Biological Attraction is a Terrible Guide
Tourmalayne trough A. S.
Posted on February 4, 2025
My dearest Earth friends,
This is Tourmalayne speaking. It is so good to speak to you again.
Today I will give dating advice that some of you will already know, but that may be beneficial for some people:
Don’t follow your biology-level attraction, because it will lead you to reject partners who would make you happy, and it will lead you to date partners who won’t.
So, let’s unpack that.
First of all, this advice applies to both men and women. I will mostly be discussing female biological attraction in this message because it’s less well-understood on Earth. Still, let’s first look at male biological attraction.
Men’s biology-level attraction pushes them to have sex with as many women as they can, especially if those women are pretty and young. After all, young women are fertile and pretty women have good genes. Good genes means less chance of the child dying during their childhood, which was a huge issue in previous centuries.
Men’s biology-level attraction also causes them to prefer women who are unlikely to secretly cheat on him and pretend that another man’s child is his. This leads men to preferring virginal, inexperienced, submissive, not super outgoing, not very flirty or promiscuous women.
Don’t blame men for this preference. Blame the women who cheated on men and then pretended that another man’s child was his, which apparently happened often enough that men now have a noticeable preference for women whose character traits indicate that they are unlikely to do that.
I’m not being too cynical. In France, paternity testing is only allowed with a court order. This was done to “preserve the peace of families.”
So yes, a small but not insignificant group of women does in fact cheat on their partner and then pretend that the child is his. While immoral, this makes biological sense — that way the woman gets the great genes from one man, and gets the stability and resources from another man. This maximizes her chance of having a child who will survive to adulthood, if she can’t find one man with both great genes and lots of resources.
Ultimately, biology doesn’t care about morality. Biology also doesn’t care about happiness. All it cares about is producing children who will reach adulthood.
Now, if a man just wants to reproduce, then it’s more or less okay for him to follow his biology-level attraction.
However, if a man wants to be happy, then it’s not a good strategy to let himself be led by those biology-level attractions. After all, his biology wants him to choose a prettier woman over a woman with a better character. His biology also wants him to have a ton of empty, meaningless sex with a ton of women. This is a great strategy for reproduction, but it’s not a good strategy for long-term happiness.
So, this is the first important principle: following your biological attraction is good for reproduction, but it’s bad for long-term happiness. Now your biology doesn’t care about your happiness, but you might.
And indeed, men are told to use their brain when selecting a partner, to not just go for the hottest woman, to not blindly follow their dick, to be faithful to one woman and to not just have sex with as many women as possible, et cetera.
This is good advice. Telling men to not just follow their biological attraction causes more men to make choices that lead them to long-term happiness.
The advice not to follow their biological attraction is just as true for women. But unfortunately, society doesn’t as often give women this warning. Hence women often do simply follow their biology-level attraction. As a result women often reject good partners, select horrible partners and get seriously hurt.
After all, in modern societies it’s not that important that a husband is able to fight well. But in primitive societies, that was absolutely crucial. Not being able to fight well could mean that the entire family gets murdered by a bandit, or gets eaten by a wild animal.
So a woman’s biology-level attraction likes it when men are able to kill an attacking bandit on a moment’s notice. Because that means the family survives. So it’s attractive when men are stoic, capable of violence and a bit psychopathic. It’s not attractive if he’s calm, humanitarian, emotional, empathetic, kind or excessively rational, because then he can’t kill the bandit who would otherwise murder his family.
You can’t have a husband who has a moment of weakness when a bandit is suddenly attacking the family. If he has a pang of anxiety, the entire family dies. Therefore men can’t show weakness, not even for a moment. If a man ever cries, forget it, dump his ass.
Now obviously, women have higher faculties too, and it is attracted to loftier things than her biology-level attraction. But when push comes to shove, modern women do often choose to follow their biology-level attraction. And so women might say they want emotionally open men, but when push comes to shove they reject such men in favor of emotionally repressed men who don’t show much emotion. Because that’s who can kill a bandit at a moment’s notice, and hence that’s what’s biologically attractive.
Your husband needs to be surface-level stoic for only the time it takes for your children to become teenagers. After that, you’ve achieved your biological goal, and your future happiness and relationship stability, or your husband’s psychological health, doesn’t matter from a biological perspective.
Obviously, choosing men who are capable of murdering a stone-age bandit is a poor choice for optimizing your happiness in the present day. But even though it sounds really silly if I say it like this, this is what women’s biological attraction is actually nudging them towards. Which means that following biological attraction is a terrible idea for long-term happiness.
Other than killing bandits, what’s also important and therefore attractive in prehistoric times is that the man will bring home food, even if there’s a famine. No matter what he needs to do to get that food.
So, what kind of traits will allow a man to bring home food, even if there’s a famine, no matter what he needs to do to get that food?
Well, violent tendencies, psychopathy, narcissism, perhaps poor impulse control, being stoic, not being too emotional or humanitarian or introspective or rational. The man shouldn’t be too moral or kind or empathetic, because that just gets in the way of him bringing home food no matter what.
Yeah, it’s not nice, but having your child starve to death isn’t nice either.
And that’s why bad boys and jerks and psychopaths and narcissists are attractive to women.
Don’t blame women, they just don’t want their children to starve to death during a famine. Doesn’t matter that those things no longer happen in the West — what happened in the Stone age is what women’s attraction is calibrated towards.
Now, there’s also a part of women that likes kind men and that doesn’t like bad boys and jerks and psychopaths. Yet biology-level attraction leads women away from kind men and towards bad boys and jerks.
This is why you have some women saying they want a kind man, and then they reject kind men in favor of a jerk. It’s a war between the more evolved parts of her and her raw, cavewoman era, biology-level attraction. And if a woman is just following her attraction, then the cavewoman often wins.
Women saying they want kind men, and then rejecting kind men in favor of jerks, is a sort of unintentional gaslighting that women inflict on men.
And obviously, choosing bad boys and jerks isn’t good for women’s long-term happiness either. No matter how much her biological attraction might appreciate that those guys can kill bandits and bring home food during a famine.
Women often see it as self-evident that of course they’re only going to date those men who are immediately attractive to her on a biological level. After all, love and attraction are requirements for a relationship, right?
Sometimes this isn’t even a conscious choice: many women simply instantly reject men who aren’t immediately attractive. Or women don’t even register such men as potential partners. Sometimes women get asked out during an event, immediately turn the man down, and then think to themselves at the end of the event that it’s a shame that no one asked her out.
Now on one level, it’s understandable that women only want to date men they’re immediately biologically attracted to. Don’t you need to be attracted to your partner?
Yet, attraction is actually something that can grow over time. It doesn’t need to be there immediately.
And there’s also the difference between long-term attraction to someone because they’re a good person and you’ve built something together, versus immediate attraction because that guy would be able to kill an attacking stone age bandit.
Insisting on only dating men who are immediately attractive means quite possibly rejecting good men in favor of jerks. Because that’s what women’s biology-level attraction points them to.
Or women insisting on dating men who are immediately attractive can mean going for genuinely good men who are also immediately attractive. However, only a tiny handful of men are genuinely good men while also being immediately attractive on a biological level. And pretty much all women would love a man like this. So those men are either already taken, or they have so many options that they’re willing to have sex but they’re unwilling to commit.
Immediate, biology-level attraction isn’t actually a requirement for long-term relationship happiness. In fact, the Ancient Greeks saw immediate, biology-level attraction as a type of temporary madness that just leads people astray.
They would be horrified to learn that many modern women refuse to date anyone except for those people whom they had an immediate, biology-level attraction to. To Ancient Greeks, that would be like saying: “I don’t date men unless I’m being overwhelmed by temporary madness for them.”
Of course, some women absolutely do use their brain or intuition and make genuinely good dating choices. It’s certainly not true that all women operate based on biology-level attraction. However, most modern women do.
So, those are some elements of women’s biology-level attraction: men must be able to kill an attacking bandit on a moment’s notice, and men must be able to bring home food during a famine no matter what needs to be done. Hence bad boys and jerks and psychopaths and stoic men are welcome, while emotional and weak and kind men are not.
And a women’s higher faculties have the complete opposite preferences, which can lead to almost schizophrenic outcomes, where women say they want one kind of man and then date a completely different kind of man.
But we’re not done yet. Another element of women’s biology-level attraction is a very high amount of pickiness.
After all, in primitive societies, being the second or third wife of an exceptional hunter is a better deal than being the only wife of an average guy. After all, that exceptional hunter will be able to provide for three wives, and besides he can actually win fights and thereby keep the woman and their children safe. The average man may lose the fight, which could mean that a wild animal or bandit kills the family.
If you don’t think that these types of consideration still matter, ask yourself why height still plays such an important role in female attraction. After all, height doesn’t matter in modern society, and height doesn’t indicate any type of virtue on the part of the man. It doesn’t seem logical for women to significantly prefer men that are a bit taller than her, to shorter men. Yet, women do have that preference.
This is because height is very important when it comes to fighting or hunting. And a man being good at fighting and hunting in primitive society could easily mean the difference between life and death.
So yes, women’s attraction is still being governed by what was beneficial in the stone age. Women’s strong preference for somewhat taller guys shows this.
So, women are picky and they want top men, even if that means sharing him with other women. After all, the top man can actually kill the wild animal or bandit who would otherwise kill the family.
Having a monogamous relationship with a more average man might be nice, but biology doesn’t care about happiness. Besides, it’s not nice if he can’t stop the entire family from being killed.
Plus the great hunter probably has great genes, which means that their children will have a better chance to not die in childbirth. Which was a massive issue in prehistoric societies. That is yet another reason for women to be very picky, even if that means becoming the third wife of a top man rather than being monogamous with an average man.
Indeed, your scientists have found evidence that 80% of women procreated while only 40% of men did. This shows that yes, for much of your history, women preferred sharing top men over being monogamous with average men.
Younger women grew up without social and economic and religious factors pushing them towards monogamy. As a result, young women are once again becoming so picky that they’re rejecting available single men and end up sharing top men with other women. This is more common among young women than you might realize.
Sometimes this is one man openly having relationships with multiple women, where those women know each other. And sometimes this is just one man dating or having regular sex with multiple women.
As a result of this, currently more than 60% of young men are single, while only about 30% of young women are single.
Of course, this also has something to do with women dating older men, but there is absolutely an element of women being so picky that they’re choosing to share the top men rather than being monogamous with the single men. And that is a great strategy for reproducing in a stone age tribe, but it’s a poor strategy for being happy in the modern world. After all, the women who choose to share a top man, are frequently unhappy because of the lack of quality time and intimacy and connection. But, biology doesn’t care about happiness, it cares about reproduction.
Hence my earlier statement that women are following their biology-level attraction, often to the detriment of their own long-term happiness.
Women see how dumb it is when men follow their biological attraction, for example when they choose a woman with large breasts over a woman with a good character, or when men blow up a relationship in order to have some casual sex.
But it can also be very counterproductive when women follow their biological attraction, for example by being so picky that she rejects all interested men and ends up alone. And while both men and women might be quick to claim that they’re happy alone, the fact is that most people aren’t fully happy without a relationship.
Or if a woman follows her biological attraction, it can lead to her sharing a top man with other women, which may not be emotionally fulfilling because his attention will be split and hence the connection might not be very meaningful.
Or it can lead to a woman getting repeatedly used for sex, because top men won’t marry average women but they will sleep with them.
If your dating experience is that men are only interested in sex, then likely you are trying to date up so much that that tier of man you’re dating isn’t interested in marrying you. But men won’t say no to easy sex.
Single men who actually are in your league typically will be interested in a serious relationship. Sure, a few men won’t, but most men will.
Women’s pickiness isn’t just bad for her own happiness, it also hurts men. Earlier we said that less than 40% of young men are in a relationship. Plus, some of those men are in relationships that are unhappy or unhealthy or that won’t last a long time.
Therefore, perhaps only one in five young men are in healthy, happy relationships that are going to last a long time. This is obviously awful for men. And it’s also awful for society, because if average young men can’t find a woman, then why would they work hard? Why not just indulge in video games all day? And this will cause a serious decline in society at large, because society needs young men to be ambitious and work hard.
Now, women at this point might argue that they’re actually not all that picky, and that all they want is a decent partner who is, let’s say, emotionally open and a good communicator.
Let’s say that 30% of all men are sufficiently emotionally open and good enough communicators for the woman’s tastes. Surely it’s not unreasonable to say yes to dating 30% of all men? That still leaves many millions of potential partners out there.
But in reality, there’s often a laundry list of unspoken criteria that women have on top of their stated criteria. And while those unspoken criteria might sound reasonable by themselves, due to the way probabilities work, any long list of criteria will eliminate the vast majority of men.
Suppose that a hidden criteria is that a man must make at least $30,000 per year in the US. This is a below-median amount in the United States, and about 70% of men fulfill that criteria, so this doesn’t sound unreasonable. We’re not even asking that the man makes a median amount of money, we’re merely asking that he doesn’t make significantly less than the median. Many women would be pickier than this. But let’s be as reasonable as possible.
Also, the man also can’t be short. Let’s say he has to be at least 172cm, or 5 foot and 8 inches. Again, we’re not even asking here that the man has a median height, we’re merely asking that he’s not significantly below the median. In other words, we’re merely asking that he’s not short. Again, 70% of men fulfill that criteria.
Now, let’s add the requirement that the man can’t be obese. We’re not being unreasonable, we’re okay with him being overweight, but he can’t be obese. Okay, about 60% of American men aren’t obese.
Let’s also say that he can’t suffer from mental illness, which is true for 80% of men.
So, what percentage of men fulfill these reasonable sounding requirements? Please estimate this before reading on.
Pausing to give people some time to guess…
Let’s calculate it. 0.3 * 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.6 * 0.8 = 0.07%. So we’re only accepting 7% of men and rejecting all the rest. In other words, even though our demands seemed reasonable, we’ve somehow stumbled upon a situation where we’re rejecting the vast majority of men and only accepting a tiny group of top men. At least, that’s what our simple calculation indicates; reality may be a bit more complex.
And note that the men we’re rejecting this way are men who will also be rejected by other women. Other women also aren’t looking to date men who are mentally ill, or obese, or very short, or broke, et cetera. As a result, even though we think we’re being reasonable, really we’re trying to fish out of the same small pool of the 7% most appealing men that pretty much all women are trying to fish out of.
Now sure, women have different preferences to an extent, however pretty much all women are trying to avoid men who are obese, short, broke, mentally ill, et cetera. So the general pattern still holds that a woman thinks she is being quite reasonable, but in actuality she is still trying to fish out of a smallish pool of top tier men that more or less all women are also trying to fish out of. She’s being a lot pickier than she realizes.
How can this be? We merely asked that the man makes $30,000 per year, which is a below median amount in the United States. So how can it be that apparently we’re now apparently suddenly demanding a top-7% man?
It’s because of how probabilities work when you stack them on top of each other.
Yes, if a woman would date any man who makes $30,000 per year, then indeed 70% of men are options to her. But in reality, she also had the hidden requirements that the man cannot be mentally ill, or obese, et cetera. And all of those requirements by themselves sound reasonable, but if you stack them on top of each other then suddenly the woman is actually demanding a top-7% man without realizing it.
And we’ve actually been quite reasonable, only demanding that the man isn’t short and isn’t broke and isn’t obese. If we’re actually demanding that the man is a bit taller than average, makes a bit more money than average and also isn’t allowed to be overweight, then the 7% shrinks even more.
That 7% would also be even lower if we added in more criteria that women may also have, such as that the man cannot have children from past relationships, that he cannot be seriously physically ill, that he cannot be in serious debt, that he must have a certain level of education, that he must have decent social skills and humor, et cetera. And all those demands, while all seemingly reasonable by themselves, still stack on top of each other, and reduce the pool of acceptable men to even less than 7%.
Now, obviously I’m not saying that women should date just anyone.
But now it becomes perhaps easier to see that it may be hard to find a man who checks all your boxes, due to the way that probabilities work. And that suggests that it may not be productive for women to insist on a man to whom she’s immediately biologically attracted.
For example, a man’s height was important in the stone age, but may not actually be that important when it comes to long-term relationship happiness in the modern world.
If you’re one of the relatively few women who does give short men a try, then it’s entirely possible that you will get a good husband whom other women rejected for shallow reasons.
And also, if you do have the attention of a man who has one or two great qualities and he isn’t short, isn’t broke, isn’t obese, isn’t mentally ill, et cetera, then you likely have a top-tier man on your hands, even if it doesn’t seem like a top-tier man to you. After all, we did the math, right? People are just quite bad at correctly guessing probabilities.
Even if he doesn’t immediately set your world on fire, I would strongly consider dating such a man, or maintaining the relationship with him if he’s already your partner. Because after all, odds are that you will not find a better man.
You can be genuinely happy even with a non-exceptional partner. Happiness comes from within, after all, and it’s inner work that will ultimately fulfill you.
Sure, it would be great to have a kind, good-hearted man who is also immediately attractive to you on a biological level… but that’s a few percent of men at most, and all the other women want those men too. You’re almost certainly not going to get him. Because why would that man with infinite options choose you over all the other women he could marry?
Which means that if you do only go after men who are immediately attractive to you on a biological level… Almost certainly those men either have severe character defects and they won’t make you happy long term, or they have so many options that they will sleep with you but won’t commit to you.
If you’re still not convinced: on Tinder, women only respond to 4% or 5% of men. Which is pretty much in line with our calculation of our hypothetical woman only being satisfied with 7% of men.
Another indicator is that research shows that women rate 80% of men as below average. You can imagine how that works: a woman sees a man who isn’t amazing, but he has one or two great qualities and he isn’t short, isn’t obese, isn’t broke, isn’t mentally ill, et cetera. The woman labels that as average, but as we’ve seen, these kinds of men are actually somewhere near the top, just by having some genuine qualities and by also not having any of a laundry list of significant defects that some men have.
Now on one hand I can sort of see where Earth women are coming from. But on the other hand, labeling 80% of men as below average is of course very picky. By definition, 50% of men are below average, not 80%.
At this point, women might say that if the dating situation is like this, then they’d rather be single. And that’s of course a choice you can make, and in fact for some women being single is indeed the optimal choice.
However, you genuinely can be happy with a man who is not immediately attractive to you on a biology level. If you let some of those biology-level criteria go, and give men a chance who aren’t immediately attractive to you, then it’s quite possible to find a good partner whom other women didn’t give a chance.
Furthermore, most people, men and women, won’t be fully happy unless they have a partner.
And the idea that some women have that they can’t find anyone is not necessarily based on reality. It may be merely based on the experiences that they had while following their biological attraction. And sure, they probably didn’t find a happy relationship while following their biological attraction, but women can also date while not doing that.
In other words, some women (and some men too) dated exclusively by following their biological attraction, got burned by that, and then swore off dating entirely. But it’s also possible to date while mostly following your brain and intuition, and de-emphasizing the desires stemming from your biological attractions.
Just like men may have to accept a partner who doesn’t have large breasts or isn’t in her twenties, you too may have to accept a partner who for example is short. And such a partner can still enhance your life.
And I would realize that the type of man who has a few good qualities and who doesn’t have any significant flaws is actually a significantly above-average man already. I wouldn’t be too quick to reject such men just because they aren’t immediately attractive on a biological level. After all, attraction and love can grow over time.
There are also qualities you can cultivate that make you more attractive towards men. Obviously a slim body is nice, but you can also sort out your own life, work on healing your old wounds, practicing kindness and patience, et cetera.
The good news is that men actually on average aren’t excessively picky. Sure, some men are, but most of the female idea of men being picky stems from women all trying to get commitment from the same small pool of top men. Sure, those men are very picky because they have infinite options.
However if an average woman expresses interest in a man who is actually average, most likely he’ll be interested.
Most men are also good people. Sure, not all men are, but the idea that most men suck is mostly just women following their biological attraction and thereby dating all kinds of jerks, and then concluding that most men are jerks as a result.
If a man says that all his girlfriends were crazy, then you would likely think that this man must be attracted to crazy women, right? Similarly, if all your experiences are that men are jerks, then maybe you’re attracted to jerks.
Furthermore, most men are quite easy to please. Sure, men are different, but it’s mostly the men who are either jerks or who have infinite options who are likely to be unsatisfied, to cheat or to dump their wife. Most men are genuinely happy and faithful if they just have a decent, kind wife.
Now, let’s give some dating advice to men.
Choose conscious women with a good personality, over women who are younger or prettier. After all, that is what will lead to long-term happiness.
If you go for unconscious women, then likely she will see that you’re too kind or too insecure or too emotional to be able to murder a stone-age bandit. And the relationship won’t work. Therefore choose conscious women, because you won’t have this problem with them.
Alternatively you can be a selfish bad boy with a fit body or large bank account, and try to sleep with as many women as possible. But if that’s the game you want to play, be aware that the prize you’ll win may ultimately be meaningless. Lots of casual sex may seem appealing at first, but it won’t nourish your soul. It will ultimately be empty.
Finally, let’s add one more piece to the puzzle.
Namely: women undervalue femininity.
It is absolutely not true that having a career is somehow a worthier pursuit than being loving, being caring, being people-oriented, taking care of people around you, having children, supporting your partner, taking care of the house, engaging in spirituality, making art, teaching, volunteering, gardening, et cetera et cetera et cetera.
In other words, masculine-energy pursuits aren’t better than feminine-energy pursuits.
However, many women have been convinced that they only have value, or that they only are financially safe, if they’re excelling in masculine pursuits. This is why being a stay at home mom is considered uncool or dangerous or detrimental to feminism, while being a career woman is seen as a good thing and as the safe choice.
However, career women tend to have a very hard time dating, and ultimately relationships are much more a source of happiness than jobs are. After all, the vast majority of work isn’t glamorous or spectacular or fulfilling. So, is being a career woman really the road to happiness and safety?
Different roads will appeal to different people, but most people will only be happy if they’re in a relationship where the woman is feminine and the man is masculine.
Well, women pursuing masculine pursuits is poison to that arrangement. There is no polarity or natural attraction between a masculine man and a masculine woman. Those people won’t feel much attraction towards each other because frankly they don’t need each other — they’re already both masculine.
Theoretically it could work if the woman is masculine and the man is feminine, however very few people will be happy long-term being in the energy of the opposite gender. Most men also aren’t attracted to masculine women, and most women aren’t attracted to feminine men.
I get needing a job to survive. But this whole phenomenon of women thinking that masculine pursuits like careers and independence are good, and that feminine pursuits like being a devoted mother or supportive wife are bad… to me that looks like metaphorical penis envy.
My beautiful sisters, you are already fully worthy of love, as you are right now. You don’t need to become masculine in order to have value or be safe. You already have value — good men already value you as you are, and good men are already happy to contribute financially and keep you safe. Those men exist, they’re out there.
If you disagree with my stance on gender dynamics, please consider that what your society is currently doing isn’t working. At all. Pretty much everyone is unhappy and your society is deteriorating and unraveling rapidly. Sticking with something that very clearly doesn’t work can’t be the solution.
If you favor a type of gender dynamics that leads to women having below replacement level children, then you’re also advocating for gender dynamics that will eventually lead to the extinction of your species.
Meanwhile, if you admire us Pleiadians and want to meet us and want to pluck the technological and spiritual fruits of our society, then it may be good to consider that it was pretty much traditional gender dynamics that helped us to cultivate those fruits.
Now obviously our women aren’t banned from our form of university, and aren’t banned from any careers.
However, yes, most of our women are focused on the home, on their children, on supporting their husband, et cetera. They’re not forced to do that, but that is what most Pleiadian women choose. And there really isn’t anything wrong with that.
In fact, men tend to love those kinds of women and value them and be happy to marry them. And why not? This is a type of life that makes the average woman happy, that raises healthy children and that contributes greatly and very positively to society.
And obviously, as a family-oriented woman you absolutely can have your own garden, or your own podcast, or your own side project, or make art, or whatever you choose to do. It’s a secure basis, not a straitjacket.
And with that, and with all my hopes and wishes for positive male – female interactions on Earth, I will leave you for today.
Your star sister,
Tourmalayne
Channel: A.S. For Era of Light These channelings are exclusively submitted to EraofLight.com by the channeler. If you wish to share them elsewhere, please include a link back to this original post.
If you are interested in local meetings with other people also seeking first contact with benevolent ETs, then please see https://eraoflight.com/2024/06/19/hakann-local-meetings-for-those-seeking-first-contact-with-benevolent-ets/ . If you search with control-F for @, then you can quickly find email addresses of those who are organizing local groups. It’s also not too late to post a new (secondary) email address yourself to start a new local group, because we plan to keep linking to that post for the foreseeable future.
Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from:
My dearest Earth friends,
This is Tourmalayne speaking. It is so good to speak to you again.
Today I will give dating advice that some of you will already know, but that may be beneficial for some people:
Don’t follow your biology-level attraction, because it will lead you to reject partners who would make you happy, and it will lead you to date partners who won’t.
So, let’s unpack that.
First of all, this advice applies to both men and women. I will mostly be discussing female biological attraction in this message because it’s less well-understood on Earth. Still, let’s first look at male biological attraction.
Men’s biology-level attraction pushes them to have sex with as many women as they can, especially if those women are pretty and young. After all, young women are fertile and pretty women have good genes. Good genes means less chance of the child dying during their childhood, which was a huge issue in previous centuries.
Men’s biology-level attraction also causes them to prefer women who are unlikely to secretly cheat on him and pretend that another man’s child is his. This leads men to preferring virginal, inexperienced, submissive, not super outgoing, not very flirty or promiscuous women.
Don’t blame men for this preference. Blame the women who cheated on men and then pretended that another man’s child was his, which apparently happened often enough that men now have a noticeable preference for women whose character traits indicate that they are unlikely to do that.
I’m not being too cynical. In France, paternity testing is only allowed with a court order. This was done to “preserve the peace of families.”
So yes, a small but not insignificant group of women does in fact cheat on their partner and then pretend that the child is his. While immoral, this makes biological sense — that way the woman gets the great genes from one man, and gets the stability and resources from another man. This maximizes her chance of having a child who will survive to adulthood, if she can’t find one man with both great genes and lots of resources.
Ultimately, biology doesn’t care about morality. Biology also doesn’t care about happiness. All it cares about is producing children who will reach adulthood.
Now, if a man just wants to reproduce, then it’s more or less okay for him to follow his biology-level attraction.
However, if a man wants to be happy, then it’s not a good strategy to let himself be led by those biology-level attractions. After all, his biology wants him to choose a prettier woman over a woman with a better character. His biology also wants him to have a ton of empty, meaningless sex with a ton of women. This is a great strategy for reproduction, but it’s not a good strategy for long-term happiness.
So, this is the first important principle: following your biological attraction is good for reproduction, but it’s bad for long-term happiness. Now your biology doesn’t care about your happiness, but you might.
And indeed, men are told to use their brain when selecting a partner, to not just go for the hottest woman, to not blindly follow their dick, to be faithful to one woman and to not just have sex with as many women as possible, et cetera.
This is good advice. Telling men to not just follow their biological attraction causes more men to make choices that lead them to long-term happiness.
The advice not to follow their biological attraction is just as true for women. But unfortunately, society doesn’t as often give women this warning. Hence women often do simply follow their biology-level attraction. As a result women often reject good partners, select horrible partners and get seriously hurt.
After all, in modern societies it’s not that important that a husband is able to fight well. But in primitive societies, that was absolutely crucial. Not being able to fight well could mean that the entire family gets murdered by a bandit, or gets eaten by a wild animal.
So a woman’s biology-level attraction likes it when men are able to kill an attacking bandit on a moment’s notice. Because that means the family survives. So it’s attractive when men are stoic, capable of violence and a bit psychopathic. It’s not attractive if he’s calm, humanitarian, emotional, empathetic, kind or excessively rational, because then he can’t kill the bandit who would otherwise murder his family.
You can’t have a husband who has a moment of weakness when a bandit is suddenly attacking the family. If he has a pang of anxiety, the entire family dies. Therefore men can’t show weakness, not even for a moment. If a man ever cries, forget it, dump his ass.
Now obviously, women have higher faculties too, and it is attracted to loftier things than her biology-level attraction. But when push comes to shove, modern women do often choose to follow their biology-level attraction. And so women might say they want emotionally open men, but when push comes to shove they reject such men in favor of emotionally repressed men who don’t show much emotion. Because that’s who can kill a bandit at a moment’s notice, and hence that’s what’s biologically attractive.
Your husband needs to be surface-level stoic for only the time it takes for your children to become teenagers. After that, you’ve achieved your biological goal, and your future happiness and relationship stability, or your husband’s psychological health, doesn’t matter from a biological perspective.
Obviously, choosing men who are capable of murdering a stone-age bandit is a poor choice for optimizing your happiness in the present day. But even though it sounds really silly if I say it like this, this is what women’s biological attraction is actually nudging them towards. Which means that following biological attraction is a terrible idea for long-term happiness.
Other than killing bandits, what’s also important and therefore attractive in prehistoric times is that the man will bring home food, even if there’s a famine. No matter what he needs to do to get that food.
So, what kind of traits will allow a man to bring home food, even if there’s a famine, no matter what he needs to do to get that food?
Well, violent tendencies, psychopathy, narcissism, perhaps poor impulse control, being stoic, not being too emotional or humanitarian or introspective or rational. The man shouldn’t be too moral or kind or empathetic, because that just gets in the way of him bringing home food no matter what.
Yeah, it’s not nice, but having your child starve to death isn’t nice either.
And that’s why bad boys and jerks and psychopaths and narcissists are attractive to women.
Don’t blame women, they just don’t want their children to starve to death during a famine. Doesn’t matter that those things no longer happen in the West — what happened in the Stone age is what women’s attraction is calibrated towards.
Now, there’s also a part of women that likes kind men and that doesn’t like bad boys and jerks and psychopaths. Yet biology-level attraction leads women away from kind men and towards bad boys and jerks.
This is why you have some women saying they want a kind man, and then they reject kind men in favor of a jerk. It’s a war between the more evolved parts of her and her raw, cavewoman era, biology-level attraction. And if a woman is just following her attraction, then the cavewoman often wins.
Women saying they want kind men, and then rejecting kind men in favor of jerks, is a sort of unintentional gaslighting that women inflict on men.
And obviously, choosing bad boys and jerks isn’t good for women’s long-term happiness either. No matter how much her biological attraction might appreciate that those guys can kill bandits and bring home food during a famine.
Women often see it as self-evident that of course they’re only going to date those men who are immediately attractive to her on a biological level. After all, love and attraction are requirements for a relationship, right?
Sometimes this isn’t even a conscious choice: many women simply instantly reject men who aren’t immediately attractive. Or women don’t even register such men as potential partners. Sometimes women get asked out during an event, immediately turn the man down, and then think to themselves at the end of the event that it’s a shame that no one asked her out.
Now on one level, it’s understandable that women only want to date men they’re immediately biologically attracted to. Don’t you need to be attracted to your partner?
Yet, attraction is actually something that can grow over time. It doesn’t need to be there immediately.
And there’s also the difference between long-term attraction to someone because they’re a good person and you’ve built something together, versus immediate attraction because that guy would be able to kill an attacking stone age bandit.
Insisting on only dating men who are immediately attractive means quite possibly rejecting good men in favor of jerks. Because that’s what women’s biology-level attraction points them to.
Or women insisting on dating men who are immediately attractive can mean going for genuinely good men who are also immediately attractive. However, only a tiny handful of men are genuinely good men while also being immediately attractive on a biological level. And pretty much all women would love a man like this. So those men are either already taken, or they have so many options that they’re willing to have sex but they’re unwilling to commit.
Immediate, biology-level attraction isn’t actually a requirement for long-term relationship happiness. In fact, the Ancient Greeks saw immediate, biology-level attraction as a type of temporary madness that just leads people astray.
They would be horrified to learn that many modern women refuse to date anyone except for those people whom they had an immediate, biology-level attraction to. To Ancient Greeks, that would be like saying: “I don’t date men unless I’m being overwhelmed by temporary madness for them.”
Of course, some women absolutely do use their brain or intuition and make genuinely good dating choices. It’s certainly not true that all women operate based on biology-level attraction. However, most modern women do.
So, those are some elements of women’s biology-level attraction: men must be able to kill an attacking bandit on a moment’s notice, and men must be able to bring home food during a famine no matter what needs to be done. Hence bad boys and jerks and psychopaths and stoic men are welcome, while emotional and weak and kind men are not.
And a women’s higher faculties have the complete opposite preferences, which can lead to almost schizophrenic outcomes, where women say they want one kind of man and then date a completely different kind of man.
But we’re not done yet. Another element of women’s biology-level attraction is a very high amount of pickiness.
After all, in primitive societies, being the second or third wife of an exceptional hunter is a better deal than being the only wife of an average guy. After all, that exceptional hunter will be able to provide for three wives, and besides he can actually win fights and thereby keep the woman and their children safe. The average man may lose the fight, which could mean that a wild animal or bandit kills the family.
If you don’t think that these types of consideration still matter, ask yourself why height still plays such an important role in female attraction. After all, height doesn’t matter in modern society, and height doesn’t indicate any type of virtue on the part of the man. It doesn’t seem logical for women to significantly prefer men that are a bit taller than her, to shorter men. Yet, women do have that preference.
This is because height is very important when it comes to fighting or hunting. And a man being good at fighting and hunting in primitive society could easily mean the difference between life and death.
So yes, women’s attraction is still being governed by what was beneficial in the stone age. Women’s strong preference for somewhat taller guys shows this.
So, women are picky and they want top men, even if that means sharing him with other women. After all, the top man can actually kill the wild animal or bandit who would otherwise kill the family.
Having a monogamous relationship with a more average man might be nice, but biology doesn’t care about happiness. Besides, it’s not nice if he can’t stop the entire family from being killed.
Plus the great hunter probably has great genes, which means that their children will have a better chance to not die in childbirth. Which was a massive issue in prehistoric societies. That is yet another reason for women to be very picky, even if that means becoming the third wife of a top man rather than being monogamous with an average man.
Indeed, your scientists have found evidence that 80% of women procreated while only 40% of men did. This shows that yes, for much of your history, women preferred sharing top men over being monogamous with average men.
Younger women grew up without social and economic and religious factors pushing them towards monogamy. As a result, young women are once again becoming so picky that they’re rejecting available single men and end up sharing top men with other women. This is more common among young women than you might realize.
Sometimes this is one man openly having relationships with multiple women, where those women know each other. And sometimes this is just one man dating or having regular sex with multiple women.
As a result of this, currently more than 60% of young men are single, while only about 30% of young women are single.
Of course, this also has something to do with women dating older men, but there is absolutely an element of women being so picky that they’re choosing to share the top men rather than being monogamous with the single men. And that is a great strategy for reproducing in a stone age tribe, but it’s a poor strategy for being happy in the modern world. After all, the women who choose to share a top man, are frequently unhappy because of the lack of quality time and intimacy and connection. But, biology doesn’t care about happiness, it cares about reproduction.
Hence my earlier statement that women are following their biology-level attraction, often to the detriment of their own long-term happiness.
Women see how dumb it is when men follow their biological attraction, for example when they choose a woman with large breasts over a woman with a good character, or when men blow up a relationship in order to have some casual sex.
But it can also be very counterproductive when women follow their biological attraction, for example by being so picky that she rejects all interested men and ends up alone. And while both men and women might be quick to claim that they’re happy alone, the fact is that most people aren’t fully happy without a relationship.
Or if a woman follows her biological attraction, it can lead to her sharing a top man with other women, which may not be emotionally fulfilling because his attention will be split and hence the connection might not be very meaningful.
Or it can lead to a woman getting repeatedly used for sex, because top men won’t marry average women but they will sleep with them.
If your dating experience is that men are only interested in sex, then likely you are trying to date up so much that that tier of man you’re dating isn’t interested in marrying you. But men won’t say no to easy sex.
Single men who actually are in your league typically will be interested in a serious relationship. Sure, a few men won’t, but most men will.
Women’s pickiness isn’t just bad for her own happiness, it also hurts men. Earlier we said that less than 40% of young men are in a relationship. Plus, some of those men are in relationships that are unhappy or unhealthy or that won’t last a long time.
Therefore, perhaps only one in five young men are in healthy, happy relationships that are going to last a long time. This is obviously awful for men. And it’s also awful for society, because if average young men can’t find a woman, then why would they work hard? Why not just indulge in video games all day? And this will cause a serious decline in society at large, because society needs young men to be ambitious and work hard.
Now, women at this point might argue that they’re actually not all that picky, and that all they want is a decent partner who is, let’s say, emotionally open and a good communicator.
Let’s say that 30% of all men are sufficiently emotionally open and good enough communicators for the woman’s tastes. Surely it’s not unreasonable to say yes to dating 30% of all men? That still leaves many millions of potential partners out there.
But in reality, there’s often a laundry list of unspoken criteria that women have on top of their stated criteria. And while those unspoken criteria might sound reasonable by themselves, due to the way probabilities work, any long list of criteria will eliminate the vast majority of men.
Suppose that a hidden criteria is that a man must make at least $30,000 per year in the US. This is a below-median amount in the United States, and about 70% of men fulfill that criteria, so this doesn’t sound unreasonable. We’re not even asking that the man makes a median amount of money, we’re merely asking that he doesn’t make significantly less than the median. Many women would be pickier than this. But let’s be as reasonable as possible.
Also, the man also can’t be short. Let’s say he has to be at least 172cm, or 5 foot and 8 inches. Again, we’re not even asking here that the man has a median height, we’re merely asking that he’s not significantly below the median. In other words, we’re merely asking that he’s not short. Again, 70% of men fulfill that criteria.
Now, let’s add the requirement that the man can’t be obese. We’re not being unreasonable, we’re okay with him being overweight, but he can’t be obese. Okay, about 60% of American men aren’t obese.
Let’s also say that he can’t suffer from mental illness, which is true for 80% of men.
So, what percentage of men fulfill these reasonable sounding requirements? Please estimate this before reading on.
Pausing to give people some time to guess…
Let’s calculate it. 0.3 * 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.6 * 0.8 = 0.07%. So we’re only accepting 7% of men and rejecting all the rest. In other words, even though our demands seemed reasonable, we’ve somehow stumbled upon a situation where we’re rejecting the vast majority of men and only accepting a tiny group of top men. At least, that’s what our simple calculation indicates; reality may be a bit more complex.
And note that the men we’re rejecting this way are men who will also be rejected by other women. Other women also aren’t looking to date men who are mentally ill, or obese, or very short, or broke, et cetera. As a result, even though we think we’re being reasonable, really we’re trying to fish out of the same small pool of the 7% most appealing men that pretty much all women are trying to fish out of.
Now sure, women have different preferences to an extent, however pretty much all women are trying to avoid men who are obese, short, broke, mentally ill, et cetera. So the general pattern still holds that a woman thinks she is being quite reasonable, but in actuality she is still trying to fish out of a smallish pool of top tier men that more or less all women are also trying to fish out of. She’s being a lot pickier than she realizes.
How can this be? We merely asked that the man makes $30,000 per year, which is a below median amount in the United States. So how can it be that apparently we’re now apparently suddenly demanding a top-7% man?
It’s because of how probabilities work when you stack them on top of each other.
Yes, if a woman would date any man who makes $30,000 per year, then indeed 70% of men are options to her. But in reality, she also had the hidden requirements that the man cannot be mentally ill, or obese, et cetera. And all of those requirements by themselves sound reasonable, but if you stack them on top of each other then suddenly the woman is actually demanding a top-7% man without realizing it.
And we’ve actually been quite reasonable, only demanding that the man isn’t short and isn’t broke and isn’t obese. If we’re actually demanding that the man is a bit taller than average, makes a bit more money than average and also isn’t allowed to be overweight, then the 7% shrinks even more.
That 7% would also be even lower if we added in more criteria that women may also have, such as that the man cannot have children from past relationships, that he cannot be seriously physically ill, that he cannot be in serious debt, that he must have a certain level of education, that he must have decent social skills and humor, et cetera. And all those demands, while all seemingly reasonable by themselves, still stack on top of each other, and reduce the pool of acceptable men to even less than 7%.
Now, obviously I’m not saying that women should date just anyone.
But now it becomes perhaps easier to see that it may be hard to find a man who checks all your boxes, due to the way that probabilities work. And that suggests that it may not be productive for women to insist on a man to whom she’s immediately biologically attracted.
For example, a man’s height was important in the stone age, but may not actually be that important when it comes to long-term relationship happiness in the modern world.
If you’re one of the relatively few women who does give short men a try, then it’s entirely possible that you will get a good husband whom other women rejected for shallow reasons.
And also, if you do have the attention of a man who has one or two great qualities and he isn’t short, isn’t broke, isn’t obese, isn’t mentally ill, et cetera, then you likely have a top-tier man on your hands, even if it doesn’t seem like a top-tier man to you. After all, we did the math, right? People are just quite bad at correctly guessing probabilities.
Even if he doesn’t immediately set your world on fire, I would strongly consider dating such a man, or maintaining the relationship with him if he’s already your partner. Because after all, odds are that you will not find a better man.
You can be genuinely happy even with a non-exceptional partner. Happiness comes from within, after all, and it’s inner work that will ultimately fulfill you.
Sure, it would be great to have a kind, good-hearted man who is also immediately attractive to you on a biological level… but that’s a few percent of men at most, and all the other women want those men too. You’re almost certainly not going to get him. Because why would that man with infinite options choose you over all the other women he could marry?
Which means that if you do only go after men who are immediately attractive to you on a biological level… Almost certainly those men either have severe character defects and they won’t make you happy long term, or they have so many options that they will sleep with you but won’t commit to you.
If you’re still not convinced: on Tinder, women only respond to 4% or 5% of men. Which is pretty much in line with our calculation of our hypothetical woman only being satisfied with 7% of men.
Another indicator is that research shows that women rate 80% of men as below average. You can imagine how that works: a woman sees a man who isn’t amazing, but he has one or two great qualities and he isn’t short, isn’t obese, isn’t broke, isn’t mentally ill, et cetera. The woman labels that as average, but as we’ve seen, these kinds of men are actually somewhere near the top, just by having some genuine qualities and by also not having any of a laundry list of significant defects that some men have.
Now on one hand I can sort of see where Earth women are coming from. But on the other hand, labeling 80% of men as below average is of course very picky. By definition, 50% of men are below average, not 80%.
At this point, women might say that if the dating situation is like this, then they’d rather be single. And that’s of course a choice you can make, and in fact for some women being single is indeed the optimal choice.
However, you genuinely can be happy with a man who is not immediately attractive to you on a biology level. If you let some of those biology-level criteria go, and give men a chance who aren’t immediately attractive to you, then it’s quite possible to find a good partner whom other women didn’t give a chance.
Furthermore, most people, men and women, won’t be fully happy unless they have a partner.
And the idea that some women have that they can’t find anyone is not necessarily based on reality. It may be merely based on the experiences that they had while following their biological attraction. And sure, they probably didn’t find a happy relationship while following their biological attraction, but women can also date while not doing that.
In other words, some women (and some men too) dated exclusively by following their biological attraction, got burned by that, and then swore off dating entirely. But it’s also possible to date while mostly following your brain and intuition, and de-emphasizing the desires stemming from your biological attractions.
Just like men may have to accept a partner who doesn’t have large breasts or isn’t in her twenties, you too may have to accept a partner who for example is short. And such a partner can still enhance your life.
And I would realize that the type of man who has a few good qualities and who doesn’t have any significant flaws is actually a significantly above-average man already. I wouldn’t be too quick to reject such men just because they aren’t immediately attractive on a biological level. After all, attraction and love can grow over time.
There are also qualities you can cultivate that make you more attractive towards men. Obviously a slim body is nice, but you can also sort out your own life, work on healing your old wounds, practicing kindness and patience, et cetera.
The good news is that men actually on average aren’t excessively picky. Sure, some men are, but most of the female idea of men being picky stems from women all trying to get commitment from the same small pool of top men. Sure, those men are very picky because they have infinite options.
However if an average woman expresses interest in a man who is actually average, most likely he’ll be interested.
Most men are also good people. Sure, not all men are, but the idea that most men suck is mostly just women following their biological attraction and thereby dating all kinds of jerks, and then concluding that most men are jerks as a result.
If a man says that all his girlfriends were crazy, then you would likely think that this man must be attracted to crazy women, right? Similarly, if all your experiences are that men are jerks, then maybe you’re attracted to jerks.
Furthermore, most men are quite easy to please. Sure, men are different, but it’s mostly the men who are either jerks or who have infinite options who are likely to be unsatisfied, to cheat or to dump their wife. Most men are genuinely happy and faithful if they just have a decent, kind wife.
Now, let’s give some dating advice to men.
Choose conscious women with a good personality, over women who are younger or prettier. After all, that is what will lead to long-term happiness.
If you go for unconscious women, then likely she will see that you’re too kind or too insecure or too emotional to be able to murder a stone-age bandit. And the relationship won’t work. Therefore choose conscious women, because you won’t have this problem with them.
Alternatively you can be a selfish bad boy with a fit body or large bank account, and try to sleep with as many women as possible. But if that’s the game you want to play, be aware that the prize you’ll win may ultimately be meaningless. Lots of casual sex may seem appealing at first, but it won’t nourish your soul. It will ultimately be empty.
Finally, let’s add one more piece to the puzzle.
Namely: women undervalue femininity.
It is absolutely not true that having a career is somehow a worthier pursuit than being loving, being caring, being people-oriented, taking care of people around you, having children, supporting your partner, taking care of the house, engaging in spirituality, making art, teaching, volunteering, gardening, et cetera et cetera et cetera.
In other words, masculine-energy pursuits aren’t better than feminine-energy pursuits.
However, many women have been convinced that they only have value, or that they only are financially safe, if they’re excelling in masculine pursuits. This is why being a stay at home mom is considered uncool or dangerous or detrimental to feminism, while being a career woman is seen as a good thing and as the safe choice.
However, career women tend to have a very hard time dating, and ultimately relationships are much more a source of happiness than jobs are. After all, the vast majority of work isn’t glamorous or spectacular or fulfilling. So, is being a career woman really the road to happiness and safety?
Different roads will appeal to different people, but most people will only be happy if they’re in a relationship where the woman is feminine and the man is masculine.
Well, women pursuing masculine pursuits is poison to that arrangement. There is no polarity or natural attraction between a masculine man and a masculine woman. Those people won’t feel much attraction towards each other because frankly they don’t need each other — they’re already both masculine.
Theoretically it could work if the woman is masculine and the man is feminine, however very few people will be happy long-term being in the energy of the opposite gender. Most men also aren’t attracted to masculine women, and most women aren’t attracted to feminine men.
I get needing a job to survive. But this whole phenomenon of women thinking that masculine pursuits like careers and independence are good, and that feminine pursuits like being a devoted mother or supportive wife are bad… to me that looks like metaphorical penis envy.
My beautiful sisters, you are already fully worthy of love, as you are right now. You don’t need to become masculine in order to have value or be safe. You already have value — good men already value you as you are, and good men are already happy to contribute financially and keep you safe. Those men exist, they’re out there.
If you disagree with my stance on gender dynamics, please consider that what your society is currently doing isn’t working. At all. Pretty much everyone is unhappy and your society is deteriorating and unraveling rapidly. Sticking with something that very clearly doesn’t work can’t be the solution.
If you favor a type of gender dynamics that leads to women having below replacement level children, then you’re also advocating for gender dynamics that will eventually lead to the extinction of your species.
Meanwhile, if you admire us Pleiadians and want to meet us and want to pluck the technological and spiritual fruits of our society, then it may be good to consider that it was pretty much traditional gender dynamics that helped us to cultivate those fruits.
Now obviously our women aren’t banned from our form of university, and aren’t banned from any careers.
However, yes, most of our women are focused on the home, on their children, on supporting their husband, et cetera. They’re not forced to do that, but that is what most Pleiadian women choose. And there really isn’t anything wrong with that.
In fact, men tend to love those kinds of women and value them and be happy to marry them. And why not? This is a type of life that makes the average woman happy, that raises healthy children and that contributes greatly and very positively to society.
And obviously, as a family-oriented woman you absolutely can have your own garden, or your own podcast, or your own side project, or make art, or whatever you choose to do. It’s a secure basis, not a straitjacket.
And with that, and with all my hopes and wishes for positive male – female interactions on Earth, I will leave you for today.
Your star sister,
Tourmalayne
- God the Source is unconditional love, not a zealous god of [some] dogmatic religions.
- All articles are the responsibility of the respective authors.
- My personal opinion: Nobody is more Anti-Semite than the Zionists.
Main Sites:
EN/PT http://violetflame.biz.ly
PT/EN chamavioleta.blogs.sapo.pt/
Blogs:
EN/PT http://violetflame.biz.ly
PT/EN chamavioleta.blogs.sapo.pt/
Blogs:
EN https://purpelligh.blogspot.com/
https://violet-rays.blogspot.com/
https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/https://rayviolet11.blogspot.com/
https://violet-rays.blogspot.com/
https://purple-rays.blogspot.com/
Social Media:
(email:nai@violetflame.biz.ly) Google deleted my former blogs rayviolet.blogspot.com & rayviolet2.blogspot.com just 10 hrs after I post Benjamin Fulford's
February 6, 2023 report, accusing me of posting child pornography.(A Big Fat Lie) Also rayviolet11.blogspot.com on Sep/13, 2024
February 6, 2023 report, accusing me of posting child pornography.
No comments:
Post a Comment