order to get those great genes.

I'm not saying that women consciously set out to become a single mom. However if they just follow their instincts and their attraction, then this is the path that a lot of women are being led down. Because biologically speaking, securing high-quality seed and then marrying Bob the accountant is a pretty good strategy.

Women may protest this, saying that she would have loved to marry the man who impregnated her, he was just a jerk who walked out on her. And that's true, but often (not always) the context is that she freely gave up sex to a man who was either so desired that it was pretty clear that he may not stick around, or the man was obviously unreliable from the start. In other words, she chose to get impregnated not by a less hot but reliable man who would commit to her, but instead by a man with great genes who was either clearly out of her league or clearly unreliable. If these men walk out on her, then yes they indeed are jerks, indeed they shouldn't do that, however the women also have part of the responsibility here.

While a woman's biology is focused on stopping her children from dying in childhood, unfortunately it's emotionally quite bad for children to be raised by just one parent.

Okay, so this is the first strategy in the category of women securing great genes from one man, and having another man as a good partner.

The second of these strategies is: be in a relationship with Bob the accountant. Cheat on Bob the accountant and get knocked up by a man with great genes. Then quickly start having a bunch of sex with Bob and afterwards tell him that the child is his. Or in other words: cuckold Bob. Or in modern slang: cuck Bob. Or if you want to be formal about it: the woman may engage in paternity fraud, convincing the man to unknowingly raise another man's child.

Now obviously, women don't enter relationships with the conscious plan that they will cuck their partner. Yet at the same time, if women just follow their instincts and their attraction, then this is the road that some women are led down. Remember that we said that being too aware may actually be detrimental for a person's ability to be biologically successful?

So that's one way in which women can cuck men. She marries Bob the accountant, gives in to the temptation to cheat on him, gets knocked up and then pretends the child is his.

Alternatively, if the woman just has a bunch of one-night stands and then realizes she's pregnant, she might decide to knock on the door of whichever lover of hers would make the best father, and then tell him that the child is definitely his. Even if she's not actually entirely sure of that. If the other guy or guys are clearly unreliable or would otherwise make bad partners, a woman might choose to do this, because after all doesn't the child deserve a good father? This is another case where a woman might cuck her partner.

Now obviously, the vast majority of women don't cuck their men. On the other hand, it does happen. As an illustration, France has banned private paternity testing, to "preserve the peace of families." In other words, enough French men are cucked that the government felt the need to ban private paternity testing. 

Note that French men get cucked at about the same rate as men of other nationalities. This isn't about French men in particular, I'm just using them as an illustration.

To some people this might sound funny or as a joke, but I think it's absolutely awful if men get cucked. Imagine being lied to about something so fundamental for so long, by someone who you love. 

Moreover, biologically speaking it's a disaster to get cucked, because you'll be investing many resources and much time into someone who isn't your child. Moreover, if you're currently raising a child, you're probably not going out there and impregnating other women. A man who gets cucked may very well simply not reproduce. Being cucked may mean the end of a man's genetic line.

Being cucked is actually enough of a disaster, biologically speaking, that men have developed a preference for submissive, virgin women in part because those women are less likely to cuck him. Yes, really.

Men don't realize this, but men's sexual preferences have been strongly shaped by their unconscious desire to not get cucked. In fact, in some cultures this male fear of being cucked went so far that women weren't allowed to leave the house or talk to other men -- which of course isn't justified, but this does illustrate that this male fear of being cucked is intense indeed. After all, more men are cucked than people are aware of.

We'll talk more about the male perspective later. Let's return to the female perspective.

So we have discussed two female strategies that involve securing great genes from one man, and then having another man as a good partner. The first of these strategies was: spend your twenties on Tinder, get knocked up by someone with great genes and then as a single mom convince Bob the accountant to help you raise another man's child. The second of these strategies was: cuck Bob the accountant.

There's a third and final option, but it's not really a strategy -- it's not something that women actually do. It's more of a fantasy that some women have. This fantasy is: a man with great genes rapes her. That way, she has secured her great genes, and she has done so in a way that doesn't involve her cucking someone and that doesn't cause other people to shame her for engaging in unprotected casual sex (such social shame has been strong on Earth for a long time). Basically, in this fantasy, she has secured her great genes in a clean way -- or at least, clean from one perspective. Note that this fantasy is ruined by having the rapist man wear a condom. And this is why about half of all women have rape fantasies at some point in their lives. Does that make more sense now, in the context of this explanation?

I shouldn't need to say this, but obviously: don't rape people. Just because a person fantasizes about something, doesn't mean that she actually wants that thing to happen in real life.

OUR DEFINITION OF ATTRACTION

Earlier we said: if it makes biological sense to have a baby with someone and then raise the baby with that person, then there's romantic attraction. If it only makes biological sense to have a baby with someone but not to raise the baby with that person, then there's only lust.

With our new knowledge from the previous section, we can be a bit more specific about what biological sense actually means. So here's our more specific definition of attraction:

Men mostly feel lust or sexual attraction towards women who seem quite fertile (young enough, decent indicators of having great genes) and who seem unlikely to cuck him.

Women mostly feel lust or sexual attraction towards men who give off the best great-genes indicators in the pool of men she has ever had access to.

Men and women mostly feel romantic attraction towards someone whom they feel sexual attraction to and who also seems like a good partner.

WHAT DRIVES FEMALE ROMANTIC ATTRACTION?

We defined it in the previous section.

The archetypal male example is the knight. This is a man with great genes (he is handsome and masculine and strong) who is also a good partner (he is reliable and chivalrous, he is a defender of the innocent, he is rich and a good provider and he has a high place in society).

The man being a good provider is important here, because otherwise her children might starve to death. At least, that was true in previous centuries. So yes, average women do prefer being in a relationship with a man who can easily support a family, whatever that means in the current society of that time. Now, going from easily being able to support a family to being outright rich doesn't make a man that much more attractive to women. However, going from not being able to easily support a family to being able to easily support a family does make a man a lot more attractive in the eyes of the average woman. This doesn't mean that it's strictly necessary for a man to make a lot of money in order to find a girlfriend, just that it helps significantly. Unfortunately, in modern society, it can be pretty tough for a man to make enough money that he can easily support a family, especially by himself -- and women's biology is used to women being pregnant or breastfeeding for most of their adult life, so women's biology sort of expects men to do the vast majority of the money-making. Even if modern society often doesn't work like that.

Other than his income, a good partner is also someone who looks presentable, dresses well, treats his mother well, is a good father (an indicator of this is him treating a cat or dog well), is virtuous and kind, has compatible values with her and whom her friends and family approve of. It helps if she respects and likes him (which isn't necessary for female lust, but is helpful for female romantic attraction). I'm sure you can also think of several other factors that make someone a good husband.

It can happen that a woman realizes that she respects a man and that a man is everything that she says she wants, however she doesn't feel any sexual attraction towards him and therefore also doesn't feel romantic attraction towards him. This can cause cognitive dissonance in the woman, because here is a man that she says she wants to date, but she doesn't actually want to date him.

A woman's mind can solve this cognitive dissonance just by fabricating some rationalization why this particular man isn't a good partner -- while the real reason may simply be that she doesn't sexually desire him. Or the woman might decide that the reason why she's not attracted to him is that he must secretly be a jerk, and that's why there are women complaining about so-called nice guys, who are men who allegedly pretend to be nice but actually they're secretly jerks. But that's often not the real reason either. The problem is just that he's scoring poorly in the "great genes" category, and hence she doesn't sexually desire him.

Usually, when one person doesn't want to date or remain in a relationship with another person, the reason is simply that they don't feel sexual attraction towards the other person. That reason is rarely directly acknowledged, but that often is the real reason. Even if we're talking about a serious relationship, sexual attraction is still a necessary component for that.

WHAT DRIVES FEMALE LUST / FEMALE SEXUAL ATTRACTION?

As we said earlier: women mostly feel lust or sexual attraction towards men who give off the best great-genes indicators in the pool of men she has ever had access to.

That's it. It's not really about morality or virtue or being a good person or being a devoted partner. It's about the genes. And again, while harsh, this is what can make the difference between her offspring dying in childhood or her offspring growing up and thriving.

It has been observed that if two men show the exact same behavior, then women will label that behavior as creepy or inappropriate or disrespectful if it's done by an unattractive man, yet be okay with or even like that behavior if it's done by an attractive man. 

For example, if an unattractive man touches her arm without asking for consent, she will likely tell him that he shouldn't touch women without asking for consent. Meanwhile if she is touched by someone whom she considers to be attractive, then she will probably like it. Theoretically a woman should in that situation also tell him that he shouldn't touch her, because that's the rule that's communicated to men -- but in such a situation, women usually don't say that.

Men are told all these rules for how they should behave, but in reality there's one set of rules for how women want unattractive men to behave, and another set of rules for how women want attractive men to behave. Which leads to all kinds of confusion in men, because they are never told that there are actually two sets of rules and not just one.

After all, if an attractive man is direct, forward and physical to a reasonable degree then women often like that. If women fantasize about men, then that man isn't asking her for consent to touch her arm. In fact, if you read women's romance novels, the man often behaves in all kinds of creepy and stalking and controlling ways -- but because he's a billionaire with a six-pack, or an attractive immortal vampire, suddenly that normally-inappropriate and normally-creepy behavior is now actively hot. 

If an unattractive man is direct, forward and physical, then that behavior may get labeled as creepy, because the man himself isn't registered as "potential source of great-gene seed" but is instead registered as "potential danger." Women like it when potential sources of great-gene seed are being forward and direct, but don't like it when potential dangers are being forward and direct.

This is also why women are often very warm and empathetic and caring and nurturing towards hot men (because those men are potential sources of great-gene seed) while being possibly cold and indifferent and callous towards unattractive men (because those men are potential sources of danger).

That said, while inconsistent, I can understand this to a degree, because far too more women get sexually assaulted. Which leads to women formulating rules for how men should behave, in an attempt to keep themselves safe. Because women really don't want unattractive and potentially dangerous men to behave in ways that are hot if hot guys act like that. Not to mention that it's not really socially acceptable for women to say how they really feel about such topics.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that men should start behaving in all kinds of inappropriate ways, just because some women like it when some men do that. I'm saying that the situation isn't being clearly communicated to men. That doesn't mean that men have the right to just start touching women. Just because some women fantasize about certain things, doesn't mean that guys should just start doing those things in real life.

Also, I've been talking about men being direct, forward and physical to a reasonable degree. There's a point beyond which women no longer like that behavior, even if it's done by a hot guy.

On the other hand, if a woman is purely trying to secure great genes and is not trying to find a good partner, she may be willing to look past pretty much anything if that means being able to secure those great genes. See https://www.boredpanda.com/social-experiment-guy-created-fake-tinder-profile-hot-model-pictures-germanlifter/ and https://www.distractify.com/trending/2018/09/12/Z25CUDI/fake-hot-tinder-dude-criminal . 

WHAT ARE INDICATORS OF A MAN HAVING GREAT GENES?

Obviously women can't directly perceive genes. They can only look for indicators of great genes. So if a man is obese, he'll score poorly here. But if that same man then loses weight and gets a fit body, he'll score well here. His genes didn't change -- but the indicators that he's giving off did change. Hence, women are actually attracted to indicators of great genes, because that's all they can perceive. And men can become more attractive by developing in such a way that they give off better indicators of great genes. So while men can't change their genes, they can change the indicators they're giving off, and thus can become more sexually attractive to women.

So, what are indicators of a man having great genes?

Well, physical attractiveness are some indicators of a man having great genes. This includes having a fit body (but not necessarily being a huge muscle monster), having an attractive face, having a deep voice, being tall, not being overweight and having an above average penis size but not having a monster dick (women often think of these penises as average, when in reality they're above average in size).

Note that a fit body doesn't just say something about the genes that correspond to the person's body, it also says something about the genetics that correspond to a person's ability to get things done and commit to something and achieve something difficult. Therefore, hitting the gym or doing some serious exercise is a great way for a man to make himself more attractive to women. Plus exercise has all kinds of other benefits. Some men say that they lift weight primarily because it gives them mental clarity, and muscles are just a nice bonus.

The man showing masculine energy is attractive, because it says good things about the man's health and hormonal balance, and therefore about genes related to those. This also means that the man becomes sexier if he's capable of defending her. Dominance, power and confidence are also sexy.

Women are also attracted to indicators that the man has the kind of intelligence with which he can do things or with which he can be successful in society. It's not about raw IQ -- a math nerd who can't talk to people isn't particularly sexy. However, what is attractive is someone who can fix things around the house. Or someone who can start a successful business. Artists and musicians and good cooks are also attractive, because creativity is strongly tied to intelligence. Being well-read and cultured and good at conversation and being smooth and being funny are all linked to intelligence, and thus say something good about the man's genes.

It's attractive when a man is rich or successful or high-status or driven or slightly unsatisfied with his current situation. After all, a man who is for example rich likely has genes that have contributed to his ability to become rich. Therefore wealth is one indicator of the person having good genes. Therefore, all else being equal, the average woman would rather have a one-night stand with a rich man than with a poor man, even if it's done in the same hotel room. Yes, I know that women can create a poor man in their mind whom they would prefer over a stereotypically shallow, overweight rich man. Wealth isn't the only factor when it comes to attraction. But still, all else being equal, the average woman would rather sleep with someone who has more money than with someone who is broke.

What's also important is that the man is emotionally stable. Ideally he's emotionally open and emotionally healthy, because that says something about his genes and hormones. However if the man is simply emotionally numb and emotionally repressed, and always just says that he's fine and never shows huge emotion, that's good enough for a number of women (at least until they spiritually mature a bit more). So if a man wants success with women now, and doesn't want to first go through a several years long and possibly lonely process of healing, then the classic advice of "be stoic" is pretty good.

If other women like the man, or if other women have been with the man, that suggests that he's a high-quality man, because after all other women have judged him as such. So that's an attractive quality too. A number of men have noticed that after they started wearing a wedding ring, suddenly more women expressed an interest in him. Similarly, if the man has an attitude that the woman is free to leave if she wants, with the implication being that he's quite able to find another woman if she does leave, then that makes him more attractive.

It helps if he's exciting and if he emotionally stimulates her and makes her feel things and if he occasionally organizes fun things for them to do together. Women will generally forgive men for making mistakes (within reason), but women often won't forgive men for being boring.

It is attractive when a man says that he's simply always been good at something, or that certain things come naturally or easy to him. That is more attractive than to say that he worked very hard to get good at something. For example, a woman ideally wants her man to have the kind of body that you only get from working really hard in the gym and eating really clean, without the guy actually working super hard or eating super clean. Ideally she just wants him to naturally have an amazing body, or at least have built an amazing body with not too much effort.

After all, a man who is naturally great at something may have great genes. Now, women do respect hard work, but women also regularly choose to sleep with jerks instead of sleeping with hard-working men whom they respect. Just because a woman respects a man, doesn't mean she wants to sleep with him. A man whom she respects, but who has mediocre genes, may still produce offspring who die during childhood.

Women might also test men, for example by being unreasonable or disrespectful towards them or verbally poking them. The man passes the test and becomes more attractive if he doesn't let her walk over him and stands up for himself, without breaking down emotionally or becoming insecure or wildly overreacting.

Jerks and psychopaths are also attractive to the average woman because on Earth, jerks and psychopaths simply get more done. Most highly successful people have stepped on others on their way to the top. So it's beneficial for a woman to get impregnated by a jerk or psychopath, because then her children will be more like that too, and that will actually make them more successful on average (in earlier centuries, even adults sometimes starved to death). Note that convicted male serial killers get plenty of love letters from women.

In fact, if you factory-craft a man to awaken the maximal amount of lust possible in the average woman, then he's probably a psychopath. 

He's probably also someone who uses violence against any unattractive man who shows a sexual interest in her, even if he doesn't touch her or doesn't do anything threatening. After all, unattractive men who show an interest in her are potential threats in the mind of the average woman, because far too many women get sexually assaulted. Hence her boyfriend using violence is "protecting her" and thus that registers as hot in her reptile brain, even if objectively speaking violence isn't warranted there. Her rational mind doesn't want her boyfriend to use violence in those situations, but her reptile brain does.

Now if you give the average woman the choice to marry either a psychopath or an attractive good man, then many women will have enough sense to marry the attractive good man, and she will be genuinely sexually attracted to him. Still, the man in the world who is most capable of awakening lust in women is probably not a very good person. After all, lust just cares about securing good genes, and some psychopathy and some capability of violence in your offspring means that your children are more successful and therefore more likely to survive. Yes, it's a harsh world out there.

And those are the indicators of a man having great genes, which is what drives female lust.

Remember that female lust or female sexual attraction is one necessary component of female romantic attraction. So men, even if you want a serious relationship with a woman, take a look at the previous list. If you're a good partner, but you don't score highly in the great genes category, then you may get friendzoned. Or if the relationship starts, the sex may dry up after a certain period of time.

FEMALE SEX DRIVE

What's actually natural is for the average woman to want more sex than the average man, and for the woman to keep wanting sex multiple times per week until she's basically so old or sick that she can barely move anymore. 

It used to be widely recognized that women were the sexually insatiable gender, for example in the middle ages. This modern idea is just wrong that it's natural for women to not want a lot of sex, especially a couple of years into the marriage.

Now, a lot of women might read this and think "I genuinely don't want sex" or "I genuinely don't want that much sex", and for some women that will genuinely be how they're wired. However in most cases women think of mediocre sex with unattractive partners and conclude that they don't want a lot of THAT. Sure, I wouldn't want that either. However, even older women, many years into their marriage, will probably want lots of sex if her husband is hot enough. So the problem is really that of the woman simply not sexually desiring the husband.

So wives in the middle ages were seen as sexually insatiable, while modern women are often seen as people who don't like sex much. The reason for this isn't men just getting worse. Instead, it's the structure of society that has changed, which has caused lots of women to be with men whom they don't sexually desire (maybe aside from that one or two times in the month where everything lines up just right).

Namely: I said that women mostly feel lust or sexual attraction towards men who give off the best great-genes indicators in the pool of men she has ever had access to.

So if the woman is a sheltered virgin, or has never been physically attractive, then likely she will not perceive high-quality men as being in her pool, and she may very well feel genuine lust towards fairly average men. And if she then starts a relationship with a fairly average man, probably both partners are very happy. It might sound bad for the woman to feel lust towards her husband, but there's nothing wrong with female lust and female sexuality. In fact, it's very healthy if a wife feels lust towards her husband. 

However if she spends her twenties sleeping with hot guys who won't commit to her or who aren't reliable partners, and then in her thirties starts a relationship with a man who is actually a good partner and willing to commit to her -- then well, odds are that the sex will dry up after a number of years. Because some of the men she bedded in her twenties probably had better great-genes indicators than her current husband does. 

In other words, it's not that determinantal for a woman to have casual sex with men in her league. However, if a woman sleeps with hot guys outside her league (guys who won't commit to her), then she may be ruining her future ability to be sexually attracted towards her partner. And yes, this does matter, both for her sake and her partner's sake, as well as the health of the relationship overall.

It's really quite hard for an average young man to date nowadays, because the women he is trying to date often use social media and internet dating to handpick and hook up with the few guys around who have some really great genes. Moreover, modern young women also grow up looking at really hot guys on a screen, which sort of tricks their unconscious mind into thinking that these kinds of men are around -- after all, people's biology hasn't caught up to modern technology. As a result, average guys that a century ago would have been considered perfectly fine by women are now considered to be undateable. Even if average men find someone, that relationship might end or the sex might dry up, because years ago she used Tinder to hook up with that guy who had some amazing genes, and so he is no longer sexy. Even if she didn't do that, her unconscious mind knows that she could spend an hour on Tinder and arrange sex that very week with a man who has better genes than her current boyfriend or husband does.

Basically, if you're not a young guy, you don't understand what dating is like for young men, because you've probably never tried dating women who grew up with social media and internet dating.

Even if you are an attractive young guy who is doing well dating-wise -- you probably don't understand what dating is like for another man who worked just as hard as you did, however who was simply born uglier or shorter or dumber than you were, or was born in a less functional family than you were. 

Even if you're average, well, half of all people are below average.

Men, please have some compassion for struggling other men, because it's entirely possible that they were born with some disadvantage somewhere that you weren't born with, which can really make their life or dating much more difficult for them than you may realize. Frankly, you may not realize what their life is like. Now, men love to ascribe their success to their hard work or to their smart choices or to their great skills or whatever, and certainly those are factors, however usually it's also a factor that the man was simply born with pretty good looks or a pretty good brain or into a functional family -- and not all men were.

This is why attractive men sometimes give absolutely useless advice to other men, such as: "just talk to people" or "just be yourself" or "learn game" or "you know, my secret is that I treat women as human beings." While these bits of advice aren't necessarily wrong, they also don't allow an average young guy to attract a woman. Basically, the life of a guy with great genes is just that women are automatically attracted to him, so long as he occasionally talks to people and doesn't do anything crazy. If he then additionally gets his life somewhat in order, great, he can easily find a girlfriend. Well, good for him. But if a guy who gives off indicators of poor genes does the exact same things, he may have zero luck with women. It's basically an entirely different dating world out there for men who are and for men who aren't attractive.

SO, WHAT CAN A MAN DO IN TERMS OF DATING?

If you want sex, maximize your indicators of having great genes, as described above. You can't negotiate desire. So if you want more sex, pick something from that list and start working on it, whether that's losing weight and hitting the gym (probably the quickest option for the average guy) or finding a better job or learning to play an instrument or learning to cook or whatever.

If you want a good relationship, make sure you score decently well in both the categories of having great genes and being a good partner. You don't need to be a top scorer in either category, but you need to score decently well in both. If you don't show indicators of having great genes, then the woman may friendzone you or dump you or stop sleeping with you. If you don't show that you can be a good partner (which includes showing that you can comfortably support a family), then women may be happy to sleep with you but you may struggle to find a conventionally desirable woman to have a stable relationship with. And yes, a stable relationship will ultimately make you happier than a bunch of casual sex will.

If there's a relationship issue that's really concrete and straightforward to solve, well, great. Solve it. In this case the woman may simply make a reasonable request that you do something, and then you do it, and the problem is solved. Good.

If there's a relationship issue that seems a bit more vague, or if your partner isn't being reasonable, or it seems like your partner is making a huge deal out of something that really isn't that big of an issue, then most often the problem is that she simply doesn't desire you enough. Even if it doesn't seem that this is the problem, often this actually is the problem. The solution is to improve your indicators of having great genes. 

Men often try to solve vague relationship issues through doing more things for her or taking on more housework or being more emotionally open or buying her something or giving her a few massages. This can give you points in the "good partner" category, but it won't help in the "great genes" category and can even cost you points there if you're doing more for her than she's doing for you. A woman doesn't inherently lose attraction to a man who does something for her, but she may lose attraction to you if you do more for her than she does for you.

Focus too much on pleasing or helping her, while not hitting the gym, and you may end up in a situation where the woman respects you but doesn't want to sleep with you.

However, less often the problem can be that you're not scoring highly enough in the category of "is a good, devoted partner." The solution here can be to get a better job. Or it can be to prove that you're devoted to her (i.e. stop seeing other women, do something romantic, invest in her, arrange a fun trip together, or show in some other way that you're committed to her specifically).

Don't listen to advice from older men, because they don't understand what it's like to date women who grew up with screens and social media and internet dating. Also don't listen to advice from more successful or more handsome men, because compared to you they're playing the dating game on easy mode. Definitely don't listen to the typical female advice, because it presupposes attraction -- if a typical woman says that she wants an emotionally open man, what she means is that she wants an attractive man, ideally one who is also emotionally open. And how does a man become attractive? Look at the "great genes" list.

When looking at the "great genes" list, don't compare yourself to some ideal man who has five or ten of these indicators. Yes, such men exist, but average men have maybe one or two such indicators. That's who you're mostly competing with. So if you have a couple of these indicators, or if you can get a couple of these indicators, then you're doing decently well. The average man who you're competing with probably doesn't really have his things together. Don't underestimate yourself: for a large chunk of men, beating the average man is something that's within reach, possibly given some time and work. And you don't need a huge amount of these great genes indicators in order for some average women to be attracted to you.

Different women prioritize different things in the "great genes" category. One woman might go for creative types, another might go for a guy with a fit body, another might go for an entrepreneur. This leads to women saying that women have a varied taste, and every man can find some woman who matches well with him. And it is true that you can certainly find your own particular way to become attractive to women. However, what is also true is that just about all women prefer a man with a handsome face. They prefer a man who is a bit taller than her. They prefer a man who isn't suffering from anxiety. They prefer a man who is confident and capable. They prefer a man who has his own place and has his finances in order. Et cetera.

So yes, if we're talking about two men who each have strengths in different areas, then some women will feel more attraction towards one and other women will feel more attraction towards the other. But if we're talking about men who have strengths across the board, then huge amounts of women will feel attracted towards him. Whereas if we're talking about a man who has few or no strengths anywhere, then it may be true that literally zero women are attracted to this man.

In other words, if you as a man have certain great indicators in the "great genes" category but not other indicators in that category, then sure, go on a bunch of dates and you may find someone. But if you simply have very few or no indicators in the "great genes" category, then dating may very well just be completely painful and pointless for you, and it might be more beneficial to not date at the moment and to focus on improving yourself, or to just focus on some hobby or some spiritual pursuit. Yes, I know that may be harsh and painful, but it is the reality.

Some more advice: when trying to find a girlfriend, don't over-focus on physical beauty. Don't overlook women who are a bit less conventionally attractive or a bit less outgoing and charismatic. There are some great women out there who are sometimes overlooked just because lots of guys go for conventionally good-looking women. At the same time, ladies, it also doesn't hurt to approach men you're interested in. I know that can be scary, but it's scary for men too to approach you. Very few men in 2023 mind being asked on a date by a woman, and in fact most men would be flattered in that situation.

Men, while society nudges you to do so, please don't tie your self-worth to your ability to get a girlfriend or get sex. Some virtuous, caring, hard-working men struggle in this area because of how they were born, while other men who seriously make the world a much worse place have a much easier time here. Frankly, most guys would have an easier time dating if they became a bit more jerk-like and if they suppressed their negative emotions -- but of course, that wouldn't actually make them a better person, or make the world a better place. Hence, whether women desire you or not, really doesn't say a lot about your worth or value as a person.

Men also tend to start having an easier time dating once they hit 30 or 35. At least, if they have been spending at least some amount of time in their 20s getting their life in order and learning some skills. 

SO, HOW ABOUT MALE LUST?

As we said earlier: men mostly feel lust or sexual attraction towards women who seem quite fertile (young enough, decent indicators of having great genes) and who seem unlikely to cuck him.

The real cost of casual sex to men isn't the energy that it takes to produce a bit of semen. That only costs about as much energy as a man gets from eating a banana. It's not a big investment.

The real cost of casual sex to men also isn't that he might knock up a woman and then be societally forced to marry her. Biologically speaking, that's actually a good outcome -- that way he has a wife and a child already on the way. Sure, in this scenario he can't father thirty children with ten different women, but the percentage of men who can pull that off is tiny anyway. For the average man, knocking a woman up and then marrying her is biological success. Only 40% of men reproduced historically speaking. So knocking up and then marrying a woman is actually an above average outcome for a man, historically speaking. This scenario isn't a risk, it's a feature.

So, what is the cost of casual sex for men? Some single men will turn down casual sex from some women -- what is the biological reason for them doing that?

To answer that, let's consider a question that initially might seem puzzling. It is the following. A man can choose to have a one-night stand with either a virgin or with a sexually experienced woman (who is free from sexual diseases). After that one night, they won't sleep together again and won't date each other again. Which woman does the man choose to sleep with?

Well, the sexually experienced woman will be better at giving him pleasure and she will be less awkward and anxious, right? So wouldn't it make sense for the man to choose her? After all, if a woman can choose between a one night stand with a male virgin or a man who is sexually experienced, she will typically choose the latter. Which makes sense, because indeed a sexually experienced person will be better in bed.

And yet, most men will choose the virgin.

Why?

Now sure, you can say all kinds of things like "well men are more attracted to virgins" or "men feel more comfortable when being with virgins" but what is the biological basis for that? Why are men more attracted to the female virgin? 

It's because the real biological risk of casual sex to men is that the woman may turn up a month later and say that she's pregnant with his child -- while actually being pregnant with another man's child.

In other words, the risk of casual sex to men is that he might get cucked. 

And again, while this is often joked about on Earth, I think it's tragic and completely unjustified when men get cucked.

So, in other words, men feel lust towards quite fertile-looking women who also score pretty well in the category of "is unlikely to cuck him."

The following are indicators for men that a woman is unlikely to cuck him. First and foremost is that she's a virgin or at least sexually inexperienced. There's also: is she inexperienced in general? Is she submissive and feminine and willing to do traditionally feminine things (such as cook and clean)? Is she an open and reliable person? Does she take responsibility for her actions and mistakes? Is she devoted to or in love with her husband? Does she listen to her husband? Is she unlikely to go out by herself and get drunk or flirt or touch other men? Does she appreciate men and empathize with men? Does she support her husband even if he's having a hard time? Did she support her husband even before he became successful or even before he got his life together? Is she economically dependent on him (which reduces the chances of her cucking him)? Does she live in a small village with strong social or religious controls? Does she simply not have high-quality men in her orbit? (This is part of why men dislike dating successful women -- she has access to successful men and is thus more likely to cuck him.) Is she sexually conservative? (This is where the female "don't have sex on the first date" or "make him wait for sex" strategies come from -- it's a signal that she's sexually conservative and thus less likely to cuck him. However, this can backfire because the man simply might find another woman who will immediately sleep with him.)

Note that modern women typically score much worse in this category than women of past centuries did. That, plus an unfair divorce court, are some reasons why a number of men are simply not dating anymore (but possibly are willing to have casual sex if they can get it). And the group of men who simply aren't dating anymore includes some pretty desirable men. This is part of the answer to the female question: "where have all the good men gone?" Well, to be blunt, part of this is women are scoring much worse in the "is she likely to cuck him" category, and so men are less interested in women.

Even today single Chinese women over 27 are called "leftover women." This illustrates that in previous centuries, the deal for average Western men was that if they worked hard, they could probably find a young, slender, feminine, relatively sexually inexperienced woman to marry. And because she was sexually inexperienced, she was likely to be sexually attracted to the man, meaning that the sex isn't drying up after a couple of years and she won't divorce him. Men think that's a great deal, and so men in previous centuries worked hard, and society thrived. 

Currently, the deal for average men is that if they work hard, they can probably marry a 30+, not very feminine, possibly overweight woman who has been with lots of men (and hence the sex may dry up a couple of years into the relationship). She may still be secretly fantasizing about that one hot guy she slept with five or ten years ago, or wishing that she had been able to settle down with that one man who got away. She may also have a child from another man, or psychological issues, or student debt, or some hostility or bitterness towards men, or strong left-wing / feminist beliefs that the man may not share, or she may need to have children RIGHT NOW with anyone who would be her partner because her biological clock is ticking. 

Also, if she gets bored, she can divorce him and take half his stuff.

That's a LOT less good of a deal, from the man's perspective.

And so, while many men who in previous centuries would have worked hard and married, many men now choose to start sleeping around. Or they choose to play video games all day because working hard isn't worth it anymore. Or they may adopt some belief system that many people would label as bad. 

And it's not just undesirable men doing this. Plenty of desirable men too, whom women would love to marry, have decided to just focus on themselves, sleep around and never commit to anyone.

So, that's where all the good men have gone. 

Some women feel that men have gotten worse, however men aren't inherently worse than they used to be. It's just that society is squeezing men. Society takes advantage of good, hard-working men. And there's much less respect for and reward for being a good, hard-working, marriage-minded man. Many men would rather play video games all day or sleep around than become Homer Simpson.

Women might say that women have problems too and women get treated unfairly too, by society and by some men. Yes, that is indeed true. However, women being treated unfairly too doesn't actually provide an incentive for men to stop sleeping around or stop playing video games all day.

Now yes, it is true that there are 20-something men out there who find an amazing woman and they live happily ever after. However, in 2023 that's not what usually happens -- 60% of young men are single (compared to only about 30% of young women, because they can date older men or share one high-quality man with multiple women). And the 40% of young men who are in a relationship aren't necessarily in a good, happy, healthy relationship that is going to last a long time. So basically: most young men are single, and there is only a small group of young men who are in happy, healthy relationships that are going to last a long time. Also, these average guys won't have much Tinder success, contrary to 20-something women.

I know it didn't used to be as bad as what I'm describing. Unless you are an average single young man in 2023, it's really hard to wrap your head around just how hard dating has become for young men, in large part because the women they're trying to date grew up with social media and internet dating. 

Now, I'm not saying that dating, or life in general, is a picnic for people other than young men. It's not. However dating has become so bad for average young men that many of them have just given up. And in turns, that severely damages society at large, thus indirectly hurting everyone. After all, young men are the workhorses of society. Or at least, they would be the workhorses of society if they felt that working hard was worth it. This is one (though not the only) reason why things are getting more expensive: disengaged men means that fewer things are made, which means that money chases fewer products, which means that more money has to be spent to purchase a product.

This isn't a matter of "men were happy back when they oppressed women, and now they can't oppress women as much anymore and that makes them sad." Women, too, were on average happier in the past than they are now. It's easy to think of a past woman who was trapped in a marriage with an abusive or irresponsible husband, or a woman who was held back from something that she really wanted to do because of her gender. Of course that's awful, and of course women should have full rights. But, well, most past women weren't married to an abusive husband, or were brilliant scientists who were blocked by sexism. Most past women got into a relationship with a man in her 20s and they lived happily ever after. The average woman back then was happier than the average woman is now. 

The solution isn't chaining women to the kitchen, but I think women would benefit from being aware that everything in the "cuck indicator" category may make her less able to find a quality husband. Also, later in this message we'll discuss in more depth what women can do with regards to dating.

Women at this point might say that these male preferences for anti-cuck indicators (such as virginity) are unfair or irrational, and that men should get over it. Well, maybe they are irrational. But if you want to put it like that, then women have unfair or irrational attractions too. For example, all else being equal, women prefer guys who are a bit taller than they are, over shorter guys. Well, that is unfair, because men can't change their height. It's also irrational, because height factors more heavily into a woman's evaluation of a man than it logically should. 

And if women want to argue here that their preference for taller men is rational because that's what they're attracted to, well, men can similarly say that their preference for virgins is rational because that's what they're attracted to. It's the same argument. These male anti-cuck preferences aren't more unfair or irrational than women's preferences are.

If you try explaining to a woman that her attraction to taller guys is irrational, then she will probably get annoyed, and most likely you will not remove her preference for taller guys. Similarly, trying to explain to men that their preference for sexually inexperienced women is irrational, is similarly likely to just make them annoyed or defensive and not change their preference. Shaming men, or telling them to get over it, also isn't going to work here.

WHAT DRIVES MALE ROMANTIC ATTRACTION?

One part of that is sexual attraction, as we have just covered.

The other half of it is that he thinks that she's a good partner. These are all the things you would expect: she's a good mother, she's kind and pleasant, she has the same values that he does, his friends and family approve of her, she can cook and take care of the house, et cetera.

While men may be willing to overlook "she might cuck me" indicators for a one-night stand, men who have options are quite unlikely to overlook bad "she might cuck me" indicators when evaluating a woman for a serious relationship. So if a man with options meets a decently pretty woman who gives off bad "she might cuck me" indicators, then he's probably willing to sleep with her but not willing to commit to her.

SO, WHAT CAN A WOMAN DO IN TERMS OF DATING?

Well, if she wants to find a man: make herself look as pretty as possible (thus signaling great genes), work on being a good partner and minimize the indicators that she might cuck her husband. 

Note that women already in some cases try to minimize indicators that she might cuck her husband. For example, women tend to seriously undercount and underreport how many sexual partners they have had.

Of course, a woman's life belongs to her, and she has free will. It's still her choice. And I had a lot of casual sex myself and then found a great husband, so I'm not going to preach that women should never have casual sex. However, men do prefer dating women who have had fewer sexual partners. I think reality should be acknowledged, so that people can then make more informed decisions. Choose what you will, but ideally live in reality and make informed choices.

Note that casual sex is especially damaging if women do it with the type of man who is out of their league (namely a man who will sleep with her but who won't commit to her). If a woman does that, it could damage her ability to have a satisfying sex life down the road with the type of man who actually is in her league (a man who will commit to her). Some married women are still secretly desiring that one really hot guy they slept with five or ten years ago.

If a woman finds herself complaining that men only want sex, or that men are completely unserious about relationships, then she may be trying to date out of her league (i.e. dating men who will sleep with her but won't commit to her). She may be trying to date men who think she's attractive enough to sleep with, but not high-quality enough to give commitment to (possibly because she scores somewhat poorly in the "cuck indicator" category).

SOME DATING ADVICE FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN

For both men and women, if you're significantly overweight, losing weight is usually the most effective way to become more sexually attractive (which is also important for romantic relationships). If you're an overweight guy and you hit the gym without losing weight, then you will become stronger but you won't become that much more attractive to the average woman. Overweight guys who regularly go to the gym often say that they have become strong, but that they don't look like they lift. If you look at a picture of a guy with a great body, he probably is quite lean. Of course, going to the gym can help with weight loss, but what you eat is more important for weight loss than how much you exercise. You can't outrun your fork.

For the average person, weight loss is easiest to achieve by eating tons of carbs, a low amount of fat (about 15 grams per day), a low amount of protein, and very few vegetables (for example, once or twice per week). Carbs include fruit, fruit juice, potatoes (can be combined with apple sauce), rice, bread (some honey is fine), pasta and legumes. For your fat and protein intake, two eggs per day is a great option, plus there's probably a small bit of fat and protein in the rest of your food. Be careful that you don't go overboard with fats in butter or cooking oil or in various processed foods or in sauces. Steaming your food might help. Listen to your body and adjust accordingly. White rice is absolutely fine, and non-GMO soy sauce is a great condiment. Simply eating a bunch of fruit can also be a great meal, and it might help digestion to eat one fruit at a time. For example, a meal might be five bananas. If you eat like this, really make sure that you eat sufficient carbs. The easiest ways to fail at this way of eating are to not eat sufficient carbs or to not drink sufficient water. It might help to drink plenty of water at the start of or just before every meal. If beyond the initial transition period you lack energy, or can't stop thinking about high-fat food, then you probably need more carbs (or you need to tackle some health or psychological issue you might have). You might gain a bit of initial weight, but that's water weight and glycogen weight, and you'll start losing weight soon enough. Also, if you have a health condition, talk to your doctor first.

For both men and women, keep in mind that for most of history people have been living together in small villages or small tribes, with strong social controls. That basically meant that if you could regularly see a person, there was a good chance that you could marry them, either because you were just the only single person in their age range, or because there can be an arranged marriage, or because you could convince that man to have sex with you and then he would be culturally forced to marry you. So both men and women, you probably have an idea somewhere deep in your mind that if you regularly see a person, there's a good chance you can marry them. But of course, in the modern world, just because you can see a movie star on your screen, or see a super hot person's profile on Tinder or Facebook, doesn't mean that this person is actually a dating option for you.

So: be careful with spending too much time looking at hot people on screens, even hot people who are keeping their clothes on. That can impact your ability to be attracted to people who you can be in a relationship with.

Now people do rationally understand that they can't directly date the hot person on their screen. But then they sometimes lower the quality of partner they're looking for by only a bit, and they may still end up trying to go for some of the more desirable people in their surroundings. Which works for some people, sure. But it can also mean that a not very attractive person may overlook options that they actually do have and instead they may chase people who are outside their league. After all, this old "if I can regularly see them, I can marry them" idea is no longer true. So what I am saying is: if you keep going for people who refuse to commit to you, then you may be trying to date outside your league. In this case, it may be wise to either work on making yourself more desirable (from the perspective of the other gender, not from your own perspective) or to lower your standards.

Also, please read my previous message "Tunia: leading and following in relationships." That relationship dynamic is a great way to create attraction even between two partners, even if they aren't the hottest people around.

CASES STUDIES

There's a common story where the woman falls in love with a bad boy, or with a poor or non-responsible artist or musician, or with a somewhat successful criminal. After all, bad boys and musicians and reasonably successful criminals score pretty highly in the "great genes" category, which can make a woman fall in love with them. But then eventually the woman wants her man to also score highly in the category of "is a good person to raise a family with." So she might push the bad boy or the musician or the criminal to get his act together, stop being a jerk and get some respectable job. In theory, this way she can create her own prince charming, who scores high in both categories. But in practice, this often ends poorly. If he refuses to get a normal job, she may dump him because she understands she can't raise a family while being married to a bad boy or starving artist or criminal, no matter how sexy he is. And if he does agree to get a normal job, she might lose attraction to him, because now she turned her bad boy or starving artist or criminal boyfriend into Bob the accountant. And Bob the accountant isn't sexy. Hence after a while the sex might dry up, or she might dump him, even though he did exactly what she asked.

There's the situation where the wife is almost never in the mood and almost never initiates sex, but the husband and wife enjoy it when they do have sex. Sometimes in these situations, the woman even says that they should have sex more often, because it's fun and it brings them closer together. This is a case where her rational mind goes: "I should be having sex with my husband, because I enjoy it and it brings us closer together." But her vagina and her biology go: "nope, I don't want to risk getting impregnated by someone with mediocre genes, because then I might get a child who dies during childhood." (Biology hasn't quite caught up to contraception yet.)

Hence the trope that men need to wait for the stars to align, clean the house and have a dinner with candlelight before she will maybe have sex with him. Or he needs to wait for that one or two times per month where her hormones are such that she's willing to even have sex with someone who doesn't quite have the best genes.

If she is actually sexually attracted to him, he will know, because she will be jumping him multiple times per week, out of her own volition, even if the house is messy. The average woman has a higher sex drive than the average man, but only to men she's actually sexually attracted to.

Let's consider a woman who early in her life freely and immediately offered sex to hot guys, even if they didn't have their life together or if they didn't treat her well. After all, back then she was just looking for great genes. But then later in life, she decides to start looking for a serious husband, and now suddenly she might decide that she only has sex with a man after this many dates or that many months. Now she only has sex with a man if he has his life together and is reliable and pays for their dates. This can be entirely rational from her side. She just doesn't want to be used anymore and she now wants a stable and real relationship. But from his perspective, she has all these demands and requirements, and he has to pay for dates and has to wait this long for sex, while earlier in her life she freely handed out sex to men of no virtue, just because they happened to have been born with a handsome face. From his perspective, this is unfair. He's doing what he should be doing, and she's giving him a relatively hard time, while she freely slept with jerks or men who were simply born handsome earlier in her life.

Next, note that most men who are in relationships score reasonably highly in the "great genes" category and reasonably highly in the "good partner" category. They're not the hottest guys around, but this combination makes them pretty good husband material. For this typical kind of husband, an open relationship absolutely sucks. After all, in an open relationship the woman is likely to just use him for a home base and to primarily start sleeping with men with great genes. His genes aren't the best around. Now, yes, he can also start sleeping with other women, but other women also won't think that his genes are the best. What made him appealing to women is his combination of pretty good genes and being a pretty good partner, but other women aren't that likely to have casual sex with him if he can't use the carrot of offering up monogamous commitment to them. Hence, this typical kind of husband might have an awful time in an open relationship. Meanwhile, women of course have an easy time in an open relationship, because lots of men are happy to have casual sex with a woman, even if she doesn't have the best genes.

So open relationships mostly just work for men who do score highly in the "great genes" category. But even then, it might not work that great because now the husband might start having a lot of sex and the wife might start feeling insecure or might start worrying that her home life is being threatened. I'm not saying that open relationships literally can't work, they can, however they usually don't. And this isn't a matter of people just not being spiritually or emotionally mature enough -- if my husband and myself agreed that we could just start sleeping with anyone we wished, then I think that at least one of us would become unhappy.

CONCLUSION

I hope this was helpful. Of course I've been generalizing in this message. I have also been discussing the default behavior of the average person. Not everyone behaves like this. Still, a lot of people do.

Fortunately, dating should become a whole lot easier somewhere in the future, whether that's with Pleiadians or with fellow Earth humans. Once better healthcare, better nutrition, a better economic situation and emotional healing are available, a lot of dating obstacles and dating turn-offs should be eliminated. 

I know that times are tough there on Earth, and the energies are really intense right now. Hang on, better times really are coming.

With all my love,

Your star sister,

Tunia