Why does the “low-value” approach to women lead to LTRs?

[jhonny9546]

On the forum, there was one response that really captured a lot of interest, as it clearly defined how one might distinguish between a man of high value from a man of low value.
(The user in question uses the terms "beta" and "alpha," though I personally prefer to think of it in terms of "low value" and "high value.")

Our friend responded as follows.

jhonny9546 said:
Do you consider this approach direct or indirect?

A guy meets a girl, and they stay in touch, but they don't date. She's with another guy who happens to be this guy's teammate. They break up, and now the guy comes into the picture, talking to her and claiming that the other guy didn't really think she was cute. Now, he’s her confidant.

The two text each other frequently, and he asks her if she has any female friends available because he's single and looking for a GF. She suggests a few friends, but he declines, saying, "No to that one; I've already been there," and "No to that other one; she's not that great." After some back-and-forth, she asks him, "But what about Jennifer? Is Jennifer free?" This girl's name is Jennifer, and she says yes to going out. They are still togheter after 5 years.

So, this guy wanted her from the beginning, but he made it seem as if she had chosen him in her mind.

What do you think of this approach?

Indirect. It's BADLY indirect.

jhonny9546 said:
A guy meets a girl, and they stay in touch, but they don't date.

That's mistake number 1 here. A true direct guy and alpha male doesn't stay in touch with girls he isn't dating or fvcking, i.e he doesn't keep them around as platonic friends or acquaintances, social media buddies, text message buddies, hang out buddies etc who he secretly wants to date or fvck.

jhonny9546 said:
She's with another guy who happens to be this guy's teammate.

In that case, it's best not to hit on the girl, out of respect for the other guy but also to avoid potential negative consequences, since he knows the other guy.

However, if a guy doesn't know a girl's boyfriend, it would be a different story.

jhonny9546 said:
They break up, and now the guy comes into the picture, talking to her and claiming that the other guy didn't really think she was cute.

Waste of time. A guy shouldn't need to make up stuff that a girl's ex boyfriend supposedly said, did or thought in order to somehow boost his chances of getting that girl. That's just silly nonsense.

jhonny9546 said:
Now, he’s her confidant.

No no no! A true direct guy/alpha male doesn't become a girl's confidant. That's what beta males are for. If you become a girl's confidant, it will just make her view you as a nice, friendly beta male rather than a guy she would date or fvck.

As the late great Alan Roger Currie said, you want to become a girl's dependable orgasm buddy NOT her dependable listening ear.

jhonny9546 said:
The two text each other frequently,

Yet another mistake. A true direct guy doesn't engage in constant texting back and forth or have long winded conversations with women via text message. Nope. A true direct guy uses text message rarely and sparsely, keeping his texts brief and to the point to either 1) Set up or confirm an in person meet, or 2) Set up or confirm a phone call.

That's it. No endless/constant texting back and forth. Same applies with DMs or PMs on social media or messaging apps. In fact, a direct guy does not add women on social media who he's trying to date or fvck. A true direct guy does the vast majority of his communication with women in person or over the phone.

The more a guy texts a woman back and forth, the less attractive he becomes in her eyes and the less likely it is that he'll end up meeting up with her in person or dating or hooking up with her. Constant texting back and forth also kills a lot of the mystery and mystique about a guy, lowering the woman's level interest and attraction towards him.

Endless texting back and forth is simply giving a woman free time and attention. You're giving her someone to talk to when she's bored, but who she will probably never end up meeting up with in real life, and for certain you will just be seen as nothing more than a typical nice, beta male in her eyes.

That's why I always say, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS TEXT MESSAGE GAME. Despite what slick marketeer 'dating coaches' will tell you, TEXT MESSAGE GAME DOES NOT EXIST.

jhonny9546 said:
and he asks her if she has any female friends available because he's single and looking for a GF.

Again, that's indirect, beating around the bush nonsense. A direct guy wouldn't pretend he's looking to for a girl's single friends as a tactic/ploy to try and get with that girl. Nope. He would simply, directly make his interest and intentions known to that girl.

jhonny9546 said:
She suggests a few friends, but he declines, saying, "No to that one; I've already been there," and "No to that other one; she's not that great." After some back-and-forth, she asks him, "But what about Jennifer? Is Jennifer free?" This girl's name is Jennifer, and she says yes to going out. They are still togheter after 5 years.

See my previous point. This is indirect silliness.

jhonny9546 said:
So, this guy wanted her from the beginning,

In that case, he should've made his interest known right from the beginning, or in the case of her already dating one of his teammates, he should've left her alone until she was no longer dating his teammate, then he should've hit on her directly.

In the meantime, he should've been approaching, dating and hooking up with other girls rather than developing 'oneitis' over this girl.

jhonny9546 said:
but he made it seem as if she had chosen him in her mind.

Again, that's indirect, manipulative silliness. A direct guy doesn't need to employ stupid tactics on a girl to 'make it seem like she had chosen him in her mind'.

jhonny9546 said:
What do you think of this approach?

Absolutely terrible, just HORRIBLE and extremely cringey. It's classic beta male, indirect, AFC type stuff where a guy develops a big case of 'onetis' on a girl and also is clueless about how to approach, talk to or interact with women.

If the person you're referring to in your post is actually YOU, then I'm sorry to say but you haven't got a clue about how to get women.

In short, what is being said is that the scenario I described, it's being labeled as a "beta" or low-value man approach to a woman.
Well, gentlemen, as it stands today, this man is married to that woman and they have one child together.

Based on that initial approach, I can tell you that his behavior hasn’t changed;
Most importantly, other men I’ve seen in marriages share similar characteristics and behaviour.
Many.

Well, if the supposition is correct, does this mean that most women prefer a "low-value" man?
If that were true, we might assume women prefer this type of man because he is easier to manipulate, control, making him seem like a more convenient choice for a LTR for them.
But also, what does this says about that given woman who chose a man like this?
AAWLT?

And, I have always agreed with our friend’s assessment that this "beta" approach is completely wrong, it's not coming from a higher value male.
Yet, it actually works and leads to the formation of LTR.

Curious to hear your perspective

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Guys that don't get a lot of action live in hypothetical land where they mostly trade theories online about how they think world actually works.

These theories are not based on actual real life experiences.

They are highly filtered by confirmation bias, and these confirmation biases are subconsciously generated as ego-protecting coping strategies.

Here's the real truth.

- Most everybody settles for the best they can get.

- Most people don't have a lot of confidence that they can just "go out and get a partner."

- Value (high, low, whatever) is absolutely subjective.

- Somebody who is starving things the random piece of food they get is the most delicious thing in the world.

- Most people, when they find themselves in a relationship that is "good enough" hang on for dear life, as having access to sexual intimacy is a deep driver of human behavior and human evolution.

- People are outside of the system of "normal people" doing "normal things" like engaging socially and building real relationships have a very "sour grapes" collection of biases through which they describe the world.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Why are you holding up a single example as some universal truth?

 

[Bigpapa]

On the forum, there was one response that really captured a lot of interest, as it clearly defined how one might distinguish between a man of high value from a man of low value.
(The user in question uses the terms "beta" and "alpha," though I personally prefer to think of it in terms of "low value" and "high value.")

Our friend responded as follows.


In short, what is being said is that the scenario I described, it's being labeled as a "beta" or low-value man approach to a woman.
Well, gentlemen, as it stands today, this man is married to that woman and they have one child together.

Based on that initial approach, I can tell you that his behavior hasn’t changed;
Most importantly, other men I’ve seen in marriages share similar characteristics and behaviour.
Many.

Well, if the supposition is correct, does this mean that most women prefer a "low-value" man?
If that were true, we might assume women prefer this type of man because he is easier to manipulate, control, making him seem like a more convenient choice for a LTR for them.
But also, what does this says about that given woman who chose a man like this?
AAWLT?

And, I have always agreed with our friend’s assessment that this "beta" approach is completely wrong, it's not coming from a higher value male.
Yet, it actually works and leads to the formation of LTR.

Curious to hear your perspective

also most guys that are married or in relationships have a really ****ty life

depends at the end of the day what is the aim, if the aim is to get a wife / gf no matter what, then yeah this could be a strategy . But you will never wear the pants in the relationship

if the aim is to get into a relationship with a girl that actually likes you and treats you nice, then i think this is the worse strategy

The time you have can be used to simp, or the time can be used to build a life that you actually enjoy. The choice sits with each one