Skip to content

Woman leaks the shift you need to make girls chase you...

Channel: Distinguished Living
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L7hsyj8-5g

A reaction/commentary on a woman's clip in which she describes disqualifying herself on a first date; the host argues men do know what they want (they just can't attain it), and that her self-disqualification was a dominance move, not the "shift" she thinks made him chase.

Key points

  • The source clip. Creator Kristi Wong recounts a first date where the man said his ideal woman is "like his mom" - a selfless giver who pours everything into her family. She told him repeatedly she is not that woman (she gives "from a full cup," keeps herself at the center), yet he kept texting for a second date, which confused her.
  • "Men don't know what they want" is wrong, per the host. He argues every man knows what he wants but fights social variables; what men truly want is not socially acceptable to state, so they give an "ideological" (attainable) answer instead. His blunt version: absent consequences, every man would engage with as many attractive women as possible - a claim he frames as instinct, not endorsement.
  • The "woman like his mother" fantasy. The host claims no woman except a man's mother gives near-unconditional love, and even that is not truly unconditional - a mother "loves her investment," driven by an instinct to see her child reach adulthood and reproduce. Other women's core interest, he says, is finding the best partner (body, mind, spirit, capability - not just money) to carry good genes to the next generation, weighed intuitively.
  • Why men cling to the fantasy. He argues many men struggle to live without this idealism because the alternative is accepting they must "perform" for life. Many men, he claims, are not naturally competitive, want comfort, and dislike that performance and comfort do not coexist.
  • On the woman's self-centeredness. He credits her authenticity but says she is admitting she is self-centered. He predicts childless women talk this way but act differently once invested (using how they dote on an adopted cat as a contrast), with the caveat that a woman must at least respect the father's capability.
  • The real mechanism - dominance / disqualification. The host's core teaching point: by proactively disqualifying herself ("I'm not your girl") she took the dominant, high-abundance position, which is why the man chased harder. He reframes it as her having disqualified him first, then rationalizing her "ick."
  • Advice to men. Do not walk into a date listing everything you want in a woman - only two things follow: she sees you as a "little boy" and rejects you, or she exploits the information against you. He also rejects the "date to marry, serious people only" upfront-honesty advice from other gurus, saying it kills a light, fun vibe and that declarations of "dating to marry" (from men or women) can't be trusted because people rarely know what they want.
  • Note: this is opinion/evolutionary-psychology dating commentary presented as fact; no studies are cited. A dating-course pitch and the like/subscribe sign-off were dropped as non-content.

Reception

  • Low comment volume (69 total) and mixed, with the most-liked reactions cutting against the host's elaborate theory: the simplest read is "She wasn't attracted to him. It's not complicated," and "looks got him in the door" - his continued texting is just attraction, not her clever "shift."
  • Several mock the man's premise directly: saying you want a woman "like your mother" reads as an unresolved Oedipus complex ("Sounds like she was on a date with Norman Bates"). Others say they want a woman who reciprocates effort, not a second mother.
  • Agreement from some older male viewers on the "performance" point - a Gen X commenter says men do know what they want, perfection is unattainable, but mastering performance is the difference between a good life and being "a doormat." A long-married commenter agrees a man should know what he wants but keep it internal and obfuscate if she asks, since she may be looking to disqualify him.
  • Pushback on the host's cynicism about unconditional love, with a back-and-forth thread arguing it does exist (couples who stay together into old age past peak looks/fertility) and that framing love as purely transactional is a symptom, not a solution.
  • Recurring snipes at the woman's appearance/voice and dismissals ("we don't care"), plus a minority defending her stance as healthy self-protection against manipulation ("give from the overflow, not the undertow").