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

 

[jhonny9546]

Why do you treat a single example as a universal truth?

[/QUOTE]

Good question. Since most experiences are subjective, and you can’t necessarily derive an absolute truth from them, observing a large number of people behaving in a certain way (as just described) and achieving specific results might prompt you to try and understand *why* it works.

It’s like a MotoGP rider deciding to imitate other riders who, at turn 3 of a circuit, take the corner in 4th gear instead of downshifting to 3rd, even if doing so might actually cost them time.

Rather than blindly "following" someone else’s behavior and accepting it as valid just because it yielded a result, you have to ask yourself why it worked in the first place.
Otherwise, you’re just falling for the "bandwagon effect."

Ultimately, it depends on what the goal is. If the objective is simply to find a wife or girlfriend—no matter what—then sure, this might be a strategy. But you’ll never be the one wearing the pants in that relationship.

Some women might prefer to keep men of little substance around, immature guys whom they can control.
They simply do not want to be led.

The time you have can be used to simplify things, or it can be used to build a life you truly enjoy. The choice is up to each individual.

And the latter choice is the more difficult one, even if it might seem easier at the start.

 

[RoadKing_Rabbit]

A guy like this often seems like a "safe bet" or a "sure thing" to women. Most women don't get with this type of man until their mid to late 30s. Sometimes later, IF they're fortunate enough. Heck, I know women in their 50s and 60s who still like the edgy and unpredictable guys and can't lock a man down.

In many cases, even if she can lock a man like this down, the lady will get the idea that he's just "so boring" or "too nice" and she'll feel excited and young again with a random dude who she knows she can't manipulate this way. Usually after packing on some weight and backing intimacy off with her 'convenient' guy. He doesn't think anything of it, or worse, he assumes that he has to "fix" the problem of not getting any anymore.

He'll do more chores, try to pander to what she wants and it backfires bigtime in ways he wouldn't understand even if you explained it to him. Then the clincher. She starts working out again and dropping weight. Starts to dress trendier, younger, does her make up again. She's more flirty, but still keeps her distance from him. He'll never even entertain the possibility (probability in reality) that she is dolling herself up while seeing another man.

I'm not saying it's impossible to meet a lady who truly wants these "beta" / "low value" things and finds them, but if it happened like this in the majority of cases, SS and the entire space of men passing notes like this around wouldn't exist as it is and would face FAR more ridicule than it already does.

I don't necessarily think that "beta" or any of these other placeholders are low value either. Good case studies that come to mind are Jeff Bezos or Will Smith. I've seen some real b@d @ss men turn into something VERY different when a woman comes into his life. It's as if he forgets who he is entirely and occasionally asks her for his own manly bits from her purse and replies "I understand, I was being selfish, I'm sorry." if she says no.

Long and short, I genuinely hope it works out for them. I hope that their bond stands the test of time and they compliment each others lives. It rarely works out that way, and many a man (as some have pointed out) thinks that this is the perfect blueprint on how to find what they've got.

 

[Bigpapa]

Some women might prefer to keep men of little substance around, immature guys whom they can control.
They simply do not want to be led.

Yes, plenty of women are like that

but you have too look at why this is happening, it is mainly for convenience and not feeling lonely

it is not about that she actually likes that guy and treats him nice, despite the guy maybe treating her nice

but deep down, I do not think I ever heard about these kind of dynamics not being a sh1t show down the line. Usually the girl sooner or later takes the guy for granted, makes his life hell and ultimately cheats. Could be also the case where both treat each other nice and is really amazing relationship, but I would say that this would be an exception and not the norm

I think that at the end of the day, humans do not really appreciate things that they do not have to work for and just given to them

that’s why I think it is very important for both men and women to have boundaries and not accept bad treatment for no reason

I had a good friend that was with a girl like this. He was always treating her nice and making sacrifices to make her happy. The first year was ok, then she started changing and changing and she was treating him like sh1t. She also cheated on him 3 times with the same guy, spit him in the face multiple times, etc

I always thought that a woman is not capable of such crazy behavior, but I guess that things can go really really sideways if you leave bad treatment slide away

I am not really advocating for the guy to wear the pants in the relationship and act like a tyrant ( as some preach ), but I advocate for both men and women to have strong boundaries and not lot sh1t slide away

 

[jhonny9546]

.

.

I appreciate your thoughts.


Based on what you’re saying, it’s fair to conclude that women,just as they evaluate other factors like status, beauty, or wealth, also assess a man’s "level of manipulability" to determine where he fits into their framework.
How much can I manipulate him?
How much power do I have over him?
It’s as if this were a trait that had escaped our notice, yet for women, it is actually fundamental.


The reality is that men who adopt an "indirect" approach are essentially handing a woman the tools to use against them throughout the relationship, especially during difficult times.
She realizes she has weapons of manipulation at her disposal.

And if she fails to "trap" a man she is truly attracted to, she certainly won’t pass up the chance to ensnare a "manipulable" man, ensuring she still reaps the benefits of the relationship.
(Never challenge a woman when it comes to manipulation; you will always lose, and you will pay a very steep price.)


Many of my friends complain that their wives are arrogant, bossy, dismissive of their hobbies, or critical of their "laziness."
They do jokes about it, but as other members have mentioned here, those people are so unhappy of their current situations.

But I know these men, beyond providing financial support, they also invest their time in the day-to-day labor of the relationship, such as looking after the children while their wives head off to Pilates, the beauty salon, or work.
(Hoping that while they're at home looking after the baby, she's not out in the gym parking lot screwing someone)

These are standard, common things a man might naturally do within a relationship; however, in cases like these, they are exploited. The woman realizes the man has no real alternatives, so she keeps him on a short leash, using threats to maintain control.
(These women complain simply because they "can.")

No woman has ever threatened to end a relationship with me without then taking responsibility for that action. In fact, with me, every woman understands that her words will quickly turn into deeds.
(On the other hand my mother does this every day with my father)