The secret to seduction is objectifying women.

The fundamental hurdle a man has to clear if he wants to spark a woman's interest lies in accepting a harsh reality: she isn't interested in him as a person, but rather as an object of desire—a "thing" she chooses to tolerate within her life structure.

Men are conditioned to believe we shouldn't objectify women, but instead view them as complex individuals with feelings and unique interests, under the assumption that treating them this way will naturally trigger their attraction. In practice, this is quite difficult because many women lack depth beyond their physical appearance, which is often the only thing drawing men toward them in the first place. Consequently, it creates a false impression that any woman who attracts male attention is inherently superficial, if one is forced to operate at that level of nonverbal communication.
The dynamic works identically in reverse. By default, women aren't looking at men as people; rather, a man must actively cultivate that interest by presenting himself as someone valuable enough to be worth having in her life. However, the moment a man reveals his emotional side—especially when he demonstrates actual emotional needs—it shatters the illusion the woman has built around him, leading to a total loss of interest.
Therefore, for a man to successfully win a woman over, he must function as a subject of desire rather than a human being.

It honestly feels like all these absurd divisions are just designed to put some people on a pedestal while leaving everyone else to suffer.

I mean, let's be real—egoism, materialism, and even the environment we're raised in... they all play such a massive role in how everything unfolds, don't they?

Rebecca Carter8 said:The fundamental hurdle a man has to clear if he wants to spark a woman's interest lies in accepting a harsh reality: she isn't interested in him as a person, but rather as an object of desire—a "thing" she chooses to tolerate within her life structure.

Men are conditioned to believe we shouldn't objectify women, but instead view them as complex individuals with feelings and unique interests, under the assumption that treating them this way will naturally trigger their attraction. In practice, this is quite difficult because many women lack depth beyond their physical appearance, which is often the only thing drawing men toward them in the first place. Consequently, it creates a false impression that any woman who attracts male attention is inherently superficial, if one is forced to operate at that level of nonverbal communication.
The dynamic works identically in reverse. By default, women aren't looking at men as people; rather, a man must actively cultivate that interest by presenting himself as someone valuable enough to be worth having in her life. However, the moment a man reveals his emotional side—especially when he demonstrates actual emotional needs—it shatters the illusion the woman has built around him, leading to a total loss of interest.
Therefore, for a man to successfully win a woman over, he must function as a subject of desire rather than a human being.

Are you referring specifically to physical looks—like facial features or body type—along with clothing and makeup, or are you talking about "flirtatious" body language?

Rebecca Carter8 said:The fundamental hurdle a man has to clear if he wants to spark a woman's interest lies in accepting a harsh reality: she isn't interested in him as a person, but rather as an object of desire—a "thing" she chooses to tolerate within her life structure.

Men are conditioned to believe we shouldn't objectify women, but instead view them as complex individuals with feelings and unique interests, under the assumption that treating them this way will naturally trigger their attraction. In practice, this is quite difficult because many women lack depth beyond their physical appearance, which is often the only thing drawing men toward them in the first place. Consequently, it creates a false impression that any woman who attracts male attention is inherently superficial, if one is forced to operate at that level of nonverbal communication.
The dynamic works identically in reverse. By default, women aren't looking at men as people; rather, a man must actively cultivate that interest by presenting himself as someone valuable enough to be worth having in her life. However, the moment a man reveals his emotional side—especially when he demonstrates actual emotional needs—it shatters the illusion the woman has built around him, leading to a total loss of interest.
Therefore, for a man to successfully win a woman over, he must function as a subject of desire rather than a human being.

A person is interesting if they actually *are* interesting; no amount of "presentation" is going to turn a lemon into lemonade. If someone is emotionally needy, intellectually dull, and spiritually shallow, they aren't going to have much luck with women. It really couldn't be simpler than that. Even if they manage to play a part for a little while, they shouldn't be surprised when women run the other way once they see who they're actually dealing with.

To put it simply: if all you want is a fling, you just need to be an object of desire, which isn't exactly a monumental task. But if you're looking for a real relationship, you need to be a well-rounded person, which is a much harder goal to achieve. Judging by your posts, you've got quite a bit of work ahead of you.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Are you referring specifically to physical looks—like facial features or body type—along with clothing and makeup, or are you talking about "flirtatious" body language?

A person is interesting if they actually *are* interesting; no amount of "presentation" is going to turn a lemon into lemonade. If someone is emotionally needy, intellectually dull, and spiritually shallow, they aren't going to have much luck with women. It really couldn't be simpler than that. Even if they manage to play a part for a little while, they shouldn't be surprised when women run the other way once they see who they're actually dealing with.

To put it simply: if all you want is a fling, you just need to be an object of desire, which isn't exactly a monumental task. But if you're looking for a real relationship, you need to be a well-rounded person, which is a much harder goal to achieve. Judging by your posts, you've got quite a bit of work ahead of you.

What a joke. Personally, I’ve run into dozens of guys like this who have had massive success with women, and they were chosen over those "intellectually stimulating" or "spiritually deep" types every single time, for very obvious reasons.

Rebecca Carter8 said:The fundamental hurdle a man has to clear if he wants to spark a woman's interest lies in accepting a harsh reality: she isn't interested in him as a person, but rather as an object of desire—a "thing" she chooses to tolerate within her life structure.

Men are conditioned to believe we shouldn't objectify women, but instead view them as complex individuals with feelings and unique interests, under the assumption that treating them this way will naturally trigger their attraction. In practice, this is quite difficult because many women lack depth beyond their physical appearance, which is often the only thing drawing men toward them in the first place. Consequently, it creates a false impression that any woman who attracts male attention is inherently superficial, if one is forced to operate at that level of nonverbal communication.
The dynamic works identically in reverse. By default, women aren't looking at men as people; rather, a man must actively cultivate that interest by presenting himself as someone valuable enough to be worth having in her life. However, the moment a man reveals his emotional side—especially when he demonstrates actual emotional needs—it shatters the illusion the woman has built around him, leading to a total loss of interest.
Therefore, for a man to successfully win a woman over, he must function as a subject of desire rather than a human being.

So, what kind of women do *you* find interesting?

Character is the only thing that truly matters in a man.

It’s great for a guy to be sensitive and show he "needs" his partner, but there's a huge difference between being caring and being a total crybaby.

Honestly, women are just as prone to objectifying people as men—it’s just that the social climate is different. Plus, you've got that massive army of activists and organizations constantly guarding this supposed beyondness when it comes to women, which makes getting an objective take on anything pretty much impossible. We end up in this loop where men are basically forced to apologize for things that apply equally to everyone. I mean, seriously—just Google "objectification" and look at the results; who is the focus? It's almost exclusively on men. Then you have those folks who swear women cheat less, are less violent, can't separate sex from emotion, or are just inherently "better"—this isn't even the first time we've seen this kind of thing.

Which actually makes sense if you think about it. The way men are perceived is mostly left to chance—people just interpret them however they want because most guys don't give a damn about how they're viewed. That's way easier than it is for women, who generally care a lot more about their image. So, out of all those women, it wouldn't be weird to find a huge crowd stuck deep in feminism, some who have basically earned PhDs in cherry-picking arguments, and others who just love playing the victim... basically, a whole bunch of people who would run out of ammunition if they admitted they aren't any better than the "male pigs" they're always dragging. At the end of the day, the whole thing is built on that specific beyondness (honestly, I can't think of a better word) compared to everyone else, not just men. And yeah, that's exactly where those myths come from.

btw, when I was a kid, I thought George Clooney and Brad Pitt were just the male versions of Paul Anderson, but they're actually legit actors—unlike her. You only realize that after watching a dozen of their movies; until then, based on covers or trailers, you might just think they're the world's hottest bachelors, mostly because women haven't seen anything else worth noting in them. But nobody talks about that! Generally speaking, if you look at the headlines and content in all those women's magazines, it's pure trash—and women are the ones working there. I don't recall seeing any waves of criticism against them or the various celebrity gossip shows women run, yet a man who sees a woman as just a pair of breasts and a vagina is going to get absolutely blasted, even by the very groups of women I mentioned earlier.

No matter how you look at it, it’s all just nature's way of driving us to reproduce and keep the species going. Getting a little hit of instant gratification along the way doesn't really justify all the effort and time put into the whole process...

Someone clearly failed to realize that Pervan is just messing with us...

Look, you can't really control raw physical attraction. Everyone walks around with a look dictated by their genetics, and you’re just naturally drawn to certain people while others just don't do it for you.

Then you've got the whole biological side of things—pheromones and all those other hormones that play a huge role in whether there's an immediate spark or if someone just feels "off" to you.

But here’s the thing: behavior is actually within your control. Both guys and girls can act in ways that are total turn-offs, which can instantly kill any chemistry, or they can carry themselves in a way that builds it up. You can actually learn a lot about this through psychology. In your case, it’s mostly about working on being more interesting—think higher self-confidence and less of that "needy" vibe.

Jamie Adams6 said:Honestly, women are just as prone to objectifying people as men—it’s just that the social climate is different. Plus, you've got that massive army of activists and organizations constantly guarding this supposed beyondness when it comes to women, which makes getting an objective take on anything pretty much impossible. We end up in this loop where men are basically forced to apologize for things that apply equally to everyone. I mean, seriously—just Google "objectification" and look at the results; who is the focus? It's almost exclusively on men. Then you have those folks who swear women cheat less, are less violent, can't separate sex from emotion, or are just inherently "better"—this isn't even the first time we've seen this kind of thing.

Which actually makes sense if you think about it. The way men are perceived is mostly left to chance—people just interpret them however they want because most guys don't give a damn about how they're viewed. That's way easier than it is for women, who generally care a lot more about their image. So, out of all those women, it wouldn't be weird to find a huge crowd stuck deep in feminism, some who have basically earned PhDs in cherry-picking arguments, and others who just love playing the victim... basically, a whole bunch of people who would run out of ammunition if they admitted they aren't any better than the "male pigs" they're always dragging. At the end of the day, the whole thing is built on that specific beyondness (honestly, I can't think of a better word) compared to everyone else, not just men. And yeah, that's exactly where those myths come from.

btw, when I was a kid, I thought George Clooney and Brad Pitt were just the male versions of Paul Anderson, but they're actually legit actors—unlike her. You only realize that after watching a dozen of their movies; until then, based on covers or trailers, you might just think they're the world's hottest bachelors, mostly because women haven't seen anything else worth noting in them. But nobody talks about that! Generally speaking, if you look at the headlines and content in all those women's magazines, it's pure trash—and women are the ones working there. I don't recall seeing any waves of criticism against them or the various celebrity gossip shows women run, yet a man who sees a woman as just a pair of breasts and a vagina is going to get absolutely blasted, even by the very groups of women I mentioned earlier.

The entertainment industry basically survives by churning out sexualized caricatures. It offers men "perfect" bodies and women "ideal" partners. If you’re young enough or just incredibly naive, you might actually mistake this for reality. You could even end up obsessing over these celluloid fantasies—kind of like how Borat was obsessed with Pamela. 🤣Most people eventually figure out that the whole circus isn't all that deep. At the end of the day, even someone like Brad Pitt is just human—he’s still going to have his messy moments, and trust me, they don't exactly smell like roses.

Once you step out into the real world, there’s this unspoken expectation that you can actually tell the difference between reality and the fantasy fueled by sexualized imagery. When people treat those around them like nothing more than walking accessories—just vessels for breasts, butts, or bank accounts—they’re clearly missing something fundamental. It's hard to find any genuine connection when you view others that way, unless you happen to stumble upon someone who shares that exact same shallow worldview. That kind of mutual objectification might even lead to a "happy" ending of sorts: a house full of kids being raised by the very entertainment industry that created the mess in the first place, ensuring the cycle of mindless consumerism just keeps spinning indefinitely.

Look, nobody should have to apologize for what they’re attracted to, but you shouldn't complain if reality doesn't match the catalog version you ordered. It's even weirder when you actually *do* get exactly what you asked for—this hollow persona that's just a walking cliché of femininity. We're talking about a Barbie-type who does nothing but blink excessively, twirl a lock of hair around her finger, bite her lip, and flaunt her curves to signal she's ready to go 24/7. The real tragedy here isn't the attraction itself; it's that an intelligent human being would willingly turn themselves into such a caricature. To me, that kind of seduction isn't about objectifying men—it's about objectifying yourself.

Nancy Bishop4 said:What a joke. Personally, I’ve run into dozens of guys like this who have had massive success with women, and they were chosen over those "intellectually stimulating" or "spiritually deep" types every single time, for very obvious reasons.

Exactly. If some guy looks like an Apollo walks up to a girl, everything he says is suddenly cool or interesting—he's just "smart," I guess. It’s easy to be charming when you're attractive. But if someone who isn't an Apollo—or is actually the opposite—approaches her, he's never smart enough or interesting enough; everything he says is just stupid and unfunny, simply because he doesn't have the perfect build or a handsome face. An Apollo can say anything and win. Meanwhile, some poor guy won't stand a chance even if he tries quoting the Bible, the Vedas, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche—or even if he makes up his own quotes—it’s never quite good enough.

Jason Kim6 said:Exactly. If some guy looks like an Apollo walks up to a girl, everything he says is suddenly cool or interesting—he's just "smart," I guess. It’s easy to be charming when you're attractive. But if someone who isn't an Apollo—or is actually the opposite—approaches her, he's never smart enough or interesting enough; everything he says is just stupid and unfunny, simply because he doesn't have the perfect build or a handsome face. An Apollo can say anything and win. Meanwhile, some poor guy won't stand a chance even if he tries quoting the Bible, the Vedas, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche—or even if he makes up his own quotes—it’s never quite good enough.

This isn't really how life works 😵
It's a well-known fact that women generally gravitate toward a good story...
Realistically, if we look at the entire male population on the planet, how many of them are actually Apollos? Maybe two percent at most... 🤔
So how is it possible that a much higher percentage of men are actually in relationships? 😉☕

Linda Diaz3 said:This isn't really how life works 😵
It's a well-known fact that women generally gravitate toward a good story...
Realistically, if we look at the entire male population on the planet, how many of them are actually Apollos? Maybe two percent at most... 🤔
So how is it possible that a much higher percentage of men are actually in relationships? 😉☕

Myth.

It’s pretty clear you aren't reading for comprehension here. The point was that people who are physically attractive can basically get away with anything and have it framed as interesting—not that women exclusively want to be with them.

Nancy Bishop4 said:Myth.

It’s pretty clear you aren't reading for comprehension here. The point was that people who are physically attractive can basically get away with anything and have it framed as interesting—not that women exclusively want to be with them.

☕
It might be worth taking a moment to really consider the psychological profile of the women who will eventually... I suppose I should probably add my two cents here, though I'm not entirely sure if anyone is looking for more input on this particular topic... I’ve been spending a lot of time lately reflecting on what actually makes a man compelling, beyond just the surface-level stuff we see in movies or on social media... It seems like there is such a profound difference between someone who is merely attractive and someone who possesses that genuine, magnetic interest that keeps you leaning in to hear what they have to say next... It isn't always about being the loudest person in the room or having some flashy lifestyle, but rather about a certain depth of character and an intellectual curiosity that feels authentic... I find myself wondering if we focus too much on the wrong traits when we talk about charisma, perhaps overlooking the quiet strength and the subtle nuances that truly make a person stand out in a crowd...

Nancy Bishop4 said:What a joke. Personally, I’ve run into dozens of guys like this who have had massive success with women, and they were chosen over those "intellectually stimulating" or "spiritually deep" types every single time, for very obvious reasons.

Yeah, right...

That's exactly why Adriana ended up with Mark... his looks completely knocked her off her feet. ☕

She doesn't need his money because she probably has more than he does... 🙂

frozenseal55 said:Yeah, right...

That's exactly why Adriana ended up with Mark... his looks completely knocked her off her feet. ☕

She doesn't need his money because she probably has more than he does... 🙂

Honestly, you’re reaching again. Your argument might actually hold water if she had ended up with some guy running a local bagel shop who looked like Steve Buscemi, but let’s be real—even then, a couple of isolated examples don't prove much. As it stands, Manu Ginóbili is nowhere near that description.

Nancy Bishop4 said:Honestly, you’re reaching again. Your argument might actually hold water if she had ended up with some guy running a local bagel shop who looked like Steve Buscemi, but let’s be real—even then, a couple of isolated examples don't prove much. As it stands, Manu Ginóbili is nowhere near that description.

Oh, really? And how exactly am I supposed to support an argument if not with specific examples?
And how did you back up yours? Based on your own personal life experiences? ☕

Is there some grand statistical study tracking how many gorgeous women end up with unattractive men?
If such data exists, cough up the sources, the references, the links, the hard numbers, the percentages... anything.

Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.🙂

Jason Kim6 said:Exactly. If some guy looks like an Apollo walks up to a girl, everything he says is suddenly cool or interesting—he's just "smart," I guess. It’s easy to be charming when you're attractive. But if someone who isn't an Apollo—or is actually the opposite—approaches her, he's never smart enough or interesting enough; everything he says is just stupid and unfunny, simply because he doesn't have the perfect build or a handsome face. An Apollo can say anything and win. Meanwhile, some poor guy won't stand a chance even if he tries quoting the Bible, the Vedas, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche—or even if he makes up his own quotes—it’s never quite good enough.

I'm trying to picture the scenario where a guy approaches a woman, they meet, and he goes: "I possess a depth of spirit as profound as my desires, along with a benevolence capable of rigorous firmness, which I switch between with ease. My views on women are purely traditional; I view them as a possession to be kept, a property to be locked away, destined for submission, through which perfection is achieved. Marry me."

(According to the internet, this is what Frederick would say)

I bet any woman would fall head over heels for a "sage" like that.

frozenseal55 said:Oh, really? And how exactly am I supposed to support an argument if not with specific examples?
And how did you back up yours? Based on your own personal life experiences? ☕

Is there some grand statistical study tracking how many gorgeous women end up with unattractive men?
If such data exists, cough up the sources, the references, the links, the hard numbers, the percentages... anything.

Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.🙂

No, I'm just not blind, unlike you, who invents nonsense because reality is too hard to stomach.

Mark Martin10 said:I'm trying to picture the scenario where a guy approaches a woman, they meet, and he goes: "I possess a depth of spirit as profound as my desires, along with a benevolence capable of rigorous firmness, which I switch between with ease. My views on women are purely traditional; I view them as a possession to be kept, a property to be locked away, destined for submission, through which perfection is achieved. Marry me."

(According to the internet, this is what Frederick would say)

I bet any woman would fall head over heels for a "sage" like that.

If he's attractive enough and has money, you'd be surprised how many would fall for it. Just look at how many people flock to those wealthy Middle Eastern billionaires when they tour through Europe.
It gets pretty awkward to watch.

Most people who fall for some rich guy just because he’s good-looking are honestly kind of dim—totally lacking empathy and just pure narcissists... they usually end up finding a hot guy to sleep with anyway, sooner or later.
I’ve seen this play out a few times at bars. You’ll see these guys acting all macho while grabbing drinks, and then there are these girls or women just sitting there by themselves. I decided to jump in and test the waters once, and this girl ended up looking totally miserable after I laid it all out for her—she just hung her head and kept nodding along. It was all about the money, sure, but she definitely wasn't happy about it.