PATREON EXCLUSIVE (Full Video): Women are attracted to responsibility more than intelligence
Added 2024-06-15 03:00:05 +0000 UTC
Comments
@Joseph Genius is 160+ imo. Sure, exaggeration occurs.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-08-01 20:21:55 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden - "Genius" level IQ is generally regarded as 140 and above. Like "dick length", I suspect many if not most people grossly overestimate their measurements..
Joseph Omega
2024-07-25 03:25:35 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden for myself. I am speaking in general (about 80%) for women. Specifically, low quality women. I don't believe this is about intimidation. It is more about being a hot stove burner. A quality person is not interested in playing with a stove burner. A person interested in mischief will be open to playing with a stove burner and the smart ones will not do it when it is hot or realize someone else can turn it on while they play with it.
Mark Bryski
2024-07-21 12:46:48 +0000 UTCI get that, but if I have no interest in tearing men down, why do I need to be afraid of them?
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-21 12:21:52 +0000 UTC@RhodiumMaiden I read there is a difference between being harmless and peaceful. Yes, a good man should strive to be peaceful and make his woman feel safe. At the same time, a spiteful women should be afraid to tear down a good man. If she believes it will be easy and at know cost, she will not be afraid to do it.
Mark Bryski
2024-07-21 03:36:53 +0000 UTC@Mark I don’t want to fear men!
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 17:23:13 +0000 UTCUnless they’re also high IQ Aspies like I.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 17:21:27 +0000 UTCYeah, it’s definitely not what makes us attracted to men sexually. And personally, I have a very very strong preference for very high IQ men. 150+. I can’t even consider men under 130 because I can’t respect them. I myself am 149-155 (ceilinged test, but I highly doubt it’s above 155).
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 17:14:47 +0000 UTCHow about we both be awesome on our own first?
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 17:13:29 +0000 UTC@Joseph Wow, I love that video! I love that couple, and I immediately subbed after watching. I relate so much to them & they remind me of myself and my husband. I could be Simone, & Malcolm could be my late husband. Many parallels and similarities both as individuals and as a couple, even physically to some extent. Similar dynamic/interaction to what we had. Except my husband was much more reserved and less smiley, and I am more enthusiastic than Simone. So in that one specific regard they’re kind of flipped. I also handled all our joint finances.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 17:12:14 +0000 UTCI can answer this. I chose my late husband because it was very obvious from both his words and his actions that he was highly ambitious and competent. Although he was broke - actually in substantial student debt the entire time I knew him - he had gone from being a high school dropout to someone I could easily see even right away winning a Nobel prize in 10yrs or less. And he continued to continuously make rapid improvements, gaining responsibility & accomplishments. He was also extremely reliable, trustworthy, honest and mature for his age. I have great instincts & intuition - I just sometimes ignore them, thus why I dated 2 broke men who never did anything with their potential after him. The 2nd only briefly & he was much younger & less hopeless than the 1st, so I don’t think I’ll make this mistake again. 🙏🏻
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 16:29:30 +0000 UTC@Joseph I don’t think this would be possible for me. Attraction MUST come first. It’s not even conscious, it happens so quickly - or doesn’t.
RhodiumMaiden
2024-07-19 16:23:43 +0000 UTCMen marry for love. Woman (low value) marry for lifestyle.
Tord Pettersson
2024-07-13 17:13:54 +0000 UTCI agree with Alexander on responsibility and competence as key traits for a man. What I also want to add here is for men to not be fooled though by the TikTok enlightened/healed women saying "let him plan the date; let him pick the outfit you wear". Love, you are not submissive like that, you are just being lazy; you are not a toddler for me to pick your outfit, but I will let you know if it does not fit the occasion or event. I would rather hear from them long-nailed repented women about sharing house responsibilities and providing a warm meal for her man. Bet that wont cross their mind as what we want.
Ungureanu
2024-07-05 13:24:13 +0000 UTCWomen follow their emotional mind. Rational high quality women are able to turn that off when needed, and turn on the logical.
Eric Linden
2024-06-22 14:02:15 +0000 UTCInnocence. Purity. Submission. Femininity. Some use these terms interchangeably in describing desirable traits in a female partner. But they are all different. Some desirable. Some not.
Eric Linden
2024-06-22 12:24:12 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I am still listening to it, but from the first 10 minutes in to this podcast from Simone and Malcome Collins, they present a unique hypothesis postulating a solution to the "irresponsible boat" flaw in Alexander's analogy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLmjvlg0Ul0 If you ignore for the moment the click-bait sounding title, Malcome comes up with the counter-Feminist-intuitive idea of doling out monetary assistance to MALES instead of FEMALES in order to build better, stronger and more prolific families and relationships. In a nutshell, the idea is that supplying resources to ISLANDS artificially forces BOATS to be attracted to more of them, due to Hypergamy. I used to work for an International Development company that ROUTINELY, and as a default matter of course, would give any financial aid they had to donate in developing countries to WOMEN, because the "common sense" philosophy was that, if the money were given to the MEN in the community, they would simply spend it on alcohol, drugs and/or prostitutes. Malcome presents credible research that appears to COUNTERACT this narrative that seems to show that MOST men would tend to use the money to develop relationships, attract potential wives and have more children, and that, women instead would tend to use it to divorce or reject more potential mates and eventually have less relationships and children (due to artificially created financial Hypergamy). An intrugiing idea that I wish Alexander would pursue, perhaps with a follow-up interview with the couple.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-21 05:58:31 +0000 UTCAoE2 was great, i and my then gf were hooked for like one year, we even reorganised our flat w ethernet cables to play ‘us against the AI’. brilliant stuff.
PerMagnus Lindborg
2024-06-19 23:04:56 +0000 UTCWell, that sounds broken. She’s nagging the guy while he needs to be reliable for a long period of time just to be able to nag her harder in return. Omg, what a world we live in 🙄 Especially in that context “I’m submissive with a reliable man” sounds more like “I’m scared af but can’t loose the face, so I found an excuse to tell everyone how happy I am in that type of relationship”
Slava Filimonov
2024-06-19 10:24:59 +0000 UTCThis sounds a lot like when women say “my submission is earned” I tend to hear that from women who are far from traditional. I disagree with your position on this and think, if she is too masculine to want to be lead, move on. There are feminine women that will follow.
Scribe
2024-06-17 22:09:13 +0000 UTCPriceless! He sure gets women right!
Eric Linden
2024-06-17 14:17:44 +0000 UTCI just noticed lots of comments on YouTube about AoE2. Poor Alex. None of his Patreons mentioned it. Are there no video game enthusiasts here or just none that like AoE2?
Eric Linden
2024-06-17 13:47:37 +0000 UTCA little light Father's Day humour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjLaJ5xYvhU ... before the clock runs out! 😁
Joseph Omega
2024-06-17 02:53:57 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I LIKE how our analogy is evolving day by day! I think I follow exactly what you are getting at, and as for "friend zoning" women: Turn around IS fair play, and changes the rules of the game ENTIRELY: It reverses Hypergamy's natural tendency towards ENTROPY!
Joseph Omega
2024-06-16 17:45:17 +0000 UTC@Hyperion - Unless of course there is a point of IQ beyond which a man recognizes this and stops trying. After all, he's not STUPID. What happens then? Is WISDOM a subset or derivative of INTELLIGENCE, or vice versa?
Joseph Omega
2024-06-16 17:33:13 +0000 UTCIf she actively undermines me. Openedly its ibe thing But behind my back is now having an enemy sleeping in your bed The disrespect of it How low does your self respect need to be to accept that. Stand up for yourself and if need be …. walk away.
Peter
2024-06-16 14:22:40 +0000 UTCHows Matt?
Peter
2024-06-16 14:19:01 +0000 UTCIn my experience you can display all of this but it has to be the RIGHT type of woman to be able to receive these things from a man. If she didn’t have a good masculine role model in her life growing up, she will not know what to do with your competence.
Barrett Buckalew
2024-06-16 12:20:17 +0000 UTCI am viewing it as a broad term where the relationship (uncommitted or committed) is misaligned with the person’s needs. In short, it has a dead end. In the singles community, I believe the term is being drawn upon this way. I have not bothered to reference the proper definition. When a woman arrives to a finished island and declares herself Queen of the island, we have a faux relationship because she has assumed a position that has not been earned. I believe this faux relationship also exists when the woman arrives to the island expecting to eventually become Queen of the island. A woman can only truly be Queen of the island when she contributes to it. Anything else is false harmony. In my opinion, committing to a woman when she has not invested in the island is placing a dead end to the relationship. This is one of the reasons why I am a big believer of friend zoning women and then inviting them to the island as “a friend”. If she wants to be more than friends, I get to see how she invests in being more than just friends. For me, this is more desirable than hopping into the boat and paying for the boat’s fuel and maintenance.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-16 10:44:27 +0000 UTCHappy Fathers Day to all of the fathers. Lads, ALWAYS REMEMBER, civilization is thriving because of your horniness. 😏
Mark Bryski
2024-06-16 10:16:31 +0000 UTC@Joseph Omega My take on this is that women speak emotionalism. Those with IQ beyond 120 are irrepressibly rational and logical. If one insists on logic and rationality when interacting with women, they will find it off-putting to say the least. To women kind, these are the type that just don't get women and never will. You can't rationalize a women into having desire for you. Just imagine Spock or Sheldon from Big Bang Theory as archetypes.
Hyperion
2024-06-16 08:26:21 +0000 UTC@Erik de Roos - As you may already know, only 20 - 30% of divorces are initiated by men. May I ask if there were any children involved in your union, and if so, how custody was eventually assigned?
Joseph Omega
2024-06-16 07:52:59 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - Well, my hypothesis theorizes that the "relationship arena" is really just a "conscious ghost" of what you call the "sexual arena" -- a "tip of the entire sexual iceberg", whose bulk really lies below the surface in the unconscious (whether "repressed" as Freud thought, or "archetypal" as Jung surmised). I speculate that men and women are evolutioanrily drawn to each other at a PRIMAL level, and that it is only our conscious EGO (in Freudian AND Jungian terms) that questions and rationalizes the motives and intents of this drive: In a sense we (over?) complicate our simple basic desires, for good or ill -- "romantic love" being one such delicious "complication". Indeed trust and respect must be EARNED, but I believe our egos are not the completely HELPLESS VICTIMS in such develoments as is often assumed -- we (males AND females) are hard-wired by Nature to at least TRY to forgive those we love. I don't think that "second chances" should be held CATEGORICALLY anathema, and a person's "quality" not completely IMMUTABLE.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-16 05:45:44 +0000 UTC@Pepito Sbezzeguti - I also agree that there seems little evidence to support the idea that women have an innate SEXUAL desire for responsible men -- more accurate to say that they have a NESTING desire for responsible men. As far as "quality women" (OR "quality men") is concerned, Alexander is free to DEFINE this as "women (or men) who are COMMITTED to femininity (masculinity)" as their self-identity. Where "femininty" possesses attributes which include: Nurturance, Sensitivity, Gracefulness and Accomodation; while "masculinity" possesses the complementary attributes which include: Leadership, Stoicism, Honour and Resilience. One can certainly take the cynical view that BOTH sets of attributes are simply the result of "conditioning", but I prefer (hopeless romantic that I am) to consider them evolutionarily inspired "dance roles choreographed to Nature's Symphony": The "red pill" goes down better for me that way.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-16 00:04:16 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - Seems more like "mindFULLness" (or "rationality") versus "mindLESSness" (or "intuition").
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 23:16:32 +0000 UTC@Hyperion - Not disputing the study, but why would women's preference for men's intelligence diminsh their attraction beyond IQ 120? 🤔
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 23:10:44 +0000 UTC@Mark Bryski - I've been hearing that term -- just actually looked it up: Kind of a "purgatory" setup, somewhere between "Casual Hookup" and "Committed Relationship", correct? It could be that I don't fully understand the concept yet, but why would a "situationship" necessarily result from a "boat" choosing a "finished island"? But I DO agree that the bond SHOULD be stronger when BOTH parties have a longer developmental/investment history.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 23:02:29 +0000 UTC@Joseph The submission you describe is in the sexual arena; and there I agree with you. The submission described by the women at the beginning of this video is in the relationship overall. In the relationship, she submits to your leadership over both her and the family. And that doesn’t happen on day 1. And, as AG says, that can be lost or regained when she gains or loses trust in you. If the man or woman is low quality, it never really happens. In the act of sex, as you say, control, domination, and submission are paramount as romantic love is put to the side and the two of you lose yourselves in passion for the duration of the act.
Eric Linden
2024-06-15 22:56:42 +0000 UTCThe bond is stronger and the woman has invested herself in the island/relationship. A finished island sounds like a situationship.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-15 20:45:36 +0000 UTCI think what AG calls "quality women" is actually women who have been conditioned to behave like a man would like, and they'll do it as long as he's looking. If you think about it rationally you have to see that females goals for mating are just different from that of males, and competing. There are no "high quality women", only women and men who follow their rational mind, or don't.
Pepito Sbezzeguti
2024-06-15 18:53:48 +0000 UTCRight, but @Hyperion's point is that they don't have a Sexual desire for responsible men, and I agree. Now, AG is talking about leadership, but leader is chosen by its followers, you can't lead someone who doesn't wanna be led by you, so yeah, I think AG is confused here.
Pepito Sbezzeguti
2024-06-15 18:44:45 +0000 UTCBoth sides may be saying the same thing, which often just results in a "Mexican standoff". Still, I suspect it is much MUCH easier for a woman to consciously CHOOSE to ACT more feminine (and hence "fake it till you make it"), than for a man to CHOOSE to act "Alpha", as the latter requires much more a personality change than a behavior change.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 17:06:32 +0000 UTCThat has been my experience as well.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 17:00:20 +0000 UTCIn a sense, I agree: I tend to more think of submission as an INVOLUNTARY response, the "manic" versions of which occur when (normal) men are "sexually captivated", and they become uncommonly dominant -- a highly ASSERTIVE instinct that evolutionarily prepares them for ejaculation. Contrawise, when (normal) women are "sexually captivated", they become uncommonly submissive -- a highly RECEPTIVE instinct that evolutionarily prepares them for insemination. I'm fairly sure many men have had the experience, at least once, of temporarily LOSING themselves in the raw sexuality of an EXTREMELY HOT woman who "turns them on" so much so that they are practically DRIVEN to IMPOSE themselves upon them. Likewise, I imagine that many women have had the experience of temporarily LOSING themselves in the raw sexuality of an EXTREMELY HOT man who "turns them on" so much so that they are practically DRIVEN to EXPOSE themselves to them. I believe the manic versions largely occur at the UNCONSCIOUS level, and can easily override social and even cognitive restrictions. Alcohol GREATLY facilitates both the feelings as well as any behavior that may be associated with them. At "normal" levels, the impulses tend to be more relaxed, largely CONSCIOUS versions of the same UNCONSCIOUS drives, and distinguished simply by the opportunity for social and cognitive considerations and restrictions to be actively pondered BEFORE any actions taken or even decisions made. Strangely, I've personally seen cases where men AND women have successfully utilized CONGNITIVE DISSONANCE to justify dominance and submission behavior even when the PASSIONS themselves seem clearly absent, but where the NEED for pair-bonding companionship is great enough. As such, I conclude it is possible for ANY man (and maybe woman?), under ideally disciplined conditions, to ARTIFICIALLY generate such feelings of dominance (and submission) through sufficiently imaginative visualization, even when the target is not classcially "hot" (though not excessively repulsive to them) -- I have been able to do so myself on more than one occasion. If achievable, this ability could be used to productively align one's feelings of sexual attraction with one's cognitive assessment of the potential suitability of a prospective mate -- but, of course, it must be a TWO-WAY activity to be effective. If achievable however, both the "island" and the "boat" can make rational choices of the other, rather than leaving things exclusively to the "squalls" of involuntary or fleeting PASSIONS. I suspect this was more the way things were until the recent past where "SPONTANEOUS romantic love" became the dominant criterion for marriage. Even beyond "arranged marriages", "Love the one you're with" has lost its effective appeal, especially with the ascendence of gynocentric priorities and values and the social media systems (from print onwards) that support them. Hypergamy may more often be an EFFECT rather than a CAUSE.
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 16:57:44 +0000 UTCAlexander did a video on why women should fear you. He had three reasons. One being your social capital. Can't remember the other two. Your masculinity (ability to hold frame) is probably one of them.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-15 15:17:30 +0000 UTCTrue. If you’ve lost the others she trusts, it’s very difficult to win her trust back. Men are different. They don’t base their assessments so much on what others think.
Eric Linden
2024-06-15 13:57:47 +0000 UTCThis is one place that I tend to disagree with AG somewhat. Three of the most successful relationships I know of were high school sweethearts that ended up getting married. The island and the boat both started out undeveloped; but they developed together. Unfortunately, I had no high school sweetheart. Then the island and boat analogy is more relevant. I do think women look for a finished/completed island. But the women who find an island in development have a better chance at happiness and fulfillment.
Eric Linden
2024-06-15 13:48:23 +0000 UTCIn Solution Selling, they taught us if you are not willing to walk from an opportunity, then you are not ready to sell or negotiate. I believe the same applies to relationships. Frankly speaking, walking away is better than arguing or making myself smaller as a man. In the past, I adhered to the values and traditions passed on to me that divorce was bad. Currently, many women are willing to walk away from a relationship and they see many men are not. In my opinion, this is a weak foundation for the relationship. Also, in my opinion, the statement “is this how you want it to be?” is powerful enough to change this dynamic. When someone says it, he is insinuating a willingness to detach from the relationship because there isn’t one ounce of false harmony in that question.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-15 13:24:54 +0000 UTCThere is a big difference between what women look for in dating and long term. Sometimes AG is talking about one, sometimes the other. The problem is that women don’t realize this. Men look for different things too, but they are aware of it. Logic vs. emotion.
Eric Linden
2024-06-15 12:30:34 +0000 UTCVery interesting take on 'having a nagging housewife and whats your part in that' that he talks about near the end of the video. I do see some stuff that I could have done different now that I am in a divorce (that I initiated). Especially the 'stay in your responsibility (and frame) and remind her of that'. I did stay in my frame, was very trustworthy, but I didn't point it out to her and 'connected' it with her behavior having to change 'if she wants me to stay near her'. Its like I wielded a gun but didn't commit on using it in the case of emergencies... thats quite dangerous if you look it at that way, I ended up in mud wrestling in each time. Just pointless arguing instead of pointing out the disconnect between my responsible behavior and her irresponsible behaviors. To stay in the example: I shot myself quite a few times by being responsible but not pointing out her stuff and being firm with it. It made it very easy for her to use manipulation to let me make&do all the difficult choices but then use everything that didn't turn out well against me. Still going on with the divorce, 'investing in a new relation' with more 'green flags' is easier at this moment in time for me (even after a relationship of 14 years). Thats on my ex for not doing her part independent of my investments. But thank you Alexander for showing some points I had influence on. I do not want to go in a new relationship without knowing what my part was in this mess it turned out to be. So that I can keep myself sane and believe in myself that I could do it different the next time life throws something like this my way :D
Erik de Roos
2024-06-15 12:09:19 +0000 UTCFirst of all, what a powerful question, “Is this the way you want it to be?”, to present to someone who is presenting a concern by being passive aggressive to the point of subverting the relationship. I will also note that a woman’s perception of a man’s competence will be influenced by her family, circle of friends, social circles, and communities. Having recognition within a respected community is the way to go for me because it involves respected third parties that are not available as sources for triangulation.
Mark Bryski
2024-06-15 11:48:12 +0000 UTCI have never heard a modern woman (i.e. post sexual revolution) say that she has a burning desire for a man because he is responsible. She might marry such a man when it's her time to settle, perhaps, after she's had her fun and disappointment with the dark triad or even tetrad types. But I do agree that women rank responsibility higher than intelligence in my personal experience. I recall a study stating that women's preference for men's intelligence tops out at around IQ of 120, beyond that it steeply diminishes their attraction.
Hyperion
2024-06-15 08:50:32 +0000 UTCFirst you be feminine and then I will be alpha. You cant behave like bitch and expect alpha.
Gordan Horbec
2024-06-15 08:06:40 +0000 UTCWhy would a woman then BOTHER to consider a man who, because of his current age or circumstance, has not yet accumulated sufficient resources or responsibilities to display his mastery of? Here again we run into the limiting factor of Alexander's "island and boat" analogy: Women as "boats" who are somehow JUSTIFIED in ignoring "islands" with POTENTIAL (that is, islands "in development") in favor of FINISHED "islands" (that is, "fully developed" islands). This not only seems to rob women of their "agency", but simultaneously seems to absolve them of any "responsibility" in the development of the "boat/island" ecosystem (their "relationship"). It is all well and good for men to be made to account for the CURRENT state of their "island" IN ADDITION TO evaluating the potential sea-worthiness of any "boats" that dock there, but it is NOT healthy for women NOT to he held accountable for the CURRENT sea-worthiness of their "boats" AS WELL AS any inability to evaluate the development potential of any "island" they choose to visit. Runaway hypergamy seems too casually excused as an IMMUTABLE fact of a mindless and undisciplined "weaker sex". To me, in our own genetic weakness for the "fairer sex", we risk crossing the THIN line between "chivalry" and "simping".
Joseph Omega
2024-06-15 07:31:33 +0000 UTCSubmission is not slavery. Nor is it the opposite of domination. It’s not BDSM. If your woman submits to you, she may not even realize it. The first woman is aware of it, but she points out that her man has never asked for it. It’s about leadership.
Eric Linden
2024-06-15 04:46:51 +0000 UTC
