“Women love opportunistically” – Xsplat

The implications of this are usually ignored.

Women give value to men based on a variety of signals, as we all know. Muscular fitness is an independent signal from financial status which is independent from diamond core confidence. What messes with MOST peoples heads is the word AND. MOST people do not have the mental wiring to be able to string together independent variables with the word AND.

AND brings us a very complicated weave of overlapping and mixing and dynamically changing variables. Attraction does not reduce down from money to a core of confidence, and two equally confident men in SOME situations will not have the same attraction results, if other variables differ, such as facial attractiveness, social power, height, etc.

If you truly understand that women love opportunistically, you can’t have a black and white idea of alpha fucks and beta bucks.

Because some of what women LOVE will make them orgasm more.

There was a large study done in China that concluded that women orgasm MUCH more for wealthy men.

It did not conclude that women don’t orgasm for poor men, or that no poor men cause as many orgasms as the richest men. It concluded that wealth, on average, was correlated with an increase in women’s SEXUAL response.

So the LOVE that women have, which is towards a weighted average, is both PRAGMATIC, AND SEXUAL.

Would western college aged girls on average orgasm more for wealthy men? Maybe. Maybe not.

The context will make a difference on what is pragmatic to the girl. The girl might not be in a position where wealth from a man is much of a pragmatic advantage.

But if it were a PRAGMATIC advantage, she would not love the man FOR his money, she would love the man WITH money.

Her subconscious would perform a calculation of value, and AFTER that calculation inform her what to FEEL.

And then she’d be more likely to orgasm, because that’s the pragmatic thing to do, with more valuable men.


If you are inclined to disagree with the above, please read this to see if we are actually in more agreement than we thought:

It has been scientifically carefully and repeatedly studied that our confirmation bias increases as soon as we state an opinion.

I’ve met some teachers who have noticed this in their own lives, and have complained of becoming unstoppably fixed in their views and arrogant. One teacher explained to me that this was not actually his fault, because it was the human condition, and that if I was ever a teacher it would happen to me too.

I also understand that in order to persuade someone, if you come across as the adversary, they will dig in their heels and defend their point of view.

And if a guy comes across as a braggart who is out to AMOG (show off and one up and put others down), no matter what he says might simply rub people the wrong way. It’s not about about what he says any more. He’s just unlikeable, and seems disagreeable, and therefore should be disagreed with, on principle. I feel that way towards many, many people, and I discount useful views all the time, because I don’t like the personalities who hold those views.  I’m primed to disagree, and every sentence they write primes me more.

None the less, I think it’s extremely pragmatic, to take a fresh look at the alpha fucks beta bucks meme. Could it be a truth in the exact same way that an independent variable such as muscles increase attraction is a truth? A partial truth, that intersects with others, depending on context?

It doesn’t cost any money to change your mind.

There actually isn’t much social penalty, to alter ones viewpoint.

I do come across with my ideas in an adversarial way. That’s on me. You know? That’s my fault.

That has nothing to do with changing your own opinion.

And it really is the human condition that we are not wired to change our opinions.

It’s MUCH easier to formulate coherent ideas than it is to adjust them.

It’s MUCH easier to formulate blog posts, than it is to interact skilfully in the comments section in a way that listens without bias.