Throughout my time on the internet, and in real life, I have encountered multiple different forms of dating advice, and one recurring factor about the typical advice we are given by people—be it sexually successful men, women, or people in general—is the fact that their advice is often contradictory; it seems as if every piece of dating advice we receive contradicts the last one. This is not a surprise and is typical of the people who criticize us, as they are illogical and incapable of providing consistent explanations to various intersexual dynamics, and because they refuse to acknowledge integral factors that dictate the chances of whether their advice bears fruit or not (those factors being physical attractiveness and "good" genetic material in general).
For instance, we are told cold approaching is good, and that we should be confident ("just shoot your shot bro!")—but the second you do it, you're creepy, weird, entitled, and "harassing" her for simply daring to speak in public. Then they pivot and say, "No no inkel, cold approach is outdated and creepy, instead, try warm approaching through mutual friends or other means." But apparently, that’s manipulative, because now you were just pretending to be friendly when really you were trying to get in her pants. In either case, they always have an excuse to fall back on—one that lets them pin the blame on the man and absolve women of any guilt for their vile, superficial, hypergamous behavior. They then offer further advice, which inevitably leads to failure, followed by contradictory advice—either from them or others—that keeps you running in circles.
Then there's the modern classic: "Just use dating apps!"
The same dating apps where inhumanly superficial women filter 95% of men out without a second thought—all due to immutable physical traits. But when you mention how brutal the stats are, suddenly the same people say, "Well dating apps aren't real life, don't take them seriously." — which is obviously incorrect, as dating apps are merely a reflection of female nature without any restraint, but I digress.
So which is it? Cold approach? Warm approach? Dating apps? Real life? This is water, but none of them work unless you’re Chad.
The reason the advice is contradictory is because they can’t admit the truth that looks are the primary factor. That it’s Chad’s innate physical characteristics that determine whether an approach is "confident and sexy" or "creepy and predatory." It’s his attractiveness that makes warm approaches seem "genuine and romantic" rather than "manipulative and perverted." Since they are incapable of admitting (or comprehending) this fundamental factor—their advice often becomes inherently contradictory. Also, in many cases it’s not even just about contradictory advice due to lack of cognizance of the factors at play; it’s that they maliciously want it to be contradictory. If the truth about female nature became widely accepted, the consequences would be detrimental to say the least. The confusion is intentional. It keeps men in the game, trying every method, thinking success is just around the corner if you "act right." It’s like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey to keep it moving. Meanwhile, for chad—all the aforementioned advice works perfectly well.
If Chad cold approaches, he’s charming.
If Chad warm approaches, he’s smooth.
If Chad uses dating apps, he gets matches with ease.
Hell, Chad gets approached himself by women.
But you? You get told to "just be yourself" while every single method you're told to try comes with a trapdoor underneath. And when it fails (because you have been deemed a subhuman by women), the blame gets pinned on you for “not trying hard enough,” “having a bad personality,” or whatever nonsense they typically spew.
The blackpill is the only consistent explanation. Every other explanation falls apart under its own contradictions.
To me, this demonstrates how weak their worldview and fundamental understanding of intersexual dynamics truly is; it is riddled with inconsistencies and weak explanations that attempt to justify the undesirable outcomes—ones that directly contradict their claims. They respond with further contradictions, all while failing to acknowledge one central factor that underlies the rest, which is measurable, consistent, and reliably predictive. Women respond to looks first and foremost, then retroactively assign positive personality traits after attraction is established. This is not due to better execution but due to the observer’s perception, which is heavily colored by the man’s physical traits. It's post-hoc rationalization for why they reward one guy and shame another.
The advice is not necessarily wrong; rather, it misses the key variable entirely, hence leading to endless contradictions and inconsistencies.
For instance, we are told cold approaching is good, and that we should be confident ("just shoot your shot bro!")—but the second you do it, you're creepy, weird, entitled, and "harassing" her for simply daring to speak in public. Then they pivot and say, "No no inkel, cold approach is outdated and creepy, instead, try warm approaching through mutual friends or other means." But apparently, that’s manipulative, because now you were just pretending to be friendly when really you were trying to get in her pants. In either case, they always have an excuse to fall back on—one that lets them pin the blame on the man and absolve women of any guilt for their vile, superficial, hypergamous behavior. They then offer further advice, which inevitably leads to failure, followed by contradictory advice—either from them or others—that keeps you running in circles.
Then there's the modern classic: "Just use dating apps!"
The same dating apps where inhumanly superficial women filter 95% of men out without a second thought—all due to immutable physical traits. But when you mention how brutal the stats are, suddenly the same people say, "Well dating apps aren't real life, don't take them seriously." — which is obviously incorrect, as dating apps are merely a reflection of female nature without any restraint, but I digress.
So which is it? Cold approach? Warm approach? Dating apps? Real life? This is water, but none of them work unless you’re Chad.
The reason the advice is contradictory is because they can’t admit the truth that looks are the primary factor. That it’s Chad’s innate physical characteristics that determine whether an approach is "confident and sexy" or "creepy and predatory." It’s his attractiveness that makes warm approaches seem "genuine and romantic" rather than "manipulative and perverted." Since they are incapable of admitting (or comprehending) this fundamental factor—their advice often becomes inherently contradictory. Also, in many cases it’s not even just about contradictory advice due to lack of cognizance of the factors at play; it’s that they maliciously want it to be contradictory. If the truth about female nature became widely accepted, the consequences would be detrimental to say the least. The confusion is intentional. It keeps men in the game, trying every method, thinking success is just around the corner if you "act right." It’s like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey to keep it moving. Meanwhile, for chad—all the aforementioned advice works perfectly well.
If Chad cold approaches, he’s charming.
If Chad warm approaches, he’s smooth.
If Chad uses dating apps, he gets matches with ease.
Hell, Chad gets approached himself by women.
But you? You get told to "just be yourself" while every single method you're told to try comes with a trapdoor underneath. And when it fails (because you have been deemed a subhuman by women), the blame gets pinned on you for “not trying hard enough,” “having a bad personality,” or whatever nonsense they typically spew.
The blackpill is the only consistent explanation. Every other explanation falls apart under its own contradictions.
To me, this demonstrates how weak their worldview and fundamental understanding of intersexual dynamics truly is; it is riddled with inconsistencies and weak explanations that attempt to justify the undesirable outcomes—ones that directly contradict their claims. They respond with further contradictions, all while failing to acknowledge one central factor that underlies the rest, which is measurable, consistent, and reliably predictive. Women respond to looks first and foremost, then retroactively assign positive personality traits after attraction is established. This is not due to better execution but due to the observer’s perception, which is heavily colored by the man’s physical traits. It's post-hoc rationalization for why they reward one guy and shame another.
The advice is not necessarily wrong; rather, it misses the key variable entirely, hence leading to endless contradictions and inconsistencies.
