I've had girls tell me they hate it when a guy is relying upon knowledge, and not offhand reflexes (proto-profficiency value). Women feel it is their justice to go after men when they are natural, and they hate fraudery (no matter how rational it is for the guy to do it).
A woman feels most underlying attractive to their ominous/ ethereal mystery/ abysmality of their dominarchal nature. And how aloof, mysterious, complex you are translates into your competitive value as a man.
There is a thing called protopedigree I talk about.
It is a concept where you have things before anything else helped it. Or anything was made to influence it. Women want men to have a protopedigree tyrannoluxury. Protoluxury (being good looking from the beginning/ being a have it all gravy train bonanza
Such as family/ genetics/ background/ etc.
See women have different degrees of novelty they love. Different degrees that cut deep/ far into the novelty of an individual thing/ existence.
The reason it is desired is because it is natural, so you have the novelty of getting a fine-head-start in life, and most people don't have the insulation to make things work out for them without their offhand/ nature/ genetics doing it for them.
Also because genetics stick with you. There are a TON of vulnerable spots to someone where they can't be a real dominator by nature if they do not have the genetics to comprise it. To the point where people won't feel you're top dog, even with a lot of money. With genetics there are no vulnerable spots. You were set for life, and on the hierarchy of competitive human value, you were a classic winner (since it is classic custom).
Girls want to be with the dominator/ topdog.
Women want different novelties that are hard to achieve (genetics are impossible), and create the largest area of effect. These things are the great distinguishifiers to human value/ individuals in the smv. So if you're not born with it, and just produced it women think they're missing out. Women are monkeybranchers for novelty. There are different classes for novelty. Novelty-Columning. Different columns of novelty affect women differently primally.
Women put such a weight of primal interest on genetics because it dictates so much of your value/ your nonmalleables comprise the most of you (meaning most things about individuals will be left on traits that are positioned in places that are going to leave you on your bracket of distinguishment forever).
If you score on genetics you're above others in distinguishment, secure locked, and you can dominate from that point forward. No one can really stop you.
It's not just about being practical with women, it's about the resonation with being topdog that they want.
Most of the boyfriends they have they don't want to even do anything anyway. They just want them to score high with superior resonation. Seeing a boyfriend be too active, practical, bad ass anyway comes off as problematic/ dangerous in most cases. Women just want someone to make the passive statement (I'm above you, don't try it) by being tall, good face, etc.
It's human nature to grow more cynical overtime. Eventually we get angry at the fact that no one came to love us, and put us to standards like pawns on a chessboard.
A woman feels most underlying attractive to their ominous/ ethereal mystery/ abysmality of their dominarchal nature. And how aloof, mysterious, complex you are translates into your competitive value as a man.
There is a thing called protopedigree I talk about.
It is a concept where you have things before anything else helped it. Or anything was made to influence it. Women want men to have a protopedigree tyrannoluxury. Protoluxury (being good looking from the beginning/ being a have it all gravy train bonanza
Such as family/ genetics/ background/ etc.
See women have different degrees of novelty they love. Different degrees that cut deep/ far into the novelty of an individual thing/ existence.
The reason it is desired is because it is natural, so you have the novelty of getting a fine-head-start in life, and most people don't have the insulation to make things work out for them without their offhand/ nature/ genetics doing it for them.
Also because genetics stick with you. There are a TON of vulnerable spots to someone where they can't be a real dominator by nature if they do not have the genetics to comprise it. To the point where people won't feel you're top dog, even with a lot of money. With genetics there are no vulnerable spots. You were set for life, and on the hierarchy of competitive human value, you were a classic winner (since it is classic custom).
Girls want to be with the dominator/ topdog.
Women want different novelties that are hard to achieve (genetics are impossible), and create the largest area of effect. These things are the great distinguishifiers to human value/ individuals in the smv. So if you're not born with it, and just produced it women think they're missing out. Women are monkeybranchers for novelty. There are different classes for novelty. Novelty-Columning. Different columns of novelty affect women differently primally.
Women put such a weight of primal interest on genetics because it dictates so much of your value/ your nonmalleables comprise the most of you (meaning most things about individuals will be left on traits that are positioned in places that are going to leave you on your bracket of distinguishment forever).
If you score on genetics you're above others in distinguishment, secure locked, and you can dominate from that point forward. No one can really stop you.
It's not just about being practical with women, it's about the resonation with being topdog that they want.
Most of the boyfriends they have they don't want to even do anything anyway. They just want them to score high with superior resonation. Seeing a boyfriend be too active, practical, bad ass anyway comes off as problematic/ dangerous in most cases. Women just want someone to make the passive statement (I'm above you, don't try it) by being tall, good face, etc.
It's human nature to grow more cynical overtime. Eventually we get angry at the fact that no one came to love us, and put us to standards like pawns on a chessboard.
