Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Signs of low quality women article

Hey Lucio, so I wasn't able to comment on this article (http://thepowermoves.com/low-quality-women/) for some reason (it kept giving me the captcha error) and I put quite some time in writing my comment so if you don't mind, I'll just put this here:

 

I would also add that shit-testing too much is a sign of a low value woman. Women that constantly shit test do so because they like the feeling of being the one that everyone has to prove themselves to, probably due to low self-esteem.

Personally, I've rarely had a good time with a girl that's constantly shit-testing you, especially if you barely know each other.

About number 17 though, "Bartering for sex," it looks like the girl in the picture is wearing a hijab or a head scarf which probably means she's muslim. In their culture, sex is really valued over there. Hymen reconstruction surgery, covering up a lot of their body, etc... Honour killings are a real thing over there, they'll kill a woman if they've dishonoured their family by having pre-marital sex or sex with someone that the parents don't approve. In Canada, there was a case that Afghan immigrants had 3 daughters that were murdered by the mom and dad, as well as the brothers over something like this. Terrible. It is also common for men to demand that their wife be a virgin (hence the hymen reconstruction surgery). Most of the people I know are from that part of the world.

In your case with the picture, you could interpret it as her way of saying, "I really want to fuck you, but I don't want it to look like I'm just giving it away". It could've been her way of justifying sex with you.

The reason why she was selling it cheap could have been because if she asked for too high a price, it would put you off and she wouldn't have gotten what she really wanted, which was sex. The western equivalent of this would be the girl saying "let's get drunk at your place" or "let's get drunk together". If her friends found out or whatever, she could say "Oh I was drunk" or something.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Yes, you're right.

Shit-testing too much is the sign of a woman who is more into power than collaboration.
At a certain point, instead of being "let's make sure he's a cool guy", it becomes "let's see him jump through my hoops for my personal enjoyment".

Good point on the Muslim girl.
It's also true that men tend to value virginity when virginity is more common or expected, but they stop considering it a plus when it's highly unlikely a girl will be virgin at marriage.

I did meed quite a few women who remained virgins well into their 20's outside of Islam, though. It's uncommon, but it happens (one girl even wrote on this forum saying she felt "weird" about it).

Plus, there are also many women who, albeit not virgin, care about keeping their partner's count low.
I had a girl once who didn't want to use vibrators because she didn't want to put too many "things" inside her, be it penises or mechanical devices.
For men who care about loyalty -almost everyone-, that's a strong positive sign for a long-term relationship (I'll need to make an article on "wife-material traits" soon).

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Hey Lucio. I read the article 'low quality women'. The hijab woman seems from Malaysia. Did you travel there and did she offer her virginity to you if you brought her along with you

Yeah, she offered her virginity if I brought her along my travels.

I'd rather not share where it happened and not because I don't wanna share my side of the story, but out of respect for her.

I'm always ambivalent when sharing pictures like text screenshots, romantic liaisons or, even more, that type of picture -even though there is absolutely no personally identifiable information there, the only thing one can glean is that she might be Muslim-.

On one side, I enjoy sharing stories of romance.
On the other side, it's as if I was betraying a sacred bond and a non-written agreement that what happened was personal.

And if from one side I know that sharing pictures and text snapshots is far better to help people understand and remember what I'm talking about -plus being potentially good for web traffic and showing "proof of personal experience"-, I also don't feel 100% good about it.

In that instance, the woman in that picture did behave in a manner that can be considered "low quality".
And that picture is a powerful reminder for anyone reading that article that bartering sex -or virginity- for a trip, or for things, should be a no-go.
She wasn't just looking for a trip by the way, she was also looking for love. But even then, some cultural awareness would have helped: Western people feel it's awkward of a woman to "offer" virginity as if it were a token of appreciation and admiration. It's the equivalent of putting a price tag on something that should be and feel "natural".
It's a bit like offering money to a close friend to help you do some chore. The help should fall under the umbrella of friendship, injecting money into the equation does not improve the relationship, but worsens it.

That being said, she was overall a good person, even a caring person. So out of respect to her, I'd rather not add details to it.

finistratbob has reacted to this post.
finistratbob
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Hey Lucio,
I read this thread (http://thepowermoves.com/low-quality-women/) and it, in a way, stirred up mixed feelings in me, while some of the points were impeccably spot-on, the rest of them triggered me into desperately looking for ways to get back to you err rather at you! First off, you shouldn't be surprised if a majority of readers are critical of whatever you rambled on about and NEVER ask for justification as to why they disapprove of you. It infuriated me, I reckon it did the same to other women and sane men too. By the way, you're getting brownie points for the crude caricature depicting what a low-value woman looks like, well done on that!
Next, the point that says, "doesn't care about her looks", I rather took that on a personal level, most women with brains don't really care about their looks and I believe, most "high-value" women would pay the least amount of heed to their appearance! You need to be a sapiosexual(which you're evidently NOT) to appreciate smart women with brains and not just beauty!
Next in the line #13, don't you think it went a little self-contradictory there? Assess that with whatever little is left of your brain.
Up next #4, not going in order, summarizes one's proficiency in English, speaking of which, considering you're a native speaker since you claim to be one, have you EVER tried your hand at learning a new language? What gives you the AUDACITY to judge people without having placed yourself in their shoes!
Reading between the lines, it felt like the article was intended for one specific woman, maybe just a gut feeling! You'd know that better, wouldn't you!
Do you like being a conceited lunatic, going around, manifesting hatred for women, venting all your frustration out on a social forum? Lucky you, I must say, had the forum been popular, you would've potentially stirred up a hornet's nest around you by now!

P.S.: Stop being a woman-slandering misogynistic sw***!

Cheers!

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and 99 Problems have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew Whitewood99 Problems

Ritwika, I understand that this is your first post on the forum.
Have you read the forum guidelines?

We are also starting a debating thread specifically to practise using power moves.
I think your post would be more suitable on that future thread.

Outside of that thread, we do our best to refrain from using such power moves to maintain a healthy community.

Lucio Buffalmano and Sam Wellington have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoSam Wellington
Quote from RITWIKA CHATTERJEE on April 10, 2021, 3:53 am

Hey Lucio,
I read this thread (http://thepowermoves.com/low-quality-women/) and it, in a way, stirred up mixed feelings in me, while some of the points were impeccably spot-on, the rest of them triggered me into desperately looking for ways to get back to you err rather at you! First off, you shouldn't be surprised if a majority of readers are critical of whatever you rambled on about and NEVER ask for justification as to why they disapprove of you. It infuriated me, I reckon it did the same to other women and sane men too. By the way, you're getting brownie points for the crude caricature depicting what a low-value woman looks like, well done on that!
Next, the point that says, "doesn't care about her looks", I rather took that on a personal level, most women with brains don't really care about their looks and I believe, most "high-value" women would pay the least amount of heed to their appearance! You need to be a sapiosexual(which you're evidently NOT) to appreciate smart women with brains and not just beauty!
Next in the line #13, don't you think it went a little self-contradictory there? Assess that with whatever little is left of your brain.
Up next #4, not going in order, summarizes one's proficiency in English, speaking of which, considering you're a native speaker since you claim to be one, have you EVER tried your hand at learning a new language? What gives you the AUDACITY to judge people without having placed yourself in their shoes!
Reading between the lines, it felt like the article was intended for one specific woman, maybe just a gut feeling! You'd know that better, wouldn't you!
Do you like being a conceited lunatic, going around, manifesting hatred for women, venting all your frustration out on a social forum? Lucky you, I must say, had the forum been popular, you would've potentially stirred up a hornet's nest around you by now!

P.S.: Stop being a woman-slandering misogynistic sw***!

Cheers!

 

Hi, you are welcome to have a rational, calm, and respectful disagreement. But this forum is not the place for disrespectful behaviors.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 10, 2021, 5:20 am

Ritwika, I understand that this is your first post on the forum.
Have you read the forum guidelines?

We are also starting a debating thread specifically to practise using power moves.
I think your post would be more suitable on that future thread.

Outside of that thread, we do our best to refrain from using such power moves to maintain a healthy community.

I apologize if I violated the rules of this forum, I'm new here and the sole purpose of creating an account was to reply to the 'low-value woman' thread. I couldn't comment on the thread which is why I had to comment here since the future 'debating thread' that you mentioned is non-existent in the Present or I would've kept the controversy restricted to the currently non-existent thread, abiding by the rules of the forum. Most of all, if the coordinators wish to steer clear of "power moves", why did you let Lucio post something so controversial in the first place albeit you knew that's bound to trigger people(women and men outside of the kind comprising woman-hating men like Lucio and the ones that come to their defence, for instance, you).

Let's differentiate between these 2 points regarding communication on the forum:

  • Tone
  • Content

Since that the debating thread has not been created, we have to keep the tone respectful towards the community members on all the current threads.

Regarding the content, we encourage diverse views over here.
Controversial content that is communicated and broken down well is very welcome here.
Over here, we focus on discussing what works in practice.
We are comfortable with taking the risk of triggering some people as understanding the darker side of human nature is necessary towards achieving value-adding goals.

If someone talks about controversial topics and one doesn't agree with his/her stance (even if you feel very strongly about it), that does not give anyone the right to be rude or aggressive.

Example

Next in the line #13, don't you think it went a little self-contradictory there? Assess that with whatever little is left of your brain.

The tone here sounds condescending and a bit aggressive.
We could re-frame this in a more polite manner:

Line #13 seems self-contradictory to me. Let me explain why I think so ...

This is welcome on the forum because it adds another perspective.

Lucio Buffalmano, Stef and 2 other users have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStefSam WellingtonRITWIKA CHATTERJEE

A few notes:

Article: Judgment Always Stirs Emotions (Especially when sexually-based)

That article stirs a lot of emotions.

It's bound to do so.

It feels very judgmental to people reading it.
And it can feel personally judgmental if one or a few items might apply to the reader.

That can make people feel bad about themselves, which in turn unleases anger to silence the pain-inducing author.

The point is...

But Everyone Judges

So it's more of a case of:

  • How high or low are your standards

And:

  • How well you're judging

But it's almost never a question of "judging or not judging", since assessing others is embedded in the human mind.

So that article's goal is to help people judge better, increase their standards, and possibly troubleshoot themselves. In my opinion, these are mostly good things.

Why People Resent Judges

Many folks have at least a "feel" level that a judge is:

  • Taking a power position over them: when Ritwika says "what gives you the audacity of... ". She's actually saying "what gives you the audacity of taking a judge-power position over me". That feeling is only heightened if the judge is making the reader feel "not good enoguh"
  • Potentially disempowering their sexual strategy: if the judge is teaching men how to screen women, that can empower men, but disempower a lot of women. Of course the screened out women are going to be the angriest
  • Making them feel bad about themselves: this one, I can understand, and which is why I always support "social grace" when dealing with potentially harsh or hurtful information

REBELING AGAINST JUDGES: ONLY EMPOWERING IF THE FEEDBACK IS USED FOR SELF-EMPOWERMENT

In some cases, it's fair to push back against a judge.

And it can also be a fundamental strategy of self-empowerment, so this is not to say that all push-backs against judges are wrong.

However, the individual rebelling against judges will be only empowered if they at least take the good feedback and use it, rather than rejecting all the judge says or does -which is what most people do anyway-.

Political Correctness Empowered the Fight Against Judges

The current PC climate seeks to repress overt expression of judging.

And especially so when it comes to assessing people's values and sexual market value.

The current politically correct climate, in many ways, empowered the fight against judges.

Attacking people for judging serves three goals:

  • Manipulating sexual marketplace dynamics: it works like this: "if you can't judge me, then maybe you -and others- will accept me more" This one doesn't work perfectly since the cultural level has more limited impact on actual mating choice, but it can work a bit
  • Virtue signaling: I attack you for judging and frame you as "bad" or "reactionary" or whatever, and that self-frames me as liberal, open-minded, accepting and "good"
  • Self-esteem boost: "if I don't hear criticism, I feel better". this one I actually totally understand.

When sexual dynamics are at stake, the moral police repression goes into overdrive, and the various misogynist (or man-hater) accusations are the natural big guns to field and mute the judge.
If the judge can't speak, maybe the accuser has more options -or at least, feels better about herself-.

But Let's Not Always Defend Judges: There Are PLENTY Of Ways of Being A Judging Ahole

That being said, there are poorer, turkey-level expressions of judgment.

To begin with, plenty of people do hide their anger and hatred being the guise of "telling the truth", "expressing my freedom of choice" or "assessing who I'm dealing with".

Some men for example enjoy repeating that women are worthless after 30YO.
Some of them say that it's simply "telling the truth" -in this case, a speck of truth about sexual market value, but twisted into a judgment about a whole human being- but it can often be a way of hiding their hatred of women.

Some women can do the same, of course.
(Deleted the example here to keep it brief enough)

Judging can also be used as (often cheap) social climbing.

Think for example of:

  • Men telling other men they're "betas": there is an article on that here, the "alpha male posturing", a rather low-value, turkey-style way of social climbing and feeling better about themselves

And for manipulation as well:

  • Women telling other women they're not "independent enough": a manipulative way of social climbing within female circls and/or gaining an edge in the sexual marketplace

As a tool for power:

  • I judge very harshly, create a shitstorm, and get more attention and followers: some feminists and red pill authors gain followers because they are extra harsh, and not (necessarily) because they tell truth. The angrier men and women don't want the truth, they want someone who allows free-flow for their personal anger. See the dynamics of the red pill on this.

Finally, social grace always applies.
In my opinion, if you can say something gracefully but you choose the crude, hurtful way, you're moving farther away from your ideal self.

Ritwika here might have a point in that the original article could have delivered the exact same information, but more gracefully -I haven't checked it in a while, I don't have an opinion on that right now-.

Article Content

That article is part of a 4-series article that has become very popular.

The original intent was more to list a few criteria to effectively judge people's value, and to offer some criteria on becoming higher value -the self-development part-.

Given the popularity of those articles though, I have it noted down that I will eventually go back to all of them to make them more exhaustive and generally higher-quality -pun not intended :)-.

Tone of Messages: Different Standards For Different Folks

As a rule of thumb, if we're discussing about a newcomer or a feebdack on some article, I'm far more lenient when the purported poor behavior/tone is towards me, rather than towards other users.

And new members also get some more leeway when it comes to guidelines and behavior.

Why?

Because it's different if "turkey behavior" is from an old-standing member, who is supposed to have read the guidelines and internalized (at least some) of the TPM values, VS a newcomer, who can't be held at the same higher standard.

In this case, I also generally understand where Ritwika is coming from, so albeit I wasn't exactly impressed by how the original message was worded and argued, I also didn't feel much "attacked" at all.

Stef, 99 Problems and 2 other users have reacted to this post.
Stef99 ProblemsSam Wellingtonselffriend
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Processing...