Sometimes you look at the output of Microsoft and you invariably ask yourself whether they are joking. Just think of the Zune, their SmartWatch or whatever it was called, or their push to abolish ownership for video games with their Xbox One console. The other day, though, I was made aware not of a product that made me pinch myself, but a research paper with the title, "Food and Mood: Just-in-Time Support for Emotional Eating."
In a nutshell, the researchers explored how to detect that someone was about to eat when it wasn't physiologically necessary, and how to keep them from doing so. The article makes for some rather amusing reading, because the researchers put sensors into a bra that would monitor the emotional state of the woman wearing it:
You just can't make that up!
In the paper the term "emotional eating" is used to describe any act of food intake that is not physiologically required. I guess that sounds much more politically correct than "gluttony". I mean, if someone said to Jennifer, "It seems that you are habitually engaging in acts of emotional eating.", she might think that everything is fine. Emotions are the gold standard of female behavior after all. Stay on course, sister! Just consider the "doublethink" you'd have to engage were you to use phrases like that instead of, "Geez, it seems she's about to stuff her face again --- as if she wasn't fat enough already." Nope, it's just "emotional eating". Nothing to worry about.
The hypothesis was that women seem to wolf down all kinds of unhealthy food to feel less depressed better about themselves. You'd really have to commend Microsoft that they not only diagnosed the problem of lacking will-power, but suggested a solution as well. But how does it work? It's quite simple, actually. Those sensors monitor the stress levels of the woman, and if they reach a certain level, apparently people (women) reflexively grab the nearest chocolate bar. Many men complain how unpredictable the behavior of their women is, but apparently this is one area where there is some certainty.
Step 1: Can't handle your shit.
Step 2: Get stressed out.
Step 3: Emotional eating (yay!)
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but if I was a woman I could probably "feel" that this was a perfectly plausible behavioral pattern.
Okay, so the little beeper figures out that the female it is monitoring is about to freak out because she realizes she doesn't fit into last year's clothes anymore. To prevent things from getting worse, she might now interact with an app on her phone that is also described in the Microsoft paper. Look at this:
Did the 1st of April by any chance arrive early?
After getting stressed, she then has to breathe deeply. How well did this work? Well, the researchers write that they were able to detect with an accuracy of about 75 % when a woman was entering a heightened emotional state. However, just doing breathing exercises wasn't enough. The women instead would have "personalized interventions" to keep them from eating.
If you thought that a lot of academic research serves no practical purpose, then I hope that this article has helped you change your mind. There is some life-changing work happening out there. The authors even indicate that they have plans to develop devices for men, too. Probably is has to be a cup you'd have to put on the tip of your cock.
By the way, for the study, the researchers were enlisting women who work in their lab. Who knows, maybe they just wanted to see the boobs of their interns.
So, what do you think? Was this real research or did those guys just play a prank on those poor women? Further: do you also "eat emotionally"? (I don't.)
I travel a lot by train these days. Normally, I take a book and disappear in one of the few quiet areas. Last time, though, I felt a bit too tired to read, so I decided to watch a documentary on my laptop in one of the regular waggons. Shortly after I started the video, the middle-aged woman who was sitting behind me, started talking on , talking on the phone with her daughter or girlfriend or whatever. She was speaking loud enough so that I could easily have followed the conversation.
Instead, I focused on my screen. The big surprise came after about ten or fifteen minutes, because suddenly that woman was standing next to me and telling me that she like me to use headphones. Whoa, sister! I told her that I don't have any head phones with me, and turned my head away again. This didn't deter her, so she added that the video I was watching was disturbing her. It wasn't as if I was watching porn, or a loud action movie, or anything like that.
The whole situation seemed rather absurd, and not just because the volume of my speakers was adjusted so that I could barely hear it. I had actually been taking the other people sitting in the waggon into consideration. This is not at all common behavior. Normally you're exposed to significant noise pollution. Okay, that woman was still standing next to me and apparently waiting for some kind of reaction. I noticed that some other woman was giving me an angry look. Was I now in some fucking feminist fantasy about the collective subjugation of men or what? I told that woman then that, I wasn't creating more noise than many of the other people in the compartment and pointed out that the volume of my computer was certainly lower than her voice when she was speaking on the phone. She then reiterated that I was disturbing her. I couldn't help but point out to her that there was nobody sitting in the quiet area, and that she was welcome to go there if she doesn't want to be disturbed. I really couldn't remember that she had asked me whether I was fine with her having a loud phone conversation either, so I really wondered what had happened to her to have such a ludicrous world view. In the end, I got some more angry looks, but then she buggered off and didn't pester me again.
I then thought that her behavior, as well as the behavior of the woman who gave me an angry look, was indeed quite peculiar. Maybe it was a very fitting example of how many women, particularly feminists, view the world. It's as if they think that they have all the rights, and no obligations at all. Men, on the other hand, have no rights at all. Even worse, the seem to think that they can determine how other people are supposed to act, and bully other people at will.
You can see this clearly whenever feminists play the role of a thought police. You're not supposed to say this or that, can't use male pronouns, heck, you're supposed to admit that male pronouns constitute "violence against women" (I've read bullshit like that online.) Or think of all their anti-male campaigns! They criticize men all day, every day. Yet, whenever someone dares to point out that male privilege is nothing but a figment of their imagination, and backs this up with evidence like the dramatically shorter life-expectancy of men, or the deplorable practice of family courts who would rather give custody rights to the drug-addicted mother than the financially and emotionally stable ex-husband, you're suddenly a "woman-hater", "oppressor" or "rapist". Well, all men are rapists anyway, so that's not really news, or is it?
But do you notice the common theme? It's about women demanding all rights, wanting to share no responsibilities, and expecting men to bend to their will. It's like in traditional dating: She has a job, too, but expects the guy to pay the bill. Even worse, you have a lot of passive-aggressive women who think they can hide their sense of entitlement by saying that it's the duty of the person who asked the other one out to pay. This sounds much more "pc" than "they guy has to pay. Period." Of course, in 99.9 % of cases it is the guy who has to ask the girl out, because all she'll ever be doing is sending ambiguous signals or engage in bullshit like showing active disinterest so that he knows that she's into him. Yes, I know.
How did we even end up in this situation? The other day I was talking with an American about this, and he commented dryly that he's apparently now paying for all the hundreds of black slaves he has owned in a previous life, and the thousands of women he personally kept from voting. To end this post with a practical piece of advice, I suggest that you treat female bullies like male bullies and just call them out on their bullshit. It works wonders, and in rare instances, it may even lead them to change their behavior.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
Let's say Joe Ex-PUA listened to me and settled down with a young woman. You may now think, "Wait, how is this supposed to ever work when there will always be other younger women around? Won't he forever be tempted to jump ship?" Well, first, you'll also get older, and your focus in life will eventually shift from getting laid or, in the case of PUAs, fantasizing about getting laid, to something more constructive. Remember, you used to have hobbies in high school! Second, it's really not the case that girls are that easily interchangeable.
I certainly don't want to urge guys to settle down with some random girl, albeit precisely that seems to be what the average Joe is doing. In that case, you're pretty screwed from the get-go. Eventually she'll have a baby, possibly from another man, and she'll calculate for how long she has to remain married to you to maximize alimony payments. Sadly, Joe allowed himself to get bullied into not signing a marriage contract, since doing so would be "unromantic", according to the 32 year-old he married who was desperate to get a guy.
In case there is no sound foundation in a relationship, be it because you are really only together with her because of her looks, and can't stand her personality at all, or because she only has an interest in exploiting you financially, then you're indeed sitting on a time-bomb that might go off any day. Every conflict will erode the little that keeps your relationship together. By forcing yourself to staying with her instead of leaving right now, you are only prolonging the inevitable, while also causing more suffering for yourself.
There is a different scenario, though. Imagine there was a woman you really like. Maybe you were fortunate enough toe meet one or two like that in your life. You enjoy her personality, you've got a similar worldview, but not too similar, and you find her physically attractive, too. You won't come across many such women. A sad realization guys who bang a lot of women make is that they normally can't offer anything besides their pussy. They may be uneducated, and even if they went to top universities, they can be stupid as fuck, with their business or sociology degrees. She probably can't hold her own in a conversation, and if you're particularly unlucky, she may have an absolutely obnoxious personality. Sure, such girls can be fun for two hours, if you don't know much abut them. Eventually, though, you'll think of the opportunity cost of hanging out with her, and will quickly kick her out.
It's really rare to meet a woman you like personality-wise, and who is attractive as well as reasonably smart. Like attracts like, so if you feel drawn to a woman, it's probably mutual. This reasoning does not apply to women who fall for any guy out of sheer desperation, similar to guys who are so messed up that they think any pussy is better than none. Instead, I'm describing how emotionally mature people would interact. Both of you are probably aware of how unusual your relationship is, especially when compared to previous ones. At the very least, this would require a woman who is not completely average, though, since I don't think it's possible to build a deep connection with some chick whose sole interests are doing her nails and having shouting matches with whoever poor soul who is currently banging her. There are a lot of shallow women out there and, yes, I do think they are completely unfit for any kind of relationship.
Thankfully, not all women are like that. With those, then you'll experience, for instance, that shared positive experiences help to reinforce the relationship. What will also happen is that your shared history will only make you fonder of your woman. Ideally, you both want to get the same or something rather similar out of life. It may be children; I think it often is a prime goal in life. You might think of one child, while she dreams of having a larger family. You can't be sure about whether you'd want to have another kid until you've gotten the first one, anyway. So, there are good reasons for staying together. Some goals are completely at odds, though. If your prime interest is sexual, and hers is to spend your money, then there is no common goal to work towards to.
Physical attraction is important, too. In my opinion, everybody who denies that is kidding himself. Sorry, Fat Jenny, nobody cares about your "personality" --- just like you don't care about the "great sense of humor" of a five foot tall guy of a low socio-economic standing. But what about aging? I mean, if you read "manosphere" drivel, you could get the impression that women turn 80 on their 30th birthday. Neither of you will remain 20 forever. However, if you take a girl in her early to mid twenties as your wife when you are in your early thirties, which I consider a reasonable age of marriage for a guy, then you'll grow older with her. She will become the mother of your children, and when she's entering her thirties, you'll be around 40. I don't see why, as long as both stay in shape, physical attraction should suddenly evaporate. On the other hand, if you're a young engineer of 25 and are stupid enough to let yourself get pressured into marrying a 32 year-old woman, then I can easily see why the little physical attraction you might have felt in the beginning will eventually disappear, and why you wonder how come you wake up next to a monster every day.
To summarize this post, I think there is only one way to make a relationship work, and it depends heavily on the starting position. On the other hand, there are countless reasons why a relationship won't work out. In the US relationship counseling is big business --- quite possibly as shady as the PUA industry, but quite certainly a lot bigger. The big elephant in the room those "counselors" don't want to talk about is that many relationships are doomed from the start, and that there is no way to fix them. But, hey, why bother with pesky facts? The alternative is to be very selective about the kind of woman you're getting involved with, and growing the relationship.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
What is your view about age when dating and chasing girls who are interested in you but significantly younger than you?
First, what exactly is "significantly" supposed to mean? Let's assume we're talking of girls past the threshold of the age of consent. Okay, say, she's 18. How old would a guy have to be in order to be called "significantly older"? I'd say, 25, 26 maybe. Ten years is certainly an age difference I would call significant.
Having settled that, the question then is how this would affect your sex drive. I'm tempted to say quite significantly. Youth is equated with beauty and sexual attractiveness. There are some absurd feminist campaigns that guys should marry someone "their own age", "a mature woman", or "someone who can handle you", but at the end of the day, this is all just so much hot air. Normally, you would pick a younger woman over an older one. This is fine, since girls prefer older guys, too, which explains the malaise of young guys trying to get girls.
The fact that guys want to get with younger girls also explains why older women complain that they are literally invisible. What happened to all those people she loved to complain about because they were "harassing" her? Turns out they now ogle other, younger, chicks instead. Of course, not having men chasing after her means that she now has time to post diatribes online about all those male sexist pigs who would rather stick it into a good-looking girl in her twenties than a "mature" woman of 38, like herself.
I think that it's not just libido-enhancing when your girl is younger. I would even go as far as to say that her youth is libido-enabling. Without her youth, you would not even think of pursuing her. Of course, if you had a weak mind, then feminist rhetoric that tried to shame you for wanting to fornicate with young girls would make you feel bad about your desires. Just think of the guy who asked me that question above: If those young girls are lusting after you, then go for it, man! Just make sure you're not just a walking wallet for them.
Further, let's not forget about biology. Even if some 38-year old thinks that she would be such a great catch, let's just be honest: She's not going to be the mother of your children. On the other hand, if you managed to settle down with a 24 year-old, you could take it easy for a while. Nature is surely not pressuring you to have children right now.
A few years can make quite a difference, as any guy who ever got involved with a woman around 30 has experienced. Many men find their behavior downright absurd. They might push really hard for a relationship, even in the complete absence of interest from the male. His opinion doesn't count, only his sperm. If this describes you, then please be extremely careful about protection, if you really have to get involved with such women. There is a good chance that she's lying to you about being on the pill. I've had this happen, and apparently any guy I know who had sex with more than one or two women, too. Some guys are not so lucky, and were thus tricked into fatherhood. What lovely little angels older women can be!
The ticking biological clock is just one of the reasons why older women can be quite difficult to deal with. They want to pressure you into anything. Of course, they do feel a lot of pressure themselves, realizing that there aren't so many guys interested in her anymore, and seeing friends of hers popping out babies left, right and center doesn't relax her either. But now she's got a new guy, and she's got to make it work! It sounds horrible, right? But now think of how much more easy-going a young girl could be.
maybe I'm an anomaly, but I'm just about as horny as I was as a teenager, and don't need little blue pills to get horny, hard or stay hard! Maybe a little motivation for those guys heading into their 30's and 40's, as I'm 59! I attribute it to not smoking, eating healthily as in organic whenever possible, staying away from red meat and keeping in shape at 5'9" and 175 lbs with a flat stomach. Partly genetics maybe, because I have longivity in my family tree on both sides.
I've met some guys in their late 40s and 50s who were in phenomenal shape. No, I didn't ask them how often they had sex, but I think they perform better in the bedroom than all those downtrodden 30-somethings you see everywhere.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
I received an interesting question as part of a longer email the other day. The guy who wrote to me was curious about my view on how the age difference between you and your woman might influences your libido (i.e. are you better off with a younger woman), as well as how your libido changes in general throughout the years:
What is your view about age when dating and chasing girls who are interested in you but significantly younger than you? At what point people stop having sexual libido/desire or their desire decline as they age?
I'll cover the second question in this article, and the other in a follow-up.
Let me tackle the problem of declining libido in several steps. First, male sex drive declines as you get older, but I'll hypothesize that the change is largely due to lifestyle choices and constraints, and not so much due to biological factors. About teenage boys it is said that they would bang a hole in a tree just as well. This is certainly exaggerated, and just another example of the misandry of the mainstream media. Young girls are horny, too, yet no mainstream media buffoon ever wrote that they would shove anything in their vagina.
Regardless of whether teenagers really are hornier, I think it should be highlighted that sexual activity in teenagers seems more pronounced simply because many of them have more time to spare. They are exploring sexuality, and as an added benefit, having sex is a great way to overcome boredom. That kind of behavior is quite obvious among students who have no genuine academic interests, and it's pronounced at so-called party schools, too. Some days ago a commenter on the blog referred to the YouTube channel "I'm Shmacked", which offers OCD-friendly clips depicting the party life at US college campuses. Universities with a stronger academic reputation are conspicuously absent, but you'll find plenty of videos showing students at larger universities getting wasted.
Thus, it seems quite safe to assume that sexual activity among teenagers is not universally higher. It's well-known that a large fraction of incoming freshmen at elite technical universities like MIT are virgins. I doubt that many of those guys will turn into "players" later in their life, even though it's not hard to see how those people could fall for the empty promises of PUAs. In high school the geeks found different ways to occupy themselves.
The general theme is that the amount of spare time and opportunity determines your level of sexual activity. Sure, if you're a journalism freshman at OSU, and there are thousands of women around you could imagine banging, and if just to fill your time, your mind probably starts to wander on occasion. On the other hand, the diligent MIT student who tries wrapping his head around multivariate calculus and who calculates how much sleep he can afford to take the next few days, would view women as a mere distraction.
All those behavioral patterns will be evident later in life too. Even if your sex drive at age 30 was as high as at age 20, the mere fact that you now have to work a day job, commute two hours a day, and have to run errands in the evening will be enough to make you think that your libido has been plummeting. Instead, just like the hypothetical MIT student described above, you have too much to do and too little time. If you worked less, you probably would have more energy to fornicate. Of course, then the problem is that office environments are a pretty bad place to pick up women.
Looking at the situation of men in general, I don't want to dispute that libido decreases with age. However, it is an open question how much of this is due to inevitable hormonal changes, or simply a consequence of lifestyle choices. True, you don't have much of a choice since you'll have to pay your bills somehow, so it's more of a problem of how society is set up. If you're particularly hard-working, you might need a vacation to replenish your energy, before you can think about getting laid again.
My post on The "three billion women" argument was primarily about finding a partner. This is not the goal of everyone, but for every chest-pounding virgin on PUA forums who claims that he wants to bang more women than Genghis Khan has there are hundreds who secretly wish to just have a girlfriend. Of course, part of the problem is that some of those guys have the twisted idea that women would only have sex within relationships, while one-night stands are reserved for studs and guys which coke, but that would be a different topic altogether.
Let's say you're a reasonably well adjusted guy and you want to sow your wild oats for a while. Women don't just marry anybody, but their criteria for a one-night stand are often much lower. This is particularly true if she's got self-esteem issues and thinks that having some random dude bust a nut in her would make her feel desired and accepted. There's no shortage of such women out there.
Let's just take a different branch in the previous Fermi estimate, and continue at the point where we had whittled down the number of available women to about 5,000. Social class will still plays a role, but women are a bit less strict about that if they only want your cock instead of your wallet. So, if you're in the middle of society, then we'll be a bit generous and assume that you'll have no access to the top 10 % of society, and that you have no interest in getting involved with the bottom 20 %, for a variety of reasons. Both seems to be rather plausible percentages. So, you're down to 3,500 women, vs the previous 2,500.
Let's say your standards are slightly lower for women when it comes to one-night stands, so you only exclude 50 instead of 60 %. This leads to 1,750 vs. the previous 1,000. That's already an enormous difference. However, you'll probably find it easier to bang a chick whose worldview you detest --- it may even give you an extra incentive --- than one that physically repels you. Maybe you'll even say that no matter what she thinks, if she's hot, you'd bang her. It's just for one night anyway, or maybe for a week or two. Then you're at 1,750 vs. 500 women, and since you only want to get laid, you couldn't care less about whether your personalities are compatible. Then you're still at 1,750 women to chose from, while the guy who is going for relationships is down to 100. Those 100 he first has to find, while the other guy will relatively easily bump into women belonging to the other much larger crowd. All of this will make an enormous difference for their relative success rates.
Of course, the problem is that when it comes to one-night stands, women are more interested in your looks, so the better looking guys couldn't even fuck all the women who are willing to spread their legs for them, while guys who had less luck in the genetic lottery and thought that surely some women will find man-boobs sexy might have much less success. It's not as if any guy would have the same variety to chose from.
But what was the point of all of this? First, you might think that those Fermi estimates are a bit stupid. Well, they are used in science, for instance when eyeballing possible results of an experiment, before making any measurements. They are also quite popular with some HR departments, so you might find yourself confronted by an HR ditz straight out of ASU who asks you, "So, um, like, how many pingpong balls would, like, fit in a bus to make it, like, totally full."
Sure, you can dispute some of the number or percentages. But the assumption is that the errors in over- and underestimating values would cancel each other out. It's not at all perfect. However, if you play around with those numbers, and then use real data whenever it's available, you'll reach some pretty plausible numbers. Speaking of the first part of this article, I was looking for an explanation why it seemed so difficult to find a girl suitable for a relationship. In this article, on the other hand, the guiding question was why it is so much easier to get laid than to get a girlfriend. I won't claim that I have presented a proof that it's 17x times easer to get a one-night versus finding a girl that might make a great girlfriend. The former is certainly a lot easier. You have probably experienced that of the girls you bang, you can barely stand any of them once you spend more time with them. This is all due to their personality. More concretely, it's due to the extent and severity of the difference between your and her personality. Yes, PUA-tards, I know that your angle is to change your personality on the fly, but we all know how well this is has been working out for you.
Also, an aspect I have not considered is that aspects like traveling --- let's use Spring Break vacations as a particular infamous example --- can boost your sex life dramatically. If it's 17x times easier to find a girl for a ONS than a relationship back home, it's probably hundreds of times easier to get laid on Spring Break than to find a girlfriend there. Further, living in a tourist town will give some guys many opportunities to get laid, at least during season. Then there are college towns with a large transient population. It may not be so great if you wanted to find a wife, but you'll probably have a few good years banging incoming freshmen students.
What do you think of all this? Let me know in the comments below!
One of the more asinine PUA statements is that there are "3 billion women" (google that in addition to "PUA" and be surprised) on this planet and therefore plenty of chances to get laid, and oh-so-many ways to experiment and refine your "game". The sheer stupidity of that number is hard to stomach.
Okay, let's say there are 6 billion people on Earth, 3 billion men and 3 billion women, and let's ignore the slight gender imbalance. We're working with huge numbers, so a few measly hundred million don't matter. So, Joe PUA, how would you go about hitting on all those three billion women? Well, first you would probably realize that you're neither a pedophile nor a gerontophile, in other words, you neither fuck children nor the elderly. Then there is the problem that a good one billion of those women reside in India and China. Too bad, bro!
As you think some more about it, Joe PUA might realize that he would not only want to not fuck some granny, but instead mate with a healthy, attractive young female instead. Also, he doesn't want to leave the country or state he lives in. In fact, he doesn't even want to leave his city. Then it hits him that he's actually constrained by the number of available women in his city. I know, I know, there is now talk of cities turning into megalopoleis, but they're getting nowhere near billions of people.
Let's give Joe PUA some variety to work with, so we'll locate him in a trendy US city like Portland, Oregon. Wikipedia tells me that there are 600,000 people living in it. Joe PUA is white, and he'd much rather fuck a white girl. Not that he's racist. It's just his sexual preference. This narrows his pool of women down from about 300k to 225k since about three quarters of the people in Portland are white. Now the PUA-tards might think that 225,000 women are more than they could ever fuck in a lifetime and can barely sit still in their excitement. But, dear PUA-tards, don't move to Portland yet, because it's getting worse:
"The age distribution was 21.1% under the age of 18, 10.3% from 18 to 24, 34.7% from 25 to 44," and you're probably not looking for anyone beyond the age of 40 anyway. Those statistics are not fine-grained enough. I therefore had a look at the most recent US census information. It wasn't a pretty sight:
Note that these data are for the wider Oregon region. So let's just assume that the percentages, which are shown in the right column more or less reflect the situation in Portland as well.
Joe PUA has no easy access to 19 year-olds, so the age category from 20 to 29 has to suffice. That's a mere 6 per cent of all women. Suddenly, Joe PUA went from 225,000 women to just about 13,000. Bummer, eh, Joe?
Let's continue playing around with the numbers, and take into account that a certain percentage of the women might be married. Let's say it's 30 %, and then some more might be in some kind of relationship, possibly another 30 %. What's left for Joe PUA then? About 5,000 women. Yes, yes, Mystery and Tyler, if you fucked a new woman every weekend, it would still take you about 100 years to get through all of them. However, in reality, all 5,000 single women of your desired age range in your city of 600,000 don't line up in front of your house. You've got to find them somewhere. At this point, your socio-economic status starts playing a big role. Popular fiction in the US is that they've got a "classless society", but if you believe that, then you're probably actively looking into buying a patch of land on the moon, too.
Just thinking of the number of women that would be available in the best possible situation versus the number of people in that city should be quite sobering for any PUA spouting out nonsense of "three billion women". What's even more sobering is that you're not the only one competing for them. Then, since women like to "marry up" you should be of at least the same socio-economic background, but ideally a bit higher. Let's say Joe is more on the average side, which will then cut the number of available women in half again: 2,500! It's starting to get depressing, isn't it, Joe PUA?
So far, we have not even considered physical attractiveness, their interests, or their personality. Let's say you've got some standards, and don't like to bang fatties. She should at the very least be slim. Let's be very generous and say that this excludes 60 % of women. Only a very small minority of women stays in shape, so I'm being very generous here. What's the total now? It's 1,000. Then some women have interests or a world view you can't stand. Let's say it's half, and, again, I'm being very generous here. The number is now 500. Now let's finally talk about personal compatibility. This is very tricky, and you'll probably find that you only ever really "click" with about 20 % of women, and that's a really generous number. What's the final number? It's a shockingly low 100 in a city of 600,000. You could easily fit them into a bus.
Please note that you will compete with other men for those women you desire, and those more desirable women might have higher standards which you may not be able to meet. But let's assume Joe PUA drops his PUA nonsense and follows a saner approach to dating, and doesn't repel 95 % of the women he talks to within the first five seconds. He then still has the problem that he has to find all those girl, and this is the big problem. Instead he'll encounter many women he'll have absolutely nothing in common with, doesn't find attractive at all, and who might have obnoxious personalities. Sure, for a one-night stand you may be able to ignore personality defects, but for any kind of relationship toxic personalities are to be avoided.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments below!
In my last post on Wannabe PUAs and Social Exclusion I mentioned how the complete absence of tact can easily make socially inept guys alienate their entire surroundings. In the comments this discussion was enriched by a number of people, such as Johnny who chimed in that when he makes a new friend, he learns through Facebook that they've got a handful of mutual "friends" already, or an anonymous with the observation that he's bumping into the same people in a city as big and vibrant as NYC.
So, there certainly is some awareness that you're not as anonymous in the crowd as you might think. But what happens if you are a PUA who thinks that the world is his oyster and, just like in an arcade-style video game, he can always just insert another credit or hit the reset button? Well, "Sean Larson" is what's going to happen. (Thanks to another anonymous commenter for the tip!)
"Sean Larson" managed what you might consider impossible: He hit on so many girls at Ohio State University (OSU), and in such an indiscriminate manner, that his reputation grew and travelled far and wide. His reputation wasn't a good one, though. Here is a discussion on Reddit with hundreds of comments about a "Guy who harasses girls around campus", which started with this post:
Have any other girls out there ever been stopped by a short Indian guy named Shane or something? This guy has literally tried to stop me a grand total of six times, and every time he tries to ask me if I'm from LA or something cheesy. Does anyone know who this guy is? Does he even go to school here?
As the saying goes, karma is a bitch. I don't even know where to start with that guy. He has certainly proven that it is possible to completely wreck his reputation by utter stupidity. Have a look at the top ranked comment on Reddit:
YES! He's tried approaching me like four times, twice in Thompson. The first time he approached me, he just came straight up to me, kissed me on my hand (he kind of just yanked my hand up, because he took me by surprise), and tried to stroke my hair. I was like WTF?! Second time he tried to approach me in Thompson like we were supposed to be friends or something and I'm like nope Nope NOPE! I had to literally push past him, as I was leaving the downstairs bathroom and he confronted me in the hallway. I was then "Get the fuck away from me. I don't know you." He was still trying to persist and corner me and literally no one, in the crowded library, tried to step in despite me being obviously distressed. Maybe, it's just me, but if I saw someone in the same position I was in, I would've stepped in.
So, when I've seen him try to do similar things to girls on campus and on High Street. I try to step in every time I see it happen because no one had the courtesy to do that for me. I've been seriously ruminating about trying to file a complaint against him but I don't even know his real name or who to go to, at least on campus. So yeah, that's my story. He's a creep and I seriously get sick to my stomach every time I see him.
Sounds like a charming little fellow to me. Like totally. And when I was reading that I was so "YES! I totally, like, want more of that!!!" Consequently, I dug around some more, and found out that the reputation of "Sean Larson" has been growing rapidly. The discussion on Reddit spawned articles in, for instance, the website of the student paper of OSU:
The 22-year-old man goes by the pseudonym “Sean Larson.” He said he uses the pseudonym to protect him from physical harm and stalking.
“Campus is very tribal, so it’s like a tribal psychology place,” Larson said in an interview with The Lantern Oct. 26. “If you get found out for doing that kind of stuff (sleeping with many women), you can get extradited from the whole thing.”
Of course, Sean Larson tries the old PUA shtick of claiming that approaching a ton of women also means that he's sleeping with a ton of women. The problem is not that he's such a womanizer that all the other girls are pissed off because they have to wait for their turn until his dick is free for a few minutes so that they can hop on it. No, the issue is that he has approached so many girls on campus, and in such an awkward manner that he gained a reputation not as some kind of uber-manly Casanova, but as a complete creep.
Of course, according to that guy, the problem is that the women are such bitches. Here he is, verbatim:
They’re two-faced. When I’m actually meeting them, they’re all friendly and bubbly and give me their number,” he said. “Behind my back, when they go home, they’re talking s—.
PUAs are well-known for not realizing when they start annoying people, and they can't distinguish mere friendliness due to social norms from sexual interest either. But, hey, I guess if your plan is to just approach a few hundred girls then those subtle differences don't matter.
A commenter on that website described the situation very well:
You know, as women, sometimes you are approached by men and it is a really uncomfortable situation. So you figure, maybe if I’m nice but detached he’ll go away and won’t drag me into an alley and rape me. That’s not being “two-faced”, that is just self-preservation. That guy needs to find his kicks in some other way than harassing women.
I burst into laughter when I noticed that "Sean Larson" just had to chime in with a typical PUA comeback:
Some stupid rumors going on. Girls touch me, I don’t touch them. I’m the victim. The girls are sexual predators.
Of course, since there are so many girls after him, he doesn't have to approach a single one, and the OSU student newspaper just ran an article in which they implored all girls not to harass this poor little guy.
There was a surprising revelation at the end of the article, too:
Columbus Division of Police Officer Joshua Urlaub said Larson could be toeing the line of legal and illegal if he is too persistent in his pursuit of women.
“It just depends on how far he goes with it,” Urlaub said. “If he’s continuing to harass them, and he won’t take ‘no,’ he’s definitely on the line of a harassment charge.”
Urlaub said anyone who is continually harassed should notify the police immediately.
I find it amusing that "Sean Larson" chimes in himself in the comments, thinking that all the negative attention he is getting is actually good for him.
The college kids posting there seem to have a pretty decent view of "game", though. Here's one commenter:
You aren't some sort of sex-wizard, you're just some dumbass who keeps flinging shit at a wall until it finally sticks. And then you brag about how well that shit stuck to the wall.
...and here's another:
What you're about to read is a tale of "pick-up artistry" gone wrong—how one dude in Columbus, Ohio managed to single-handedly piss off an entire college town and face an unprecedented amount of public shaming on Facebook and Reddit. .... You know that's a bad thing right????
Compared to that guy some amateur who barely manages to creep out all the women who hang out in his local bar doesn't even register on the radar, though.
What do you think of that guy? Is he a creep or your personal hero? Let me know in the comments below!
One of the most fascinating aspects of "pick-up artistry" is that it is commonly men who are socially excluded who are drawn to it. Think about it, if you were the popular jock in high school who had cheerleaders falling over themselves to suck your cock, you probably wouldn't google a phrase like "how to get laid". It's fairly safe to assume that the typical guy who falls for the many snake oil salesmen in this corner of the Internet has a deficient social skills already.
This puts him at an enormous disadvantage. Not having undergone a typical socialization process, he is unable to adequately evaluate the teachings of his new "guru". I mean, if you were socially savvy and saw what guys who actually got laid did, and what they looked like, there is no chance in hell you'd believe that PUAs who look like clowns actually get girls. Gullible guys don't know that, so they don't question them. Instead, they lap up their nonsensical advice. Approaching chicks randomly, dozens a day? Sounds good to him. "Plowing" in the face of complete disinterest? Sure, he'll try it.
What prompted me to write this post was in fact a Facebook status update I found in my email inbox some days ago. Here it is:
That guy looked as if he was (easily) in his 40s. Frankly, if your goal is to get rejected instead of finding girls who might be interested in you and trying to get laid, then you don't get the point of hitting on girls. It's about getting laid and, by extension, if you so desire, find a girl for whatever kind of relationship you're interested in. Getting rejected is not the goal. Of course, if you think that getting rejected ten times a day builds some kind of useful skill, then you'll probably disagree with me.
The vicious circle is already obvious: you've got guys who were not fully integrated in society to begin with. They lap up nonsensical PUA teachings, and therefore they adopt behavior that will only alienate the people around them even more. Sure, if you live in Manhattan, you could meet lots and lots of people. You won't really connect with the transient population, though, and once you try to meet people in places where people go to meet other people, you'll realize that you're living in a relatively small world. Even in big cities it won't take too long before you start bumping into the same old faces over and over.
On a side note, I knew guys who were "hardcore" into pickup in cities with millions of people. One guy had taken off three weeks from work to hit on girls on the street. What he realized was that people have routines, and that it's not so difficult to get recognized. This is not good if you're a "PUA" who dreams of pulling girls off the street into his bedroom. Your street corner is not so different from the bar down the road. Humans are creatures of habit, and most people will just do the same thing over and over.
This now leads to a problem for people who aim to become "the biggest reject" in their city. It's not as if he'll encounter hundreds of new faces every day. There were a few instances were "PUAs" were outed on Facebook for instance. There was this dude David DeAngelo associated himself with, "Dr Paul". That guy managed to build quite a reputation in a city as big as Chicago. His reputation wasn't a good one, though. Take a bad plan and stick to it despite repeated failure, and you'll achieve the unimaginable: creeping out an entire city.
The solution would be very simple. Guys would just have to stop doing completely absurd things like approaching dozens of girls a day, or hitting on any chick in the club. If you're in a small scene then it wouldn't take long until you can't show your face anywhere anymore, but even if you're attending a busy campus university, or if you live in a big city --- if you are really stupid and try to leave a bad impression with a dozen women a day, and if you take her friends into account, easily a number two or three times as large, then you'll eventually succeed turning yourself into a pariah.
Seriously, how many women are there, even in a big city, you would be interested in? Now subtract all those who are unavailable for whatever reason, and you'll realize that it's not millions. If you now further subtract all those who are not interested in you, then you end with with a fairly small number. That number is certainly a lot smaller than the number of girls that joker wants to get rejected by.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
A lot of men who end up typing "how to get laid" into a search engine seem to have a pretty strange understanding of how social interactions work, which gets readily exploited by shady PUA marketers. In recent years PUAs have moved from claiming to teach you how to get laid to some kind of all-encompassing lifestyle advice. Now they tell you how to make friends and become popular. Sadly, their approach seems to be about as flawed as their pickup advice was. PUAs tell you to go out and hit on chicks indiscriminately, and unsurprisingly this is also how they tell you to build your social circle. However, you normally don't make friends just by talking to someone. So, let's step back and look at how "friendships" in the real world work.
I think there are just two main factors: Randomness and common interests. The latter is pretty much irrelevant for the majority of people who have no real interest in anything, so I won't focus on it. Instead, the "friends" your average Joe or Jane have come primarily from the first category. This means that they draw almost all their friends from those people they interact most with, be it high school, university, or the workplace. This is pretty much all there is to it. They don't necessarily have much in common with those guys, apart from an accident of fate that put them in the same building. The implications are obvious: If you're an average bore and you want to go out, then you probably pick some of the guys that just so happened to attend the same school, and go out with them.
Some of you may now think, "Wait a minute! There are so many morons in my school, and I was just a fortunate accident that I met Jim in my Calculus for Beginners and Artists class." Sure, but it just so happened that some admissions officer drew a few random numbers, or looked up your dad's net worth, if we're talking about the Ivy League, and sent you an offer to attend their esteemed seat of learning. You would have found a new best friend at any university you had chosen to attend, or any company you joined. Some places are toxic, so you will avoid spending time with your colleagues, but those are statistical outliers.
In fact, whenever you meet a big group at a bar or club, they're mostly from the same school or workplace. It could be that the entire office trotted down to the bar at the corner to start the weekend with a nice pint of beer. Or maybe the younger guys are all new in town and want to get laid, so they team up and go out as a group to ogle chicks so that they've got something to jerk off to before falling asleep. People in general are terribly afraid to be on their own because they have so little to occupy themselves with, and therefore the prospect of getting drunk with people they vaguely know is pretty appealing.
I'm making some huge generalizations here, but for "normal" people this is pretty much how it is. Only a small minority actively seeks out their peer group through common interests. Heck, plenty of people will be afraid to try this or that hobby because they're afraid it'll make them look weird. Allegedly, this is one of the reasons why there are so few women in computer science and engineering. If you're a guy studying such a field, you are quite likely to fall somewhere on the Asperger spectrum, and therefore you may not always take the feedback of your "well-adjusted" peers into account. Or maybe you just gave a fuck what they thought because you realized that there are more interesting things to spent your time with than gossiping about celebrities, some "slut" from 12th grade, or obsessing about what kind of sneakers one was supposed to wear this season.
So, if you are concerned about your number of friends, then just be visible to enough people, and make sure it's a setting that allows you to meet the same people over and over and over again. However, instead of taking a course in Modern Set Theory with five other nerds, pick an Intro to Communications course, and attend all their social get-togethers. In general, people need the feeling of belonging to some kind of group, no matter how artificial it is, so if you're feeling alone at university and value quantity of social contacts over quality, then just follow the herd and practice your beer pong skills. On the other hand, if college is behind you, and working 40 hour weeks still doesn't make you value the time you could spend all by yourself, then join your colleagues for a drink. Don't worry, they don't really want to be around you either, but after a few drinks this won't matter so much anymore. Alcohol is often described as a "social lubricant", but, really, any kind of excuse that allows you to get together will do. Alcohol is just cheap, and easy to get, so you getting a bunch of guys together to play FIFA Soccer on the PlayStation while getting wasted is much easier to do than, say, getting enough coke for 12 people.
People generally aren't that smart, and they aren't particularly selective with regards to anything. You're a "friend" once they've seen your face a couple of times and made a bit of smalltalk, and if you think you don't have any chance to get laid, then just being around enough single women --- as long as you're borderline attractive --- will lead to enough opportunities. Sure, it's tough if you have to "cold approach", but if she has seen your face before it's absurdly easy. It just depends on your standards. My "lay count" could be three or four times higher had I gone home with any chick that hit on me at work or university. However, don't discount just being around many people either, since it will put you in a better position to meet at least a few interesting people like, say, some guy you genuinely like because he's got a similar world view and interests, or the very rare girl that is smart and good-looking. So, there is some value in "knowing" a relatively large number of people. It's just a question of whether you want to pay the price.
Some days a guy on my forum posted about a recent one-night stand he had. To make it short, he met a girl at a bar and ended up at her place with relatively little effort. His story was quite interesting to read because he didn't view it as a warning signal that the girl let him raw dog her:
I ate her out (risky) and then had unprotected sex with her, she let me do it without a condom. Wow!!!
We thought that this was indeed risky, but when questioned, he offered his assessment of the situation:
Usually I would not even think about unprotected sex but I figured since she was a grad and not some common bar slut I was at less of a risk.
Does something about this strike you as somewhat questionable?
Frankly, I think this is all just wishful thinking. If she acts like a "common bar slut" then it doesn't really matter that she is also a graduate students. Besides, just look at the situation of higher education today, which for many is just an excuse to have one four-year long party. I would not at all make the conclusion that a woman is more responsible because she happened to attend university while going out, drinking and trying to hook up with random guys as opposed to a girl who does that without being enrolled as a student somewhere.
More generally speaking, you can deduce very little about people if you don't know them. If everybody was so fantastic at reading cues, figuring out motives, or deducing one's background, then there wouldn't be so many crooks, liars and scam artists around. Just looking at guys like Tony Robbins or Tim Ferriss should be all the proof you need that people are out there to deceive, and that plenty of people are incredibly gullible. It's your choice to be honest. However, you should not easily make the assumption that anybody else is, and particularly not if you've known her for only half an hour or so.
It doesn't matter if she says, "Don't worry, I'm on the pill!" or, infinitely worse, "I've been with a lot of guys and nobody managed to knock me up yet." (True story, btw. I was so turned off by that that I got up and left.) Or let's say she's got some nasty STD. She also happens to be horny. So, what's more likely, that she asks you what you're waiting for or that she'll tell you about her most recent trip to the STD clinic, and that she was told to refrain from sex for a while?
In general, people are very poor at reading other people. Sure, tell yourself that she's some kind of Virgin Mary, but a much more realistic assessment is that you're probably not the first guy she's ever met. For all you know, she might go out every weekend and try to get laid.
The only plausible advice I can give is to not assume anything about a girl. Just think of yourself first, and forget about how sure you are that she doesn't have an STD or won't get pregnant. This won't help you at all if she hunts you down nine months later. "You Honor, I swear, she said she wouldn't get pregnant!", or if you have to pay a visit to your local STD clinic. "Doctor, I swear, nobody would have suspected that she has anything. She looked so sweet and innocent." (Those may be the worst, actually.) In the end you should be aware that you are making a choice. If you think sex without a condom is so much better than with that if outweighs all risks, then go ahead. However, you should be aware of what you might be getting into.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
I recently watched Wreck-It Ralph. That movie is an attempt by Disney to cash in on the recent craze about all things "retro", and of course it has to conform to mainstream media gender stereotypes. There was one rather surprising scene in it that highlights realities in dating, which I will expand upon further down.
Let me briefly introduce the main characters:
Wreck-It Ralph: A humanoid version of the gorilla in the original Donkey Kong video game. Fat, slow, and dimwitted.
Fix-It Felix: A rough analogue to Mario in Donkey Kong. He's very short, thin, and has a slavish sense of duty.
Vanellope von Schweetz: Female support cast: creative, witty, and resourceful.
Tamora Jean Calhoun: The lead character in the Call of Duty parody Hero's Duty. She's the typical "strong female character". Of course, without her, the male leads would achieve nothing. I mean, just look at this:
If this isn't a complete reversal of gender roles, then I wouldn't know what is.
The most interesting part of the movie, for me, was the following scene, which depicts a facet of female behavior that doesn't seem to be widely acknowledged. Here's the clip:
To summarize, the doofus hero Fix-It Felix says to the tough yet hyperfeminine Tamora that she is "one dynamite gal". This reminds her of her adonis-like ex-husband who used to say those very words to her. She then gets pissed and tells Fix-It Felix to get out of the space ship. Expressed more abstractly, the pattern is as follows:
1. Guy says something random 2. ??? -------------- 3. Girl does something completely unexpected
The missing step in 2) isn't just a reference to an Internet meme based on South Park. Instead, it refers to the underlying logical structure. View 3) as the conclusion and 1) as the premise. However, to a sane person, there must be something missing because otherwise you can't really explain the reaction. Let's now talk about the missing part. First, you have to keep in mind that the view girls have of guys is often nothing more than an amalgamation of previous relationships and idealized notions taken from movies, magazines or, in rare cases, books. This is highly irrational, but what's more irrational is that those phantasies then guide their behavior. It can be good or bad for you, which I'll illustrate via a couple of examples.
Here's a relatively common one: The girl asks you about your zodiac sign. You only want to get laid so this sign of stupidity doesn't make you walk off right away, and you say it's X. It's just so happens that it's your lucky day and X is also the zodiac sign of the guy with the biggest cock she's ever had in her. Suddenly she thinks of that and she likes you a little bit better. For her, the following logical inference might be entirely plausible, even if you spelled it out for her:
1. That guy's zodiac sign was X and he had a huge cock. 2. Your zodiac sign is X. ----------------- 3. You've got to have a huge cock.
However, it could have gone a lot worse. You may not just have the wrong zodiac sign. Imagine you happened to have the same first name as the most recent guy who pumped and dumped her. She will invariably be reminded of that and may associate all her negative emotions with you. I once had a woman ask me, coyly, whether I intend to just fuck and leave her. I laughed and asked what she meant, and then she said I had a name quite similar to some guy she recently met and that some of my antics reminded her of yet another guy. Please note that I had spent at most 15 minutes with her at that point. Really, the stupidity of some people is without bounds. (In her case, the problem, though, was that she was the kind of girl no sane guy would consider for anything serious.)
Being compared to some random guy who fucked her years ago, good or bad, is bad enough. Even worse is when women dream up an image of how men are supposed to be. This is more of an issue with younger, inexperienced women. I'll tell you another of my war stories: I met that 17 or 18 year old girl in London. She lived further off, and one fine day her parents weren't home, so she asked me to drop by. She met me at the station, and on the way back to her place she said that the fridge was empty and wondered whether I'd like to grab a bite to eat somewhere. She seemed oblivious to the fact that it's possible to buy food at the supermarket and prepare it herself, so we went to some pub instead.
Eventually it was time to pay, and I pulled out my wallet. The food wasn't particularly expensive, even on a student budget, so I asked her whether I should pay for her. She declined, so I said, "Sure." and put some money on the table, and so did she. My share was slightly larger. The waiter came, I tipped him. I got 2 pounds in return, flipped one coin over to her, and kept the other for myself. So far this was completely unremarkable, and something I would normally have forgotten. However, without knowing it, I saw myself at the receiving end of a shitstorm, and this little girl tried to educate me on how this interaction should have gone, and how a "real gentleman" should have behaved.
This was the script she had expected: - I should either have paid for all of it myself without saying anything (This doesn't agree with my perception of social customs since it wasn't me who suggested eating there) or I should have engaged in the following ritual: a) Asking whether I should pay for her b) Let her decline c) Insist on paying anyway, "because that's what men do"
Do you know what the "absolute worst thing" was? That I tipped the waiter with her money. Apparently the very least a gentleman could do is covering her share of the tip. (This reminded me ever so slightly of one time when I was brunching with a friend and two girl from school. They ordered one item after another, and at the end they wanted the four of us to all "share the bill equally".) Eventually it emerged that she had seen a scene like that in some TV show or movie, and her fantasy was that some "real gentleman" would treat her "like a lady" and "like on TV".
You think this is crazy? Wait, because I've got another one for you, this time not featuring a teenager but a woman in her late 20s. I was the same age in both scenarios. Well, what had happened in that case was that she reacted offended when I wanted to pay my share of the bill. The dynamics were quite different because she had a pretty decent job and I was basically constantly broke. She said that my actions were "demeaning", and that it said a lot about me that I wanted to pay for my part even though I had no money. It seemed no matter what I do, I'll always be a sexist pig.
Please don't view this post as an incoherent rant, though. The point of those examples is simply that you have no idea about her history with guys or her values, and the often irrational conclusions about life and men she has drawn for herself. It's impossible to plan for those contingencies. Some girls are a bit more rational than others, but if you spend enough time with a girl, you are almost guaranteed to end up in a situation where you'll ask herself what the fuck just happened. Instead of planning for all kinds of contingencies, just present a side of yourself you're comfortable with. However, if you meet enough women you're almost guaranteed to end up in a situation that may remind you of "Fix-It Felix".
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
I'm not having much spare time these days, but today I managed to go through some of my notes. There was one comment, made almost a month ago, that stuck out. I thought it deserved greater visibility so I'm posting it on the front page. Take some time to let it sink in since there are a lot of unpopular truths in it, and many of you can probably relate to it in one way or another.
But without further ado, here's "anonymous" on how he managed to become a sexy engineer:
I'm 30 and like most average guys I didn't really have a lot of luck when it came to women between 18-26. However, the average woman in my peer group has plenty of men chasing her till she get's to 30. There are many women who knew at the time that I wanted a relationship with them, however I was always passed over "for better men" I'm sure every guy has a story to tell.
Eventually things improve for men with age as a result of genuine achievement such as getting status,handling real responsibility, and genuine competence. Also the "sex haze" tend to calm down a little after 28 and you can evaluate things more clearly.
Now, the problem appears to be as Alek Novy has pointed out in his articles, men are apparently not allowed to be selfish. So, now that I have better options, I get called an "asshole" for politely declining a "wanting to catch up over coffee" with some of the women who are now 30 and looking for a "serious relationships" only. I get called an "asshole" for dating women who are 25. You see the issue goes far deeper than dating, it is more to do with "male sacrifice/disposability"
When women have power, they should use it for themselves. When men have power they should use it for the benefit of everyone. Men are not allowed to be selfish.
I'm constantly struck by the ARROGANCE of some women, even some of female my friends who at 30 go up men they've been rejecting for the last 5 years and say "I'm looking for something serious" , "We should get together some time" "How come we didn't date? were have a lot in common"
In the dating world, apparently every woman over 30 thinks an Engineer is "amazing, smart, even sexy" when at 25 if the words "Engineer" came out of your mouth you would be treated as if you had leprosy.
Men get pissed off because an average woman has had PLENTY of chances at meeting men by the time she is 30- PLENTY unless she lived as a nun, however when men get to 29 you become "a player" if you DARE to be selective or have a criteria.
Got a story to tell? Please let me know in the comment below!
There was an anonymous comment on my article Why should it be "creepy" if an older guy takes a young woman?, and since it's an important issue, I thought it's better to reply to the following extensively in a separate blog post in order to not clutter up the conversation on this site too much:
I can't help but feel like this sounds a bit like Roosh and the manosphere's "cock carousel" obsession, and the idea that women are "used-up" by 25. Correct me on the difference if I'm wrong.
I don't quite see the connection to the cock carousel hypothesis of the manosphere, which I have previously covered anyway. However, that older single women are desperate is hard to deny. Well, maybe that's not the case if you take their immature chest-puffing like "and man should be happy to get me" and "mature women are more attractive than younger ones" seriously. But let's forget about political correctness and all that stuff for a while and look at reality.
Fact is that a woman's fertility declines rapidly throughout her 20s. This has nothing to do with the "patriarchy", alleged societal oppression or misogyny. It is simply a fact of life. I'm not too fond of explanations from evolutionary psychology, but I see good reasons why men would prefer, given the choice, to have a younger partner. You're just more likely to have children with her than with a 35 year-old. Therefore, I tempted to think that this explains why men are attracted to young women.
However, feminism happened and with it the systematic indoctrination of women, leading to questionable beliefs such as that she'll be as fertile in her 30s as in her 20s, that she'll be attractive to men basically all her life long, or that it's easy even for 40 year olds to have kids. I've even heard that it was a "lie" that a woman's fertility peaks in her early 20s. But let's just assume you're a feminist who is more interested in facts than ideology, however unlikely that combination may be. Maybe you figure out that typing "age and female fertility" into your favorite search engine is a good starting point.
Shall we have a look at what I found?
There is a good summary on Wikipedia, but I also checked out Babycentre.co.uk. They have a few dozen medical advisors, so they probably don't make stuff up. For starters, their "Your Age and Fertility" page lists some heavy-hitting questions such as, "Does my age affect my fertility?".
Yes, Virginia, it really does. Seriously, what does it say about our educational system when women doubt that. Well, in some corners of this planet "intelligent design" is taught as some kind of alternative to evolution, so you can't just blame the kids. The answer to that question from that site is:
Yes. Fertility starts to decline for women from about the age of 30, dropping down more steeply from the age of 35. As women grow older the likelihood of getting pregnant falls while the likelihood of infertility rises.
(...)
The average age at which women have in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment in the UK is rising. This reflects the increase in infertility due to age. However, the success rates of IVF treatment for women over 40 using their own eggs are low, and have not increased much over the past decade.
From a purely biological perspective, it's best to try to start a family before you're 35 years old.
They even provide a nice chart:
It was adorned by the sad comment, "How do you get your wife to stop blaming you for why she can't get pregnant when none of us has seen a doctor?"
The next question seems superfluous to me, but maybe you have to spell things out for people who don't believe in all that science-stuff:
Will it take longer to conceive as I get older?
Your chance of conceiving quickly does depend on your age. Women are most fertile between the ages of 20 and 24. It can take much longer to get pregnant when you hit your late 30s or early 40s. You may have problems conceiving at all.
This kind of hand-wringing makes me sick. No, it's not the case that it "can take much longer", but that she can expect that it will take much longer, and that her chances of getting pregnant are dramatically lowered. No, that one of your friends managed to get pregnant at her alleged first try when she was 35 does not prove the contrary.
Then we move on to, "Why does fertility decline so rapidly?":
The two most common causes of female infertility are ovulation problems and blockages to the fallopian tubes as a result of infection.
Ovulation problems can happen as you get older because:
You have fewer good quality eggs left, making it more difficult to conceive. Your number of eggs (ovarian reserve) declines with age. You can buy a kit to test for ovarian reserve. These tests can only tell you about the quantity of eggs, not the quality.
A few women (one per cent) go through the menopause earlier than usual, and stop ovulating before they reach the age of 40.
Your periods may become irregular. As you approach menopause your periods may become fewer and further between, making ovulation increasingly irregular too.
There is also a note that, for instance, untreated chlamydia may make pregnancy impossible. Well, thankfully all women only have sex in committed relationships, and take good care of their health, so this is nothing anybody would have to worry about, isn't it, girls?
It's a touchy topic: broaching the issue of having children. But OB-GYNs say they are increasingly making it as routine as asking about contraception during annual visits. They are educating patients about fertility rates, which gradually begin to decline around age 32 and then rapidly decline after age 37. And they are discussing the risks of miscarriage and chromosomal abnormalities, which increase at age 35 and above.
Maybe it's irrelevant, but the author of the article happened to be a woman. This might explain the factual inaccuracy that female fertility will "gradually begin to decline at 32". Is it too much to look up some scientific facts instead of repeating feminist disinformation? It's not quite clear what in the article is supposed to be an indirect quote from the doctors, and what she has added herself. However, the subordinate clause implies that she has added that part herself instead of merely reporting.
What's quite sad is that this quote is from an an article with the promising headline "More Doctors Broach Delicate Topic of Women's Age and Fertility Rate". As it turned out, the goal was to write about a different kind of stupid:
I've had, like, a 42-year-old say, 'Why aren't I getting pregnant?,' " Dr. Auguste says. "I say, 'I'm sorry, it's the science. At 42 you have fewer eggs and older eggs than a 28-year-old. At this point you really need to speak with an infertility specialist.' " Dr. Auguste says some patients get hostile and don't believe her; she usually doesn't see those patients again.
I guess that women lose control and throw a tantrum is just another one of those myths spread by the patriarchy. As a contrast to the harmful information in the article, I was glad to see that at least some of the commenters things as they were. The top comment was by a poster with a female name:
If the hand-wringing feminists on here really want to help women, they should spread the word about fertility and age. I know hard facts are a bit foreign and scary to your ears, but what could be more useful to a woman who thinks she has forever to have a baby?
Some guy chimed in:
There is no woman who at 30 years of age has not had multiple men attempt to court them for marriage. In generations past, women respected such advances and married before they reached 30. Now in urban centers women of our upper classes are deluded -- often through their own sexual escapades with men that would not commit to them -- into thinking that they deserve better.
The problem is not the absence of worthy men or "career." The problem is that our women are spending too much time partying, taking pole-dancing lessons (yes, really), taking exotic vacations and overall focusing on themselves.
When most of our mothers were changing our diapers and driving us to elementary school, our finest young women are out drinking and fornicating with men than use them for short-term gratification. It is really shameful.
Career? Education? Hogwash. For the vast majority of women, it's emulating Sarah Parker and her girlfriends on TV and searching for their own personal George Clooney.
When I hear a 30 year old woman complain about a lack of a partner or read stories about some 35 year old that can't get pregnant, I can't help but think that this is just a variation of the common "I screwed up, now you go fix it" mindset of a generation that has a strong sense of entitlement and no idea of the concept of personal responsibility. Seriously, Virginia, if you're 35 and without a man, it's not society's duty to fix that. You surely had men in your league approaching you, yet none was ever good enough. So, deal with the consequences --- or pray that you'll get some manginas who bought into the "marry a woman your age" propaganda.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
Alek Novy occasionally speaks of the "pussy cartel", i.e. a set of loosely enforced behavioral rules for women to make sure that the price of sex remains high through artificially limiting supply. Don't let the economics jargon scare you off. It'll all become clear in a moment. One example is "slut shaming". If women were generally less discriminating about whom to have sex with, a lot of men would not even bother getting into a relationships. From this you shouldn't deduce that I think that relationships are just about having sex. However, there are plenty of guys for whom sex only happens in relationships. Some are so pussy-whipped that they become the girl's boyfriend without getting much sex at all. They are happy if she's putting out once every three months. It's great for the girl's ego, but the guy should feel like a loser.
In a world where all girls are promiscuous you would see a much smaller number of couples. Women have to look out after another, though, and if they manage to convince a large enough number among them to only have sex in committed relationships, which used to mean "marriage", while being supported by mainstream media bullshit such as the myth that sex is the most incredible thing on earth, then they surely manage to reel in enough suckers. However, to keep things in order, they may also want to ensure that men and women who pair up have roughly the same age. Otherwise, women around 30 would have to compete with women who are ten years younger, and it doesn't take much imagination to picture how that would end. So, what better way than to "creep shame" guys and telling them that they have to take a woman their own age, and that they should also consider women who are older than them? To make women who realize that their looks are waning feel less secure just spread articles like "7 Reasons Why You Should Want to Date an Older Woman":
Dating an older woman is quite the rage these days. As a woman over 35, I’ve never felt more desired by men in their late 20s and early 30s than I do now—moreso even than when I was that age. So if you’re only seeking women in the 21-29 age range, let me tell you, you’re missing out. Big time.
Why are men so keen on dating more mature ladies? Pay no attention to the ol’ elbow-jabbing, wink-wink idea that cougars are “more likely to put out and pay for everything.” Meh, that may be a reason a naïve man attempts to score with an older lady, but it’s hardly the reason a smart man enters a relationship with one.
I don't think I need to add a comment to that.
Women don't like strong competition much. They are fully aware of the fact that they're aging, which is why they panic if they are still single at 30, or why they decide that they shall turn 27 five years in a row. Actually, I know guys who thought they were dating a woman that was roughly their age. In one case, it took the dude a year to find out that his girlfriend was actually seven years older than him. He said he had some doubt but didn't want to be too obtrusive. In good old mangina fashion he called me an asshole for pointing out that, if anything, this should teach him that his girlfriend is deceitful, has a seriously flawed character, and that he should have dumped her the moment he found out about her lie.
Imagine you lived in a world in which the more attractive men wanted to keep their options open and eventually settled for a much younger woman. They would go through a lot of women in their 20s. The women in their late 20s they meet may push for a relationship, but the guys just aren't interested. Eventually, they may take a much younger girlfriend or wife. However, in the big picture this means that the young woman has gotten a guy that should, according to feminists, have been paired up with a woman his own age. With one more guy her age gone, that woman may now have to settle for a cat instead. Thus, there are cries that "there are no good men left".
In an attempt to manipulate male behavior and shame them into marrying women their age, they get told that it is "creepy" if they lust after young girls. There are also plenty of young girls who like more mature guys, so you've got to tell them too that this is "creepy", too. Sorry, horny young coed, you can't fuck your tutor because it's bad for the pussy cartel!
There is so much pro-feminist indoctrination in the West that even men will choose more "age-appropriate" women because they've been told, over and over again until they start to believe it, that it's "creepy/weird/gross" to date younger women. Most guys think their biology is wrong.
That's the big problem with feminists: they seem to think that biology is just some kind of construct and if they just try hard enough, they'll be able to change it. I once heard some whacko, an alleged "superstar professor" in the humanities, refer to physics as "the story of matter", biology as "the story of life", and history as "the story of humanity". Of course, if everything is just a fucking "story" to you and you believe it, then you might also believe that you can just tell a different story. To some extent this works in history, but good luck with that in physics. You can't argue with nature. It's probably easier to create an artificial womb than to fix the genetic disposition of men to prefer young, attractive women over older ones who are close to being infertile.
On a related note, think of all the "man up" bullshit! No, you don't have to marry some older woman in order to fulfill your male duty, or show some kind of gender solidarity, or to do penance for all the "male privilege" you've been enjoying all your life. I certainly never heard of any "women up" appeals according to which hot coeds were encouraged to suck off the unattractive "nerds", so why should the former nerds, now with stable finances, take a 35 year-old gold digger as a partner when they can have a 25 year-old gold digger instead?
If you think I'm paranoid and only dream up some kind of feminist conspiracy, I'll direct you to Hugo Schwyzer --- the mentally ill gender studies professor who faked his way into a teaching position for which he had no credentials, who attempted to murder a former partner, and who recently had a breakdown on Twitter telling the whole world what a fraud he is. In the Atlantic, he wrote that "everybody, of all ages and gender" would benefit if men would date women their age. Here is an excerpt:
A man in his 40s who wants to date women in their 20s is making the same calculation as the man who pursues a "mail-order bride" from a country with less egalitarian values. It's about the mistaken assumption that younger women will be more malleable. Men who chase younger women aren't eroticizing firmer flesh as much as they are a pre-feminist fantasy of a partner who is endlessly starry-eyed and appreciative. The dead giveaway comes when you ask middle-aged men why they prefer to date younger; almost invariably, you'll hear complaints that their female peers are too entitled, too embittered, too feminist.
One of the basic rules of tennis applies here: If you want to improve your skills, you need to play someone who is (at a minimum) at your own level. As sophisticated as a 20-something may be, she will be more so—with a more exquisite bullshit detector—in her 40s. When older men date much younger women, they cheat themselves out of an opportunity to be matched with a partner with the maturity to see them as they really are. Depression, the research shows, peaks for men in their mid-to-late 40s. In the face of statistics like those, middle-aged men can't afford to choose partners who lack the life experience to provide the right kind of challenge.
Does anyone care to pick out the faulty logic and hasty conclusions? I had a few, less than a handful, of experiences with women who were roughly my age or older, and I got rid of them as quickly as possible, and those encounters also taught me to just avoid them altogether. The only benefit is that they are desperate to get laid, but that's about it.
I realized that I wasn't cheating myself out of an opportunity to be matched with a partner with the maturity to see them as they really are, as Hugo Schwyzer put it. Instead, I realized that older single women all seemed to have a few screws lose, and not just because of their panic that they won't find a husband. They are not only older and less attractive. No, even worse is that they bring a staggering amount of emotional baggage with her. In addition they are neither more stable nor more mature than many women who are significantly younger. However, the icing on the cake is that they all had constructed the most absurd theories about men and dating, and about how things are supposed to go. You guessed it, move in as soon as possible, don't use protection, and please, please, please marry her. Just run, ideally into the arms of a woman who is much younger than you are, because that's what biology tells you (and her) to do anyway. It's not creepy just because feminists say so. It's nature.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
I've written a lot about dating from a male perspective, but there are a few phenomena in female behavior that deserve some attention, too. Let's start with what might be the biggest dating mistake women make. No, this is not some kind of hyperbole, this stuff really wrecks women's lives. So, what might that be? Well, read on!
Especially better-looking women are used to having many suitors. There is always some "creep" who wants to help them with this and that, and sometimes it's quite convenient to have a couple of losers on call. For an anecdote, I'd like to tell you about some chick I used to hang out with in Berlin (one of those who pretended that they were interested in my personality but only pined after my cock). She told me she was about to move the following weekend, so I immediately told her that I'm busy --- because I'm not going to waste an afternoon carrying boxes full of trinkets around for some chick I barely know. She then said that she wasn't even going to ask whether I would help her but just wanted to let me know that she won't be free then. As it turned out, she had two or three guys who where all too eager to help her.
To some of you this strategy surely sounds familiar: being the little errand boy for some woman you're interested in and hoping that this will somehow lead to some kind of tangible reward like, I don't know, blow jobs for helping them move. Not even porn has plots that stupid, though. This is the loser strategy of dating. Those guys unintentionally make the girl feel oh-so desired and believe that they are plenty of men out there to chose from.
Life isn't always fair, though, so the guys she really fancies always seem to avoid her. Maybe that's because they'd rather bang some hotter chick. You can already see that this leads to a big problem. Not wanting to settle for any of the losers that are interested in her she hopes that by divine intervention some prince will show up and sweep her off her feet. A variation of this theme are easy girls who fuck around when they are younger and think that there is no end to this. I guess it's easy to feel like that if you're 20 and all you have to do is wait until a guy that meets your criteria hits on you.
Fast forward a few years, and those girls will realize that they suddenly are "like totally" close to 30. Either they didn't have much experience with guys, or too much but neglected their personality. What happens then is a state of panic. Knowing that their eggs will soon dry up, they try to cling on to any guy they meet. If you're an inexperienced 20 year-old and wonder what it takes to get a girlfriend or for a girl to move in with you, here's your answer: either fall in love head over heels with a girl your age, or meet a woman who is around 30. She may be crazy enough to want you move in after one night, or trick you into impregnating her.
If you think I'm making this up, I suggest you open your eyes. It's quite common for girls to "accidentally" get pregnant because they conveniently forgot to take the pill, or simply lie to you and say that they are on the pill when they aren't. The laws are designed to protect the woman, so it doesn't matter that she deceived you. You're on the hook for two decades of child support, and helping her to fulfill her dream of being a mother and finally having a purpose in life. The socially more acceptable variant of this is that the girl is seeing some guy and in order to solidify the relationship she happens gets pregnant. I've seen this happen with people I know quite a bit.
But let's pay some attention to the girls that don't manage to get a guy through whatever means. Let's say she is now 27 and has either been single or "single" and seen a few guys here and there. She's now older and realizes that there aren't so many guys coming on to her anymore, and that she's starting to feel out of place when she's going out. The hot guys who don't want to settle down just moved on to younger versions of her, and there isn't much she can do about it --- and many of her friends are starting to get married and/or having kids. This is reason enough for her to panic.
What is she supposed to do then? Not having thought ahead when she was younger, she never realized that guys probably won't marry her after just a week or two. It may take a good two to three years, at least according to eHarmony:
Currently I co-run a longitudinal study of marriage and family development, started in 2008 and ongoing, and the answers couples gave me about their engagement ranged from several months to several years. On average, the couples in my study decided to marry 2.8 years after they first showed romantic interest (many couples knew each other before they dated, but that isn’t counted).
Well, it takes about three years in the case that the guy actually wants to settle down and marry. Say, Jane is 29 and desperate to find a guy. It's her lucky day, and she meets Prince Charming the very next day. She can now expect to be married when she's 32. However, let's be a bit more realistic and assume that the guy she met has options. Maybe he met Jane who is 29, but he also knows Jill who is 22. Just based on her age alone, Jane will have a hard time to compete with Jill. Consequently, the guy dumps her, and might end up marrying Jill three years later.
Jane is single again and will have to learn that her time will just tick away. The older she gets the harder it will be for her to get a decent guy. In the end she may just have to settle for some dude she barely feels attracted to. Her biological clock it ticking, after all. This happens all the time, but it's probably not what she had in mind. She'll also find it difficult to have children, just like Western women in general who were indoctrinated by feminist ideologies instead of paying attention in biology. This might deserve another post, but many women seem to be oblivious of the fact that female fertility peaks in the early 20s.
The upshot is that time is a precious commodity for women. She will need a few years to just find a guy she likes enough to contemplate marriage, and finding someone to settle down with isn't all that easy either. It takes time to figure out whether you want to live with someone. If a girl is smart about it she'll start looking for a suitable guy in her early 20s, if not sooner. If she's not, she risks getting into a very uncomfortable position as she gets older. If things don't work out, she may become yet another 40 year old cat lady. What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
