how to communicate you are the prize?

[Ricky]

Extreme Discipline & self respect

But in a world which is becoming increasingly designed too distract and devalue this is getting harder and harder

Women have an easy route too "high value & status " because all they really need to do is look good ,not be a Sloot and be nurturing towards their men& children

Although the vast majority of single women can't even do that very well

Men have a much more difficult and laborious task of having to basically build their value out of nothing especially if they are below 6ft and aren't built like a tank

Every day I have to wake up and have a battle with my mind about wether I can be bothered to go out and put another brick into this empire I am expected to build just to bag some chick who has basically just needed to look attractive and not be a CVNT

There are a lot of advantages to being a man ....but dating is not one of them I find it absolutely incredible a female can have the game so heavily stacked in her favour and yet still complain she has no options and be miserable

Women's problem… in particular if they are attractive is having too many choices.

i recently bought a new smartwatch for my training and the company i bought it from has so many variations of watches now that it was more difficult than it should have been to decide on a model to get.

in this particular case i am happy with the one i got and don’t really perceive that i am missing out on anything because it has met my needs well and other than one freeze up the day before a race has performed well

compare that with a woman. Too many options out there for them and if they dont like the one they select they can choose other that they kept in their shopping cart and not worry much about returning you as there are constantly more models being released

 

[pipeman84]

I find this topic interesting, so I'm going to do some thinking out loud:

"I am the great prize to be won". This idea originates with Pook, if I'm not mistaken? I've always had a bit of a problem with it. Usually guys pursue women and consider them the prize, which is admittedly a bad frame of mind to proceed from. But the idea of "I am the prize" flips the script, meaning the guy has the value and the girl should pursue him. I always thought this mindset would have worked better back in the '50s, when women really were looking for husbands to support them.

The concept seems to say "You should pursue me because I am better than you". I can't remember ever entering an interaction with a woman having this attitude. What men and women find attractive in each other are often very different qualities, so it shouldn't seem like a competition. I've always preferred the attitude "I am a high value male" as a reason for the female to pursue. That doesn't place any value judgement on her as being inferior, like "I am the prize" does.

I think that's an incorrect interpretation. As I see it, she should pursue the guy because he's supposed to be the leader of the relationship. It's all about traditional male - female dynamics and even if nowadays she's not as dependent on his financial support as in the past, he's still supposed to be the rock in her ocean of emotions.

So I agree, it's not a competition, each has it's own complementary role, just like the brain and the heart have in the body.

 

[PlatoPacks23]

Women's problem… in particular if they are attractive is having too many choices.

i recently bought a new smartwatch for my training and the company i bought it from has so many variations of watches now that it was more difficult than it should have been to decide on a model to get.

in this particular case i am happy with the one i got and don’t really perceive that i am missing out on anything because it has met my needs well and other than one freeze up the day before a race has performed well

compare that with a woman. Too many options out there for them and if they dont like the one they select they can choose other that they kept in their shopping cart and not worry much about returning you as there are constantly more models being released

fantastic point,, so what do you do to combat it?

 

[Bingo-Player]

Women's problem… in particular if they are attractive is having too many choices.

Oh yea for sure but that's why the smart women go for men within their immediate social circles or workplaces because it makes life easier

Attractive women have all types of men swooning over them from about 15+ ....the smart ones quickly figure out what men want and instantly disqualify ones who are desperate for it

Women are a lot better at selecting a partner than we give them credit for they often use criteria we are completely unaware of

Social security being a massive one

When I was a teenager working in a large local cafe there was a lot of young chicks working there too ....I was a bit naive and a virgin back then so I was quite wary of them none the less I was just myself and sure enough after a bit of time of us all getting used to each other the attraction and familiarity started to build

Often when we had work parties the girls would regularly sleep with guys working there it was just the done thing , the girls would also sometimes bring their freinds and again their freinds would usually end up doing stuff with the guys who worked at the cafe too

At the time it just seemed like your standard shenanigans but now at 30 I look back and realise just being in this sort of social work circle was a form of subtle pre selection

Strange I know but highlights the importance of familiarity and pre selection to women

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Thru your body language. That does the majority of the talking for you and you can't fake that.

More accurately, your vibe

 

[Ricky]

fantastic point,, so what do you do to combat it?

I guess one way is to differentiate yourself from other guys by being more interesting. Alot of guys dont have much depth to them. Being a bit of an all trades man can be good.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

Simply said: if you are the prize, you need not communicate it, its obvious...

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

Jordan Peterson? Lobsters with posture? Okay.

Peterson just wants men to be useful tools of religious conservatives. I went to one of his lectures on wisdom from the Old Testament it was hilarious.

FYI Social Conservatives and Liberal Feminists are two sides of the same coin. One wants men to sacrifice because it’s our manly responsibility: the other want men to sacrifice because we are supposedly ‘privileged’.

Until men are given authority I’m not taking responsibility of anyone but myself and my kids. So Dr. Peterson can keep selling books to moms for thier sons so they can be good little boys.

Sounds like ad hominem. I don't agree with any of his metaphysical or religious nonsense either, but he is a clinical psychologist and professor at Toronto/Harvard so it's not like he's just some random dude incapable of understanding scientific studies.

He was merely pointing out a study. If Hitler pointed out a study on geological formations would that make him wrong because he's Hitler? I am not following your logic. Serotonin is linked to the nervous system of all vertebrates and their social hiearchy all the way down to lobsters. That means you cannot simply "hack" your biology to fool anyone into thinking you're high status. In fact your response has nothing to do with anything in this topic and it sounds like you agreed with that.

 

[BeExcellent]

I think that's an incorrect interpretation. As I see it, she should pursue the guy because he's supposed to be the leader of the relationship. It's all about traditional male - female dynamics and even if nowadays she's not as dependent on his financial support as in the past, he's still supposed to be the rock in her ocean of emotions.

So I agree, it's not a competition, each has it's own complementary role, just like the brain and the heart have in the body.

Sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive. In the animal kingdom males constantly must "display" to be accepted by the female. Look at at bird courtship, which is where the term in PUA "peacocking" comes from. Stallions fight/compete to have mating access to the herd; dogs fight over females in heat etc.

Males biologically are tasked with getting the female's attention and gaining her acceptance or willingness to mate. Males do compete for this priviledge in nature.

Human interaction is more socially complex but not all that different.

Expecting women to assume the male role of actively seeking a mate is ridiculous. Men get morning wood because of testosterone & the biological programing to go actively seek sex (a mate; a female).

Women don't work that way. Women do not wake up wet and ready for sex each day like young men do. That's not a woman's biology.

So no. Feminine women are going to wait for a man to approach and are going to respond, not actively seek a mate. She will choose from the men who make an effort to interact with her and who have shown interest in her.

Quit expecting this to be different.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

Sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive. In the animal kingdom males constantly must "display" to be accepted by the female. Look at at bird courtship, which is where the term in PUA "peacocking" comes from. Stallions fight/compete to have mating access to the herd; dogs fight over females in heat etc.

Males biologically are tasked with getting the female's attention and gaining her acceptance or willingness to mate. Males do compete for this priviledge in nature.

Human interaction is more socially complex but not all that different.

Expecting women to assume the male role of actively seeking a mate is ridiculous. Men get morning wood because of testosterone & the biological programing to go actively seek sex (a mate; a female).

Women don't work that way. Women do not wake up wet and ready for sex each day like young men do. That's not a woman's biology.

So no. Feminine women are going to wait for a man to approach and are going to respond, not actively seek a mate. She will choose from the men who make an effort to interact with her and who have shown interest in her.

Quit expecting this to be different.

Generally true. But. Some women will pursue a man. However. If women aren’t pursuing you - don’t expect them to. Most guys on this site are old enough to know if women will pursue them by now. And. Even if women do pursue. Leaving yourself at the mercy of women is not a good idea. Men need to take action, regardless of whether women initiate or not.

 

[pipeman84]

Sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive. In the animal kingdom males constantly must "display" to be accepted by the female. Look at at bird courtship, which is where the term in PUA "peacocking" comes from. Stallions fight/compete to have mating access to the herd; dogs fight over females in heat etc.

Males biologically are tasked with getting the female's attention and gaining her acceptance or willingness to mate. Males do compete for this priviledge in nature.

Human interaction is more socially complex but not all that different.

Expecting women to assume the male role of actively seeking a mate is ridiculous. Men get morning wood because of testosterone & the biological programing to go actively seek sex (a mate; a female).

Women don't work that way. Women do not wake up wet and ready for sex each day like young men do. That's not a woman's biology.

If it's strictly about sex, then as in your examples from the animal kingdom, guys will pursue. But when it comes to a relationship, then biology and evolution put a much greater pressure on the female (just as it did with sex in cases of males). So it follows that, particularly if the guy is a prize (a relative and contextual term for each woman), she'll pursue.

It's not going to be in the same direct way as guys would do it though. For instance, she's not going to send a message asking him out, she'll just like/comment on his posts or open an unrelated conversation, to give him the opportunity to actually ask her out.

So no. Feminine women are going to wait for a man to approach and are going to respond, not actively seek a mate. She will choose from the men who make an effort to interact with her and who have shown interest in her.

Feminine women as you say won't actively seek a mate, they'll do it subtlety. I disagree with the idea that they will only choose from the men who have shown interest in her. What if only the horny baboons did that? She'll just ignore a reserved, mysterious James Bond like character she meets in her daily life (say at the gym) or via extended social circle just because he didn't come up to her with a 'hey I thought you look great so I just had to say hello' or any other cheesy PUA line? Or she'll start pursuing him, by say, making eye contact, smiling, asking for his help for whatever trivial matter, trying to find mutual connections so they can be introduced etc

 

[BeExcellent]

Generally true. But. Some women will pursue a man. However. If women aren’t pursuing you - don’t expect them to. Most guys on this site are old enough to know if women will pursue them by now. And. Even if women do pursue. Leaving yourself at the mercy of women is not a good idea. Men need to take action, regardless of whether women initiate or not.

Agreed 100%. But women pursuing is not the natural order of things. If a guy expects a woman to pursue/chase/initiate/otherwise assume the male's natural role as leader, don't come crying when the guy realizes he's picked a masculine ball buster bossy b itch. This dynamic is how lazy men end up p ussy whipped by mediocre women & stuck in an unsatisfying relationship.

Because the man was too lazy to go choose woman he found hot & make the effort with her, so these guys take the feminine female role & wait for women to be the man in the interaction. Then they wonder why they are unhappy. I dunno. You chose the chick role rather than the dude role. It's backwards and doesn't feel right over time.

 

[BeExcellent]

If it's strictly about sex, then as in your examples from the animal kingdom, guys will pursue. But when it comes to a relationship, then biology and evolution put a much greater pressure on the female (just as it did with sex in cases of males). So it follows that, particularly if the guy is a prize (a relative and contextual term for each woman), she'll pursue.

It's not going to be in the same direct way as guys would do it though. For instance, she's not going to send a message asking him out, she'll just like/comment on his posts or open an unrelated conversation, to give him the opportunity to actually ask her out.



Feminine women as you say won't actively seek a mate, they'll do it subtlety. I disagree with the idea that they will only choose from the men who have shown interest in her. What if only the horny baboons did that? She'll just ignore a reserved, mysterious James Bond like character she meets in her daily life (say at the gym) or via extended social circle just because he didn't come up to her with a 'hey I thought you look great so I just had to say hello' or any other cheesy PUA line? Or she'll start pursuing him, by say, making eye contact, smiling, asking for his help for whatever trivial matter, trying to find mutual connections so they can be introduced etc

Yes. Feminine women will make subtle overtures that they are open to a certain man as you say. But the guy has to do something actively with those subtle signals.

My daughter-in-law started off as my daughter's best girlfriend. Over time she developed interest in my son & she'd linger a little more when he was around. My son decided he was interested in her, noticed her sticking around (providing some proximity) and he acted by asking her out. True. Subtle IOI from her, which my son picked up on & acted on.

That has been how feminine women show interest forever. But the man has to act in any event. I noticed my husband across the venue on the night we met. He kept staring in my direction and he made sure when I headed to the bar to get a drink that he had cleared space by telling his friends to scram, meaning that the only spot to approach the bar happened to be right next to him (creates proximity). I didn't know until well after the fact that he had purposefully orchestrated the opportunity to get proximity to me. But I realized it when I heard him tell the story about how we met. I frankly thought that was pretty slick because I didn't know that at the time.....he was quite smooth about it.

And he asked me out immediately upon sending his first messsgd to me the next day. He made his interest very clear by initiating and acting. And here we are.

That isn't the woman initiating/chasing. It's woman being receptive, which is different & in the feminine role.

 

[RangerMIke]

Sounds like ad hominem. I don't agree with any of his metaphysical or religious nonsense either, but he is a clinical psychologist and professor at Toronto/Harvard so it's not like he's just some random dude incapable of understanding scientific studies.

He was merely pointing out a study. If Hitler pointed out a study on geological formations would that make him wrong because he's Hitler? I am not following your logic. Serotonin is linked to the nervous system of all vertebrates and their social hiearchy all the way down to lobsters. That means you cannot simply "hack" your biology to fool anyone into thinking you're high status. In fact your response has nothing to do with anything in this topic and it sounds like you agreed with that.

I never have I suggested that Dr. Peterson is not a qualified and gifted clinical psychologist. His doctoral thesis and early work on alcoholism and theories on belief and meaning were quite profound. He was a well-respected psychologist and professor, then 8 years ago he took a stand against his university's requirement that professors use gender pronouns selected by students. A position I happened to agree with from the aspect of freedom of speech. The rule was absurd, Peterson's contention was that people should be addressed as they present themselves, that gender pronouns are the preview of the person speaking... and it's silly to expect a person to know intuitively someone's gender preference. Both the right and the left completely miscategorized his position.... The left said he was a bigot... the right believed he was a social conservative champion fighting gender fluidity. The more the left attacked him, the more the right loved him.

Then what happened is he became the darling of social conservatives, that is when he figured out that he could make money off of them... which he did and does. His more recent books on '12 Rules' actually uses to his earlier work on belief systems, mythology, and how these things create meaning. He is a very good psychologist since he is effectively leveraging what he knows about the human mind as a means to motivate and manipulate people. Rather than attempting to discredit him with what you call and ad hominem, attack, I am pointing out that when he starts discussing theology... he is unqualified... and his efforts to justify mythology as an intrinsic psychological truth is a stretch. Now he joins the ranks of Dr. Phil and other pop psychologist media celebrities. Which is fine... he's made his choice, but he no longer enjoys the academic and professional reputation he once had... speaking on climate change, theology, diet, and economics... none of which he is an expert.... but he is telling his audience what they want to hear... and they are paying him for it.

As far as faking high value... I agree with you. You can not fake it. You actually have to be high value... but if a high value man does not exhibit high value characteristics, they it's all internal... a good-looking millionaire that dresses like a slob, walks around slouched over... will not make eye contact then how is anyone just looking at him going to know. There is nothing wrong with pointing out how high value people behave.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Be healthy
Be a renaissance man, be curious, intriguing and funny.
Stand for something.
Dress well.
Learn to speak of things - you have to have the knowledge to back it all up

Be the equivalent of Hannibal Lecter(sans murder and cannibalism) in Manhunter/The source novel Red Dragon, in other words

Hannibal Lecter - TV Tropes

A series of horror-crime novels written by Thomas Harris, which are centered around the exploits of Dr. Hannibal Lecter, a cannibalistic and Wicked Cultured Serial Killer. The book series spawned multiple different adaptations in the form of …

tvtropes.org

Quote: "In Red Dragon he was originally just a very intelligent and cultured man, whose expertise in his chosen field of psychiatry made him a particularly dangerous (and somewhat ironic) insane killer..."

A true badass

 

[Divorced w 3]

Sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive. In the animal kingdom males constantly must "display" to be accepted by the female. Look at at bird courtship, which is where the term in PUA "peacocking" comes from. Stallions fight/compete to have mating access to the herd; dogs fight over females in heat etc.

Males biologically are tasked with getting the female's attention and gaining her acceptance or willingness to mate. Males do compete for this priviledge in nature.

Human interaction is more socially complex but not all that different.

Expecting women to assume the male role of actively seeking a mate is ridiculous. Men get morning wood because of testosterone & the biological programing to go actively seek sex (a mate; a female).

Women don't work that way. Women do not wake up wet and ready for sex each day like young men do. That's not a woman's biology.

So no. Feminine women are going to wait for a man to approach and are going to respond, not actively seek a mate. She will choose from the men who make an effort to interact with her and who have shown interest in her.

Quit expecting this to be different.

You’re wrong here and your argument is severely over inflating the value of women’s sexual and societal relevance.

Sperm is plentiful and eggs are scarce, but that isn’t a sole determinant of their value in society and is easily disproven.

simply looking at your thinking one would be forced to say that Tonya Harding came into this earth with a finite set of eggs and holds greater value than Rockefeller, Tom Brady and academic luminaries who are able to procreate until their dying breath.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

Agreed 100%. But women pursuing is not the natural order of things. If a guy expects a woman to pursue/chase/initiate/otherwise assume the male's natural role as leader, don't come crying when the guy realizes he's picked a masculine ball buster bossy b itch. This dynamic is how lazy men end up p ussy whipped by mediocre women & stuck in an unsatisfying relationship.

Because the man was too lazy to go choose woman he found hot & make the effort with her, so these guys take the feminine female role & wait for women to be the man in the interaction. Then they wonder why they are unhappy. I dunno. You chose the chick role rather than the dude role. It's backwards and doesn't feel right over time.

This is a gross and wrong caricature of women who take the initiative. Probably a third of my encounters with women have been them initiating. By no means are they ball-busters. It isn’t ‘lazy’ either. They are just quick.

But I know what you mean. For example. My first post-divorce ‘official’ date. I was at a client site. One of the girls & I were flirting
pretty hard. I knew she was going to ask me out. I wanted to be the initiator. So I asked her.

Many women are forward. I don’t think it has anything to do with femininity. They are just horny.

 

[BeExcellent]

Don't insert straw man logic here @Divorced w 3.

Sperm is cheap from the stand point that males can always make more. But none of your kids would exist without the mother. Eggs are required for offspring and the whole process has rate limiting factors that surround the female.

Eggs are expensive from the standpoint of not only that in mammals are females born with all the eggs she will ever have, it also takes TIME to be pregnant and bear the baby and the birth might be fatal to both the mother and the baby.

Ever been to the Taj Majal? Its a monument to a royal woman who died in childbirth.

Know why elephants are becoming extinct? Because it takes over 2 years of pregnancy for a baby elephant to be born. Poaching and other pressures are wiping out the population faster than the remaining population can replenish itself.

While that mother elephant is pregnant she cannot get pregnant again, she's out of the mating pool, and once she gives birth she cannot concieve while she nurses the baby.

Rabbits are not going extinct any time soon because rabbits have a much shorter pregnancy period, have litters of many offspring and can breed again quickly. Humans, elephants and whales (for example) cannot reproduce that quickly. Eggs are, in fact, very expensive.

Wooly mammoths died out due to human hunting them to extiction faster than the population could recover. Sperm whales face the same fate today and are severely endangered due to this birth rate dilemma.

Sure men can impregnate many women (if you are say Genghis Khan) but very few individual males in all of human history have had that ability (and this is also why a substantial number of people today carry genetic material that can be traced back to Khan, who raped his way across the known world during his conquests.).....

So I wouldn't consider that a viable reproductive strategy for the members of SS, lol.

My assertion is based in biological science and population genetics, not psychobabble.

 

[BeExcellent]

And sure, women get horny.....but not with a raging hard on that needs to be dealt with or else blue balls (which I understand is actually painful.) Female libido isn't physiologically that way.

Female libido is driven by mental stimulation. Any accomplished seducer knows this. And as a mental exercise you must engage & participate.

And I'd also suggest that women who are forward and overtly horny out in the wild are the ones who have given up in a sense and don't have the value to command the attention for a relationship with a desirable man.....so they offer up sex as a carrot to get what they can.

Your HB9s and 10s do not need to do this (be forward with men) as they have too much abundance & everyman wants them.

How attractive are the women who have adopted a "go get him" mating strategy? My observation is those women are NOT top tier attractive, but I'm genuinely curious.

Being the "Prize" is always about the relative value of the individual among the masses.

Anything you do to increase your value, therefore, helps you.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

And sure, women get horny.....but not with a raging hard on that needs to be dealt with or else blue balls (which I understand is actually painful.) Female libido isn't physiologically that way.

Female libido is driven by mental stimulation. Any accomplished seducer knows this. And as a mental exercise you must engage & participate.

How does this explain women who want to have sex right off the bat? No seduction or any mental stimulation required. This happens.

And I'd also suggest that women who are forward and overtly horny out in the wild are the ones who have given up in a sense and don't have the value to command the attention for a relationship with a desirable man.....so they offer up sex as a carrot to get what they can.

This ascribes too much forethought and logic to behavior. In the heat of the moment, people often act on impulse and non-logical desires.

Your HB9s and 10s do not need to do this (be forward with men) as they have too much abundance & everyman wants them.

How attractive are the women who have adopted a "go get him" mating strategy? My observation is those women are NOT top tier attractive, but I'm genuinely curious.

It runs the gamut.

Being the "Prize" is always about the relative value of the individual among the masses.

Anything you do to increase your value, therefore, helps you.