Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeHonest sexual marketplace talk

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Honest sexual marketplace talk

#1 · February 11, 2023, 1:04 pm

Quote from B on February 11, 2023, 1:04 pm
Opening the thread as I’m very interested.
Quoting Lucio from John’s journal:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 11, 2023, 8:20 am
Deserves its own thread, I think -something like "honest sexual marketplace talk: when to, and when to avoid"-.
Just a few quick notes on my side:
Your self-analysis is great, you got your own learnings (just one I personally wouldn't necessarily always apply, see last point)
Exceptions frame Honest "exchange talk", be it social, workplace, sexual or whatever is most often thorny and best prefaced with a lot of "in general" and "exceptions apply" which is both true and more palatable to larger audiences
Help people feel like they can be the exception, even when they're not
Win-win frames, always reminding people that collaboration and win-win are both real, possible, and good -otherwise civilization as it is wouldn't have even emerged in the first place-
Positive frames "it's actually great women care about men's resources. Imagine if all women instead preferred poor men: the children would pay the price for that choice. So it's a good thing".
This is SO important because it avoids the "gold digger frame" that most women push back against (you may have this misunderstanding)
Normalization frame: it's normal, it's just nature. We're animals, and animals seek to maximize their returns. Men do it too and have their own preferences to maximize returns.
You need to avoid the "red-pillish" frame of "women are untrustworthy by their nature". That's what women (righteously) dislike with these type of arguments
Once it turns win-lose debate-style, WIN IT
I'd have pushed back on this big time:
Quote from John Freeman on February 10, 2023, 9:36 pm
While the other one maintained she only chose "poor men". This is a blatant lie as my friend who invited me at his house for the dinner recently bought this house with her and is the wealthiest friend I have.
Such a cheap move BS.
Even if it's only a debate/converastion, accepting that means accepting a nasty win-lose because she's lying just to win (and save face and prove you wrong, whichever one it is, it's still not good).
An easy way to push back:
You: you only chose poor men? How about your current partner...
That would be enough to prove her full of BS.
If you wanted to go equally nasty, you could even say "that's offensive to your partner, to be honest".
And a potentially strong argument:
Also, that argument doesn't apply much here. There aren't that many poor men in Switzerland, so to date truly poor men here you either were hanging around homeless shelters, or you were still dating the world top 5%
This argument also uses a "sarcastic frame" power move.
At least people around the table would be nodding as you say and maybe even smile -if only "within them", but still a major win for you-.
After that, absolutely, go back to more collaborative -actually, it's crucial t go back to collaborative or you ruin it for everyone-.
No biggies for not having done this because this is a very difficult, tightrope to walk.
You need to be strong and dominant to check the BS and win, but without anger -call it maybe "intense"-, and with the ability to then go back to win-win and friendly.
Still, worth a try next time.
It's possible to talk about it...
Albeit in some situations it's indeed best to avoid, I wouldn't necessarily say "never more".
These topics are super interesting to discuss and if done well, can frame you as smart and high-value.
So it's more about how to discuss them, than avoiding them altogether (maybe a topic for its own thread).
I agree talking about this can work, and it requires a very high-power command of the situation.
Otherwise it’s easy for people to jump on the opportunity to social climb by framing the speaker as “wrong” or “insecure”. The more controversial the point of view one takes, the more power to be owned.
I also remember talking with people who were highly knowledgeable about mating and dating, speaking the truth, and STILL them using my speaking the truth to social climb.
This all reminds me of the opening scene from the movie Roger Dodger.
In that movie, the protagonist does exactly that: ie he entertains a high-power controversial mating discussion, albeit I think from a slightly different frame - and in front of his own boss, with whom he is having a relationship!:
https://youtu.be/IXLFPLqqf5E
In this scene:
he basically maintains that women choose men for their "practical utility" to women
he often jokingly self-deprecates as a "man" to both not sound too arrogant and to prove his point and maintain his frame against the attacks:
By honing those skills which make me useful I stave off my inevitable osbolescence.
he takes and maintains the judge frame all the time, even slightly shaming his boss for challenging his frame
Her: Are you saying I don't know directions?
Him: Which way is north? Without looking at the map...
fakes not being able to spell words to not sound too arrogant
owns a teacher frame, but does so with a slight undertone of "I'm just joking here", as sometimes he goes too overboard, maybe to suggest he's not totally serious
the women present try to fight his frame by suggesting that "men are useful for sex", and he challenges that frame also by "quoting" some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
There is an underlying frame of "what I'm saying is empowering to women". So at a certain point, the more the women present challenge his frame, the more they seem to ultimately fight for him instead of against him.
It's also interesting to see the other guy constantly self-cracking under the underlying tension, and ultimately reinforcing the protagonist's power to the women.

Opening the thread as I’m very interested.

Quoting Lucio from John’s journal:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 11, 2023, 8:20 am

Deserves its own thread, I think -something like "honest sexual marketplace talk: when to, and when to avoid"-.
Just a few quick notes on my side:
Your self-analysis is great, you got your own learnings (just one I personally wouldn't necessarily always apply, see last point)
Exceptions frame Honest "exchange talk", be it social, workplace, sexual or whatever is most often thorny and best prefaced with a lot of "in general" and "exceptions apply" which is both true and more palatable to larger audiences
Help people feel like they can be the exception, even when they're not
Win-win frames, always reminding people that collaboration and win-win are both real, possible, and good -otherwise civilization as it is wouldn't have even emerged in the first place-
Positive frames "it's actually great women care about men's resources. Imagine if all women instead preferred poor men: the children would pay the price for that choice. So it's a good thing".
This is SO important because it avoids the "gold digger frame" that most women push back against (you may have this misunderstanding)
Normalization frame: it's normal, it's just nature. We're animals, and animals seek to maximize their returns. Men do it too and have their own preferences to maximize returns.
You need to avoid the "red-pillish" frame of "women are untrustworthy by their nature". That's what women (righteously) dislike with these type of arguments
Once it turns win-lose debate-style, WIN IT
I'd have pushed back on this big time:
Quote from John Freeman on February 10, 2023, 9:36 pm
While the other one maintained she only chose "poor men". This is a blatant lie as my friend who invited me at his house for the dinner recently bought this house with her and is the wealthiest friend I have.
Such a cheap move BS.
Even if it's only a debate/converastion, accepting that means accepting a nasty win-lose because she's lying just to win (and save face and prove you wrong, whichever one it is, it's still not good).
An easy way to push back:
You: you only chose poor men? How about your current partner...
That would be enough to prove her full of BS.
If you wanted to go equally nasty, you could even say "that's offensive to your partner, to be honest".
And a potentially strong argument:
Also, that argument doesn't apply much here. There aren't that many poor men in Switzerland, so to date truly poor men here you either were hanging around homeless shelters, or you were still dating the world top 5%
This argument also uses a "sarcastic frame" power move.
At least people around the table would be nodding as you say and maybe even smile -if only "within them", but still a major win for you-.
After that, absolutely, go back to more collaborative -actually, it's crucial t go back to collaborative or you ruin it for everyone-.
No biggies for not having done this because this is a very difficult, tightrope to walk.
You need to be strong and dominant to check the BS and win, but without anger -call it maybe "intense"-, and with the ability to then go back to win-win and friendly.
Still, worth a try next time.
It's possible to talk about it...
Albeit in some situations it's indeed best to avoid, I wouldn't necessarily say "never more".
These topics are super interesting to discuss and if done well, can frame you as smart and high-value.
So it's more about how to discuss them, than avoiding them altogether (maybe a topic for its own thread).

I agree talking about this can work, and it requires a very high-power command of the situation.

Otherwise it’s easy for people to jump on the opportunity to social climb by framing the speaker as “wrong” or “insecure”. The more controversial the point of view one takes, the more power to be owned.

I also remember talking with people who were highly knowledgeable about mating and dating, speaking the truth, and STILL them using my speaking the truth to social climb.

This all reminds me of the opening scene from the movie Roger Dodger.

In that movie, the protagonist does exactly that: ie he entertains a high-power controversial mating discussion, albeit I think from a slightly different frame - and in front of his own boss, with whom he is having a relationship!:

In this scene:

he basically maintains that women choose men for their "practical utility" to women
he often jokingly self-deprecates as a "man" to both not sound too arrogant and to prove his point and maintain his frame against the attacks:

By honing those skills which make me useful I stave off my inevitable osbolescence.

he takes and maintains the judge frame all the time, even slightly shaming his boss for challenging his frame

Her: Are you saying I don't know directions?
Him: Which way is north? Without looking at the map...

fakes not being able to spell words to not sound too arrogant
owns a teacher frame, but does so with a slight undertone of "I'm just joking here", as sometimes he goes too overboard, maybe to suggest he's not totally serious
the women present try to fight his frame by suggesting that "men are useful for sex", and he challenges that frame also by "quoting" some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

There is an underlying frame of "what I'm saying is empowering to women". So at a certain point, the more the women present challenge his frame, the more they seem to ultimately fight for him instead of against him.

It's also interesting to see the other guy constantly self-cracking under the underlying tension, and ultimately reinforcing the protagonist's power to the women.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#2 · February 11, 2023, 2:51 pm

Thank you, Bel, awesome scene and analysis.

Not a perfect case study for an honest sexual marketplace talk because he builds women up and disempowers men, so that's far easier to be accepted than a true "real" talk.

And of course, the typical Hollywood "polishing" that would rarely happen in real life.

BUT...

The way he maintains the leadership and the teacher frame offers several great examples of how to do it in real life:

Break-up your own frame letting the audience have their moments among themselves, without constant teaching/talking
Give some credit that increase warm and win-win (and also makes the audience seeks more of his credit-giving and positive judgment)
Break-up your own frame with some jokes
Laugh along with the audience joke if the joke is good OR
- If the high-power person delivers it, to avoid battles with other high-power people (true Machiavellian social strategist to laugh at his boss' joke)
- After the joke, if you feel like and/or the audience wants, go back to real talk
Engage with the audience in moments of higher warmth to keep it win-win. He does it while keeping an air of superiority which you generally want to avoid, but again, it's a movie. And you can be less warm with some specific individuals, in this case, he doesn't with the "joker" to maintain leadership and avoid being derailed

John Freeman and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#3 · February 11, 2023, 3:51 pm

Quote from John Freeman on February 11, 2023, 3:51 pm
From my journal on the 10th February 2023:
Social mistake: don't reveal women's nature in a social context when women are present
I was at a dinner yesterday and I started to talk about women's nature. That is their attraction for men with resources, and the different reproductive strategies of men and women. I did a first mistake by going with a teacher's frame (working on it) instead of vibing. I also held court and talked to much (working on it as well).
The two women laughed when I used the words "men and women have different reproductive strategy". I then went meta and said that them laughing proved this was taboo to talk about. Her BF said that nowadays what is taboo is to say anything negative about women.
I don't think it's negative that women look for men with resources as it makes total sense for a child-bearing human. I even said that I love women even more by understanding them better. I also moved on from generalising to "most women" and that "exceptions confirm the rule". I provided examples and facts. I talked about dating markets and dateonomics citing myself as an example of having different value based on the dating market. I talked about how men and women look for different qualities in one another. How women are the choosers, etc.
I pointed to the fact that women will also bet on a man that he will be able to acquire and keep resources. One of the woman took advantage of people talking between themselves to admit that it is what she did with her current BF (the one who commented earlier). I fist bumped her as she admitted. It was socially savvy of her as no one heard her.
While the other one maintained she only chose "poor men". This is a blatant lie as my friend who invited me at his house for the dinner recently bought this house with her and is the wealthiest friend I have.
At the end of the night, the first woman who fist-bumped me, wished me "Good hunt" and everyone laughed. This was to shame me. I replied clumsily that I call it "love" but it did not ring out. She "won" by framing me as a skirt-chasing man, which is low value, and I did not defend properly.
Analysis
I made several mistakes here. The most important one is to talk about a topic which makes women look bad in current social norms. Looking for resources is framed negatively still. Even if everyone does it. So I broke a social taboo.
I made the mistake of believing this was an open discussion but it was actually a debate. I lost it because I invested way too much in wanting other people to know all this information. So I was speaking most of the time and she was asking questions. So in terms of power dynamics I was at a loss.
I decided in the past not to talk about this topic with women as it backfires as it did. I am committing to this again. Even though I talked about what men are looking for, this topic puts people in a difficult position as it exposes their social strategies. So it's a bit of a "let's remove the masks" dynamics.
Most women will resist this as their reputation is of utmost importance for their social success. I also threatened the "madonna" image by talking about women being interested in resources.
So good lessons learned and I will share this topic only with male friends in a 1-to-1 setting. The other mistakes I already analysed above (teacher frame, etc.).
She also shamed me by turning to the host and associating me with a friend's host who's looking for a rich guy (and has nowhere the value to attract him):
With (host's female friends) you have friends with high standards
Implying something negative as if I'm going above my league or something like that.
So by doing that she ostracized me and lumped me with this low value woman. This was also typically passive aggression as she did not address me directly even though I was in front of her.
All in all, not an agreeable interaction with this woman.
I stayed quiet but I think I should have addressed this and change topic back on her: "so what do you like to do in life?" or something like that.
I also underestimated the effect of lack of sleep on cognition. For the past 6 months or so, I was sleeping 4-6 hours a night, waking up at 4-5 am to workout/study (and going back too late. However this did not go well and even though I did not burn out I now see that it affects quite a bit my memory and cognition. So I'm back to aiming at least 7 hours a night. One can function with this amount of sleep, the key word being "function" but high performance is not attainable I think. I'm talking about this as it also affect one's ability in social interactions (who demand high levels of cognitions). I'm not blaming it on the lack of sleep: I'm realizing being tired prevents me from performing at my best, at work and in social situations.
Let's analyze that specific actions I should not have done:
I should have identified she's a feminist (she has extreme left friends with whom her husband does not get along)
I should not have gone in teacher mode, who cares if these people are interested in these topics or not.
I should have changed topic as soon as they laughed at "men and women have different reproductive strategies"
When she lumped me with the other friend, I should have surface it: "I'm in front of you, you can talk to me." and "what do you mean?" then I could have gone in: "I hope you also have high standards in life" but this would have already been gone in the "you" vs "me" talk.
Also when we started to talk she was fascinated with me being a pediatrician. I saw here 4 and 5 years old were stuck on IPads so I say as a general statement: "yeah just be careful with the screens" and we talked a bit about the negative effects of screens on children in a light way. Well, they spent the whole night on the IPads. One of them fell asleep on the IPad. Of course the children did not socialize nor talk with us even at the table, even when joking around with them. As they were basically coming to get their food and getting back to their screens, which is sad to me. All this to say that some people will judge our behaviour and have not so much to show for it.
This is funny as we talked earlier of moral superiority talking about her extreme leftist friends. So also when I talked about it I attacked her friends who did not seem very tolerant as her husband did not like them much. So I should have thought that by association she shares their views a bit. So here behaviour should not have come as a surprise to me but I was naive on this. I walked right into it. I did not know her well enough, it was the first time I saw her so I should have been more cautious. And my friends laughing at her saying "good hunt" was low as they took the side of a stranger against me. Not cool.
Anyway, lesson learned.
Also my male friend told me at this dinner I was being discrete with my love life as in "you don't let us know". I was and I was right to be. So now I will also talk about it only 1-on-1 with close friends. She started to give me advice on my love life when I said what I was looking for. So all in all a disastrous interaction.
Happy to read your thoughts.
Lucio's answer:
(I left it as it as plain text without quoting as I cannot quote inside a quote)
Quote from John Freeman on February 10, 2023, 9:36 pm
Social mistake: don't reveal women's nature in a social context when women are present
I was at a dinner yesterday and I started to talk about women's nature. That is their attraction for men with resources, and the different reproductive strategies of men and women. I did a first mistake by going with a teacher's frame (working on it) instead of vibing. I also held court and talked to much (working on it as well).
(...)
Great analysis, great lessons learned, great experience to go through, and a great case study.
Deserves its own thread, I think -something like "honest sexual marketplace talk: when to, and when to avoid"-.
Just a few quick notes on my side:
Your self-analysis is great, you got your own learnings (just one I personally wouldn't necessarily always apply, see last point)
Exceptions frame Honest "exchange talk", be it social, workplace, sexual or whatever is most often thorny and best prefaced with a lot of "in general" and "exceptions apply" which is both true and more palatable to larger audiences
Help people feel like they can be the exception, even when they're not
Win-win frames, always reminding people that collaboration and win-win are both real, possible, and good -otherwise civilization as it is wouldn't have even emerged in the first place-
Positive frames "it's actually great women care about men's resources. Imagine if all women instead preferred poor men: the children would pay the price for that choice. So it's a good thing".
This is SO important because it avoids the "gold digger frame" that most women push back against (you may have this misunderstanding)
Normalization frame: it's normal, it's just nature. We're animals, and animals seek to maximize their returns. Men do it too and have their own preferences to maximize returns.
You need to avoid the "red-pillish" frame of "women are untrustworthy by their nature". That's what women (righteously) dislike with these type of arguments
Once it turns win-lose debate-style, WIN IT
I'd have pushed back on this big time:
Quote from John Freeman on February 10, 2023, 9:36 pm
While the other one maintained she only chose "poor men". This is a blatant lie as my friend who invited me at his house for the dinner recently bought this house with her and is the wealthiest friend I have.
Such a cheap move BS.
Even if it's only a debate/converastion, accepting that means accepting a nasty win-lose because she's lying just to win (and save face and prove you wrong, whichever one it is, it's still not good).
An easy way to push back:
You: you only chose poor men? How about your current partner...
That would be enough to prove her full of BS.
If you wanted to go equally nasty, you could even say "that's offensive to your partner, to be honest".
And a potentially strong argument:
Also, that argument doesn't apply much here. There aren't that many poor men in Switzerland, so to date truly poor men here you either were hanging around homeless shelters, or you were still dating the world top 5%
This argument also uses a "sarcastic frame" power move.
At least people around the table would be nodding as you say and maybe even smile -if only "within them", but still a major win for you-.
After that, absolutely, go back to more collaborative -actually, it's crucial t go back to collaborative or you ruin it for everyone-.
No biggies for not having done this because this is a very difficult, tightrope to walk.
You need to be strong and dominant to check the BS and win, but without anger -call it maybe "intense"-, and with the ability to then go back to win-win and friendly.
Still, worth a try next time.
It's possible to talk about it...
Albeit in some situations it's indeed best to avoid, I wouldn't necessarily say "never more".
These topics are super interesting to discuss and if done well, can frame you as smart and high-value.
So it's more about how to discuss them, than avoiding them altogether (maybe a topic for its own thread).
Me again: happy to edit it is as you guys see fit.

From my journal on the 10th February 2023:

Social mistake: don't reveal women's nature in a social context when women are present

I was at a dinner yesterday and I started to talk about women's nature. That is their attraction for men with resources, and the different reproductive strategies of men and women. I did a first mistake by going with a teacher's frame (working on it) instead of vibing. I also held court and talked to much (working on it as well).

The two women laughed when I used the words "men and women have different reproductive strategy". I then went meta and said that them laughing proved this was taboo to talk about. Her BF said that nowadays what is taboo is to say anything negative about women.

I don't think it's negative that women look for men with resources as it makes total sense for a child-bearing human. I even said that I love women even more by understanding them better. I also moved on from generalising to "most women" and that "exceptions confirm the rule". I provided examples and facts. I talked about dating markets and dateonomics citing myself as an example of having different value based on the dating market. I talked about how men and women look for different qualities in one another. How women are the choosers, etc.

I pointed to the fact that women will also bet on a man that he will be able to acquire and keep resources. One of the woman took advantage of people talking between themselves to admit that it is what she did with her current BF (the one who commented earlier). I fist bumped her as she admitted. It was socially savvy of her as no one heard her.

While the other one maintained she only chose "poor men". This is a blatant lie as my friend who invited me at his house for the dinner recently bought this house with her and is the wealthiest friend I have.

At the end of the night, the first woman who fist-bumped me, wished me "Good hunt" and everyone laughed. This was to shame me. I replied clumsily that I call it "love" but it did not ring out. She "won" by framing me as a skirt-chasing man, which is low value, and I did not defend properly.

Analysis

I made several mistakes here. The most important one is to talk about a topic which makes women look bad in current social norms. Looking for resources is framed negatively still. Even if everyone does it. So I broke a social taboo.

I made the mistake of believing this was an open discussion but it was actually a debate. I lost it because I invested way too much in wanting other people to know all this information. So I was speaking most of the time and she was asking questions. So in terms of power dynamics I was at a loss.

I decided in the past not to talk about this topic with women as it backfires as it did. I am committing to this again. Even though I talked about what men are looking for, this topic puts people in a difficult position as it exposes their social strategies. So it's a bit of a "let's remove the masks" dynamics.

Most women will resist this as their reputation is of utmost importance for their social success. I also threatened the "madonna" image by talking about women being interested in resources.

So good lessons learned and I will share this topic only with male friends in a 1-to-1 setting. The other mistakes I already analysed above (teacher frame, etc.).

She also shamed me by turning to the host and associating me with a friend's host who's looking for a rich guy (and has nowhere the value to attract him):

With (host's female friends) you have friends with high standards

Implying something negative as if I'm going above my league or something like that.

So by doing that she ostracized me and lumped me with this low value woman. This was also typically passive aggression as she did not address me directly even though I was in front of her.

All in all, not an agreeable interaction with this woman.

I stayed quiet but I think I should have addressed this and change topic back on her: "so what do you like to do in life?" or something like that.

I also underestimated the effect of lack of sleep on cognition. For the past 6 months or so, I was sleeping 4-6 hours a night, waking up at 4-5 am to workout/study (and going back too late. However this did not go well and even though I did not burn out I now see that it affects quite a bit my memory and cognition. So I'm back to aiming at least 7 hours a night. One can function with this amount of sleep, the key word being "function" but high performance is not attainable I think. I'm talking about this as it also affect one's ability in social interactions (who demand high levels of cognitions). I'm not blaming it on the lack of sleep: I'm realizing being tired prevents me from performing at my best, at work and in social situations.

Let's analyze that specific actions I should not have done:

I should have identified she's a feminist (she has extreme left friends with whom her husband does not get along)
I should not have gone in teacher mode, who cares if these people are interested in these topics or not.
I should have changed topic as soon as they laughed at "men and women have different reproductive strategies"

When she lumped me with the other friend, I should have surface it: "I'm in front of you, you can talk to me." and "what do you mean?" then I could have gone in: "I hope you also have high standards in life" but this would have already been gone in the "you" vs "me" talk.

Also when we started to talk she was fascinated with me being a pediatrician. I saw here 4 and 5 years old were stuck on IPads so I say as a general statement: "yeah just be careful with the screens" and we talked a bit about the negative effects of screens on children in a light way. Well, they spent the whole night on the IPads. One of them fell asleep on the IPad. Of course the children did not socialize nor talk with us even at the table, even when joking around with them. As they were basically coming to get their food and getting back to their screens, which is sad to me. All this to say that some people will judge our behaviour and have not so much to show for it.

This is funny as we talked earlier of moral superiority talking about her extreme leftist friends. So also when I talked about it I attacked her friends who did not seem very tolerant as her husband did not like them much. So I should have thought that by association she shares their views a bit. So here behaviour should not have come as a surprise to me but I was naive on this. I walked right into it. I did not know her well enough, it was the first time I saw her so I should have been more cautious. And my friends laughing at her saying "good hunt" was low as they took the side of a stranger against me. Not cool.

Anyway, lesson learned.

Also my male friend told me at this dinner I was being discrete with my love life as in "you don't let us know". I was and I was right to be. So now I will also talk about it only 1-on-1 with close friends. She started to give me advice on my love life when I said what I was looking for. So all in all a disastrous interaction.

Happy to read your thoughts.

Lucio's answer:

(I left it as it as plain text without quoting as I cannot quote inside a quote)

Quote from John Freeman on February 10, 2023, 9:36 pm
Social mistake: don't reveal women's nature in a social context when women are present
I was at a dinner yesterday and I started to talk about women's nature. That is their attraction for men with resources, and the different reproductive strategies of men and women. I did a first mistake by going with a teacher's frame (working on it) instead of vibing. I also held court and talked to much (working on it as well).
(...)

Great analysis, great lessons learned, great experience to go through, and a great case study.

Deserves its own thread, I think -something like "honest sexual marketplace talk: when to, and when to avoid"-.

Just a few quick notes on my side:

Your self-analysis is great, you got your own learnings (just one I personally wouldn't necessarily always apply, see last point)
Exceptions frame Honest "exchange talk", be it social, workplace, sexual or whatever is most often thorny and best prefaced with a lot of "in general" and "exceptions apply" which is both true and more palatable to larger audiences
- Help people feel like they can be the exception, even when they're not
Win-win frames, always reminding people that collaboration and win-win are both real, possible, and good -otherwise civilization as it is wouldn't have even emerged in the first place-
Positive frames "it's actually great women care about men's resources. Imagine if all women instead preferred poor men: the children would pay the price for that choice. So it's a good thing".
This is SO important because it avoids the "gold digger frame" that most women push back against (you may have this misunderstanding)
Normalization frame: it's normal, it's just nature. We're animals, and animals seek to maximize their returns. Men do it too and have their own preferences to maximize returns.
You need to avoid the "red-pillish" frame of "women are untrustworthy by their nature". That's what women (righteously) dislike with these type of arguments
Once it turns win-lose debate-style, WIN IT

I'd have pushed back on this big time:

Quote from John Freeman on February 10, 2023, 9:36 pm
While the other one maintained she only chose "poor men". This is a blatant lie as my friend who invited me at his house for the dinner recently bought this house with her and is the wealthiest friend I have.

Such a cheap move BS.

Even if it's only a debate/converastion, accepting that means accepting a nasty win-lose because she's lying just to win (and save face and prove you wrong, whichever one it is, it's still not good).

An easy way to push back:

You: you only chose poor men? How about your current partner...

That would be enough to prove her full of BS.

If you wanted to go equally nasty, you could even say "that's offensive to your partner, to be honest".

And a potentially strong argument:

Also, that argument doesn't apply much here. There aren't that many poor men in Switzerland, so to date truly poor men here you either were hanging around homeless shelters, or you were still dating the world top 5%

This argument also uses a "sarcastic frame" power move.

At least people around the table would be nodding as you say and maybe even smile -if only "within them", but still a major win for you-.

After that, absolutely, go back to more collaborative -actually, it's crucial t go back to collaborative or you ruin it for everyone-.

No biggies for not having done this because this is a very difficult, tightrope to walk.

You need to be strong and dominant to check the BS and win, but without anger -call it maybe "intense"-, and with the ability to then go back to win-win and friendly.

Still, worth a try next time.

It's possible to talk about it...

Albeit in some situations it's indeed best to avoid, I wouldn't necessarily say "never more".

These topics are super interesting to discuss and if done well, can frame you as smart and high-value.

So it's more about how to discuss them, than avoiding them altogether (maybe a topic for its own thread).

Me again: happy to edit it is as you guys see fit.

#4 · February 11, 2023, 4:25 pm

Quote from John Freeman on February 11, 2023, 4:25 pm
Thank you very much Lucio, I answer here. Thank you, Bel!
Help people feel like they can be the exception, even when they're not
That's key, goes into my note. That's the thing: many people are not willing to have a social identity that could be less positive than they currently have (AKA having self-interested or animal behaviours).
Win-win frames, always reminding people that collaboration and win-win are both real, possible, and good -otherwise civilization as it is wouldn't have even emerged in the first place-
Key: I failed here as I was more in an adversarial frame women vs men.
Positive frames "it's actually great women care about men's resources. Imagine if all women instead preferred poor men: the children would pay the price for that choice. So it's a good thing".
This is SO important because it avoids the "gold digger frame" that most women push back against (you may have this misunderstanding)
Key argument. I said something along those lines but did not develop it well enough though.
Normalization frame: it's normal, it's just nature. We're animals, and animals seek to maximize their returns. Men do it too and have their own preferences to maximize returns.
You need to avoid the "red-pillish" frame of "women are untrustworthy by their nature". That's what women (righteously) dislike with these type of arguments
Yeah I did a bit of this by saying that it's well known and accepted that most men like asses and big boobs. I did not push any argument of women being untrustworthy but that might have been what they think I thought or what they're used to hear.
Once it turns win-lose debate-style, WIN IT
Yeah I realized only too late when she said: "Good hunt" that she was in debate mode all along. As soon as I brought new ideas she was not familiar with she was on the defensive, hence in fight mode. So I totally agree with you.
You: you only chose poor men? How about your current partner...
Yes I should have done this. I did not as she's the host but yeah it was deserved anyway.
At least people around the table would be nodding as you say and maybe even smile -if only "within them", but still a major win for you-.
After that, absolutely, go back to more collaborative -actually, it's crucial t go back to collaborative or you ruin it for everyone-.
Yeah, that's what I failed to do in a sense. I thought I was being collaborative by my explanation and sharing what I know but it was a mistake. Wether they are fact or not, this is a new reality, hence a new frame. So I was in a way frame imposing and she was resisting the new frame coming along the new knowledge. The dance honest talk-collaboration must occur at the micro-level at the conversation not at the global (naive) idea: "I'm sharing knowledge so it's a win for everyone gaining this knowledge".
No biggies for not having done this because this is a very difficult, tightrope to walk.
It IS advanced. But now I know...
You need to be strong and dominant to check the BS and win, but without anger -call it maybe "intense"-, and with the ability to then go back to win-win and friendly.
I totally see what you mean, I express myself more and more like this when needed so I totally get it. Example at work:
This NEEDS to be done because this and this. (intense tone). Thank you very much (smile and warm tone).

Still, worth a try next time.
I will! Ready to go at it again.
It's possible to talk about it...
Albeit in some situations it's indeed best to avoid, I wouldn't necessarily say "never more".
These topics are super interesting to discuss and if done well, can frame you as smart and high-value.
So it's more about how to discuss them, than avoiding them altogether (maybe a topic for its own thread).
Yeah definitely. I apologized to my female host (my friend's GF who has a house and only date poor men) when we were alone in the car on the way back. I told her: "Excuse me for having hogged the conversation with my topic". She said: "Yeah no it's interesting to understand other people's perspective". I think she meant it. And she said (once more): "Me I only dated poor men" :D
I'll answer more later...

Thank you very much Lucio, I answer here. Thank you, Bel!

Help people feel like they can be the exception, even when they're not

That's key, goes into my note. That's the thing: many people are not willing to have a social identity that could be less positive than they currently have (AKA having self-interested or animal behaviours).

Win-win frames, always reminding people that collaboration and win-win are both real, possible, and good -otherwise civilization as it is wouldn't have even emerged in the first place-

Key: I failed here as I was more in an adversarial frame women vs men.

Positive frames "it's actually great women care about men's resources. Imagine if all women instead preferred poor men: the children would pay the price for that choice. So it's a good thing".
This is SO important because it avoids the "gold digger frame" that most women push back against (you may have this misunderstanding)

Key argument. I said something along those lines but did not develop it well enough though.

Normalization frame: it's normal, it's just nature. We're animals, and animals seek to maximize their returns. Men do it too and have their own preferences to maximize returns.
You need to avoid the "red-pillish" frame of "women are untrustworthy by their nature". That's what women (righteously) dislike with these type of arguments

Yeah I did a bit of this by saying that it's well known and accepted that most men like asses and big boobs. I did not push any argument of women being untrustworthy but that might have been what they think I thought or what they're used to hear.

Once it turns win-lose debate-style, WIN IT

Yeah I realized only too late when she said: "Good hunt" that she was in debate mode all along. As soon as I brought new ideas she was not familiar with she was on the defensive, hence in fight mode. So I totally agree with you.

You: you only chose poor men? How about your current partner...

Yes I should have done this. I did not as she's the host but yeah it was deserved anyway.

At least people around the table would be nodding as you say and maybe even smile -if only "within them", but still a major win for you-.
After that, absolutely, go back to more collaborative -actually, it's crucial t go back to collaborative or you ruin it for everyone-.

Yeah, that's what I failed to do in a sense. I thought I was being collaborative by my explanation and sharing what I know but it was a mistake. Wether they are fact or not, this is a new reality, hence a new frame. So I was in a way frame imposing and she was resisting the new frame coming along the new knowledge. The dance honest talk-collaboration must occur at the micro-level at the conversation not at the global (naive) idea: "I'm sharing knowledge so it's a win for everyone gaining this knowledge".

No biggies for not having done this because this is a very difficult, tightrope to walk.

It IS advanced. But now I know...

You need to be strong and dominant to check the BS and win, but without anger -call it maybe "intense"-, and with the ability to then go back to win-win and friendly.

I totally see what you mean, I express myself more and more like this when needed so I totally get it. Example at work:

This NEEDS to be done because this and this. (intense tone). Thank you very much (smile and warm tone).

Still, worth a try next time.

I will! Ready to go at it again.

It's possible to talk about it...
Albeit in some situations it's indeed best to avoid, I wouldn't necessarily say "never more".
These topics are super interesting to discuss and if done well, can frame you as smart and high-value.
So it's more about how to discuss them, than avoiding them altogether (maybe a topic for its own thread).

Yeah definitely. I apologized to my female host (my friend's GF who has a house and only date poor men) when we were alone in the car on the way back. I told her: "Excuse me for having hogged the conversation with my topic". She said: "Yeah no it's interesting to understand other people's perspective". I think she meant it. And she said (once more): "Me I only dated poor men" :D

I'll answer more later...

Lucio Buffalmano and Zathrian have reacted to this post.

#5 · February 12, 2023, 8:40 am

I’m glad you apologized, but I don’t think she meant it as an acceptance but an acknowledgment. You can’t really not accept peoples apology to their face, and she is the girlfriend of a friend of yours so it’s a strategic social move on her part to be on good terms with her. Even “it’s interesting getting another’s perspective” has far more than what you explicitly said. You say a lot about your level of social intelligence by choosing to bring up the conversation topic in the context you were in and how you presented the topic.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#6 · February 12, 2023, 10:42 am

Yes, I agree. I would have done the same in her case to power protect.

Lucio Buffalmano and Zathrian have reacted to this post.

#7 · February 13, 2023, 9:05 am

Quote from John Freeman on February 13, 2023, 9:05 am
A real-life example about women and resources:
A very pretty girl from a slavic country (recent expat) I met on Bumble agrees to meet me. She lives in the countryside and asks me to pick her up:
Feeling that picking her up is important, therefore justifying myself a bit, with the new job in May I'm currently looking for a car:
Me: Alright, I don't have a car yet. I'm in the process of buying one. Maybe we could meet in this small city?
Her: Okay, thank you for letting me know. Let me be honest I expect more from a first date, dinner and picking me up. I have my standards and I already accepted the drink but I would rather cancel. I hope you understand. It was nice talking to you (she's the one who was all over me in the beginning because I was a doctor. I gave her a bit too much of the judge role by justifying myself. She plays a power move on me: you don't fit my standards, well she does not either).
Me (doing my best to emulate Lucio's assertiveness with women): Hello X, yes I understand. On my side I expect that a woman is interested to know me as a person, regardless on what is offered on the first date. So I'm afraid we're unfortunately not compatible. I enjoyed exchanging with you and wish you to find what you're looking for. (My intention is to communicate assertively: you have your standards that I respect I also have mine. You make them known and that I don't fit them, this gives me the right to tell you the same thing. Not to hurt her, but to let her know that her behaviour does not fit my expectations neither. It's also to put us on equal footing)
Her: Thank you for your point of view and of course I understand it. It was also my pleasure to talk to you too. I wish you all the best on your journey and hope you find the perfect match for you!
Me: Thanks! You too!
I could have not bought into her frame of a "man needing a car to pick her up and buy her dinner". But these are her expectations and I respect them. I might be naive though. A new lesson/experience for me anyway.
What I'm glad is that when I'm being rejected (which is what happened) I can now not be bitter about it and move on. I do my best also to put myself on an equal foot as the woman whatever happens.

A real-life example about women and resources:

A very pretty girl from a slavic country (recent expat) I met on Bumble agrees to meet me. She lives in the countryside and asks me to pick her up:

Feeling that picking her up is important, therefore justifying myself a bit, with the new job in May I'm currently looking for a car:

Me: Alright, I don't have a car yet. I'm in the process of buying one. Maybe we could meet in this small city?
Her: Okay, thank you for letting me know. Let me be honest I expect more from a first date, dinner and picking me up. I have my standards and I already accepted the drink but I would rather cancel. I hope you understand. It was nice talking to you (she's the one who was all over me in the beginning because I was a doctor. I gave her a bit too much of the judge role by justifying myself. She plays a power move on me: you don't fit my standards, well she does not either).
Me (doing my best to emulate Lucio's assertiveness with women): Hello X, yes I understand. On my side I expect that a woman is interested to know me as a person, regardless on what is offered on the first date. So I'm afraid we're unfortunately not compatible. I enjoyed exchanging with you and wish you to find what you're looking for. (My intention is to communicate assertively: you have your standards that I respect I also have mine. You make them known and that I don't fit them, this gives me the right to tell you the same thing. Not to hurt her, but to let her know that her behaviour does not fit my expectations neither. It's also to put us on equal footing)
Her: Thank you for your point of view and of course I understand it. It was also my pleasure to talk to you too. I wish you all the best on your journey and hope you find the perfect match for you!
Me: Thanks! You too!

I could have not bought into her frame of a "man needing a car to pick her up and buy her dinner". But these are her expectations and I respect them. I might be naive though. A new lesson/experience for me anyway.

What I'm glad is that when I'm being rejected (which is what happened) I can now not be bitter about it and move on. I do my best also to put myself on an equal foot as the woman whatever happens.

#8 · February 13, 2023, 7:19 pm

Hello Bel,

I watched the video, thanks! Great analysis!

Thank you very much as well Lucio!

I don't have any further comments in the end.