>>/6283/
> Any serious examination of mate preferences should examine men and women separately. Men are overwhelmingly attracted to looks.
Straight men strongly prefer young and feminine partners, but the way the modern dating scene is arranged ensures that even old, very unattractive women are constantly asked out by supplicating guys.
> In live mates, however, heterosexual women seem to be looking primarily for attention from other women and displays of agency and dominance.
Online dating is currently the most popular way of meeting partners, seeking them elsewhere automatically puts you at risk of being accused of harassing. Also, agency and dominance stem from having options, having options is possible when you have a high status, and high status is achieved largely through looks and resources. It's difficult to acquire "strong game" without the reassuring signals from the social circles.
> Have you tried working on your small displays of cruelty and indifference
This might work (as long as you're fine with walking a thin line between confidence and mild emotional abuse), but I'm afraid that these displays won't come out as honest signals in case of sensitive guys.
> The "one weird trick" is to figure out whether you are hardwired as a sensitive romantic type or if it is more a consequence of conditioning, social anxiety and mistaken expectations.
Good advice, but how people can actually figure it out in practice?
> If you are and you can't or don't want to change it, maybe you can bring some technical competence to >>>/robowaifu/.
It's sad that robowaifus are currently in the uncanny valley of anime and creepy sex dolls. It will take us at least few more decades to emulate the human cognition and come up with technology providing a combination of coherent multisensory inputs which would satisfy the love-craving circuitry. Safe empathogens might be an easier way.