As bad as things are in some places (DC, Toronto, etc.) there is a very real chance that things will get worse. Much worse. And not just in the places now widely recognized as bad for picking up. And there is a very simple explanation of why this will probably happen.
In the past in North America (and I assume Western Europe), there was more pressure on women to marry and most women married for financial security. They guy may not have been ideal to them, but they rightly saw marriage as a way of improving their socio-economic status. To be sure, this doesn't mean that women typically agreed to marry the first man who expressed interest. But it does mean that when marriage is viewed as a means to improve one's soci-economic status, what made a man "marriageable" first and foremost was the fact that he could bring in a secure income which could be used to raise a family and live a decent (or at least better) life.
The women's movement changed things. It (rightly) demanded that the professions be opened up to women, and more generally that women be given an equal opportunity to earn a living. Now women are surpassing men in education in many fields and are approaching parity in earnings. This means that women no longer have to marry for financial security. And this in turn means that what it takes to be considered a marriageable man has changed -- expanded. To be sure, women ideally still want someone who makes more than them. But now for many women a man making less is no longer a dealbreaker.
So how has the requirements to be considered a marriageable man changed? I think looks have become much more important. Women want attractive men now more than they did a few decades ago. But this is really an effect of the a more basic change. Women want what other women want. They assume that other women want good looking men, and this will be as important -- if not more so -- than their attraction. But this is not the only thing that women want. They also want men who are famous. So fame will become even more important in attracting women.
This is probably a good point to explain why I'm talking about marriage. A lot of you may have been puzzled by this. After all, this is the last thing many of you want. Well, I think that most women wouldn't respond well to a guy if they didn't consider him marriageable. That means that if they don't consider you marriageable you probably aren't going to get laid.
So over time, as women's economic independence improves, men will finder it harder to get laid if they're not good looking or famous. Since most men are not famous, this means that looks will be the dominant factor. You will basically have 5s, 6s, 7s thinking that they deserve male 8s, 9s, and 10s just like 8s, 9s and 10s do. Men desire women more than women desire men, and the facts about sexual pursuit reflect this. This gives women an inflated sense of their own attractiveness and of their worth. Thus nothing will seem amiss to a 6 who thinks that she dserves a 9 or 10.
What's more is that women can hold out more than men can. Men are much quicker to go for a less attractive partner than they normally go for during a dry spell than women are. They may not date them (though this often happens), but they will at least bang them. Women can hold out for years if they don't come across someone they deem up to their standards. So the 6 who doesn't come accross a 9 and who rarely has sex will not easily be forced by this into going for someone who is more her equal in attraction.
So the reality is that it will be harder for most men to get laid in the future. What will this mean for game? I'm not sure. A first thought is that it'll make game all the more important. (It arguably has already. I doubt game was as important to getting laid in the past as it is right now.) But my second thought is that this isn't quite right. My suspicion is that in the long term beyond some minor game to get you talking game will be increasingly ineffective. Men will either appear marriageable or they will not. But again, I'm not really sure what the change means for game in the long term.
In the past in North America (and I assume Western Europe), there was more pressure on women to marry and most women married for financial security. They guy may not have been ideal to them, but they rightly saw marriage as a way of improving their socio-economic status. To be sure, this doesn't mean that women typically agreed to marry the first man who expressed interest. But it does mean that when marriage is viewed as a means to improve one's soci-economic status, what made a man "marriageable" first and foremost was the fact that he could bring in a secure income which could be used to raise a family and live a decent (or at least better) life.
The women's movement changed things. It (rightly) demanded that the professions be opened up to women, and more generally that women be given an equal opportunity to earn a living. Now women are surpassing men in education in many fields and are approaching parity in earnings. This means that women no longer have to marry for financial security. And this in turn means that what it takes to be considered a marriageable man has changed -- expanded. To be sure, women ideally still want someone who makes more than them. But now for many women a man making less is no longer a dealbreaker.
So how has the requirements to be considered a marriageable man changed? I think looks have become much more important. Women want attractive men now more than they did a few decades ago. But this is really an effect of the a more basic change. Women want what other women want. They assume that other women want good looking men, and this will be as important -- if not more so -- than their attraction. But this is not the only thing that women want. They also want men who are famous. So fame will become even more important in attracting women.
This is probably a good point to explain why I'm talking about marriage. A lot of you may have been puzzled by this. After all, this is the last thing many of you want. Well, I think that most women wouldn't respond well to a guy if they didn't consider him marriageable. That means that if they don't consider you marriageable you probably aren't going to get laid.
So over time, as women's economic independence improves, men will finder it harder to get laid if they're not good looking or famous. Since most men are not famous, this means that looks will be the dominant factor. You will basically have 5s, 6s, 7s thinking that they deserve male 8s, 9s, and 10s just like 8s, 9s and 10s do. Men desire women more than women desire men, and the facts about sexual pursuit reflect this. This gives women an inflated sense of their own attractiveness and of their worth. Thus nothing will seem amiss to a 6 who thinks that she dserves a 9 or 10.
What's more is that women can hold out more than men can. Men are much quicker to go for a less attractive partner than they normally go for during a dry spell than women are. They may not date them (though this often happens), but they will at least bang them. Women can hold out for years if they don't come across someone they deem up to their standards. So the 6 who doesn't come accross a 9 and who rarely has sex will not easily be forced by this into going for someone who is more her equal in attraction.
So the reality is that it will be harder for most men to get laid in the future. What will this mean for game? I'm not sure. A first thought is that it'll make game all the more important. (It arguably has already. I doubt game was as important to getting laid in the past as it is right now.) But my second thought is that this isn't quite right. My suspicion is that in the long term beyond some minor game to get you talking game will be increasingly ineffective. Men will either appear marriageable or they will not. But again, I'm not really sure what the change means for game in the long term.