[Screwston]

(03-10-2012 08:36 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 08:13 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

"it’s apparently a sad, sad scene for women in Boston, which rated lowest on the singles satisfaction scale ... a theory for Boston’s rough dating scene: One of eight men expect sex on the first date."

That's it? One out of EIGHT? What is wrong with those guys?

Yeah, I laughed at that statistic. I expect sex within 3 hours of the date starting.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-10-2012 06:15 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 03:45 PM)joehoya Wrote:  

I still don't know why hot chicks from around the country (especially the South) don't just move to DC in groups, get some waitressing job, and go out on the hunt for a husband. They would be the happy housewife to some high powered lawyer making $300K+ in under 2 years.

I honestly don't understand how the place isn't descended upon by fly High-Class Escorts looking to turn tricks and make bread.

DC has one of the few good economies.

You would think the place would be chock-a-block with hot hookers. They would clean up. Especially with the weesh civilian population.

I mean, Economic Law dictates that it would be.

Anyone know what that isn't so?

DC used to have plenty of hookers back when the infamous Marion Barry was mayor (see DC pimp in the clip below).

Ever since Anthony Williams, and all of the mayors since, DC has been courting young professionals, most of whom are white, to bring jobs and growth to the city and boost its economy. DC has had the largest gains in the white population than any other city. Home values have risen tremendously in the past decade and crime has fallen. 14th street used to be a haven for prostitutes, but now you won't find them there.

There's still a high end prostitution scene (escort girls) but that's discreet. Escort services are often used for foreign dignitaries and politicians. I used to have a friend who worked at the Four Seasons and he said the State Department would routinely have escort girls arrive for visiting officials from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

[beta_plus]

The Top 10 US MSAs (assuming that's what they used - can't find a link to actual survey)

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chi
4. DFW
5. Phili
6. Houston
7. DC
8. Miami
9. Atl
10. Boston

I don't buy the survey. I can see DC being good for women, but BOSTON the worst? That doesn't add up.

The worst place for women should be places full of gorgeous girls and guys with no game, poor, short (yeah sorry, I know mentioning this angers everyone on this forum including its owner, but it matters a lot when you don't have game), and generally unattractive. Boston simply does not qualify under these criteria. Atlanta, DFW, Houston, and Chicago EASILY beat Boston in that regard just by quality of women alone. NYC also qualifies if you get rid of poor.

DC sucks, I won't dispute that. You should not go out of your way for it for women by any means. But there are worse major US cities to be stuck in if your priority is women. SF Bay (the home of Man Jose) and Denver (aka Menver and the land of ski-bums with trust funds) immediately come to mind.

Women have a funny way of rationalizing how great things are for them even when they are not. A few years ago I read through college guides that surveyed actual students at the actual schools (http://collegeprowler.com/ - ratings may have changed since then and I can't vouch for them now). Girls gave great ratings for guys at schools they flat out should not have, such as UGA. I remember reading the FSU guide giving the guys a high rating, even though when I visited they were anything but compared to the men of Toronto. I suspect that is what is happening here.

I'm not advocating that this forum should talk up DC. I just worry sometimes that it may encourage guys to go to another area in the United States, Canada, or NW Europe that just because it has other amenities such as skiing or great weather that will leave them even more frustrated with women. I speak from painful experience.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-10-2012 10:14 PM)beta_plus Wrote:  

The Top 10 US MSAs (assuming that's what they used - can't find a link to actual survey)

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chi
4. DFW
5. Phili
6. Houston
7. DC
8. Miami
9. Atl
10. Boston

I don't buy the survey. I can see DC being good for women, but BOSTON the worst? That doesn't add up.

The worst place for women should be places full of gorgeous girls and guys with no game, poor, short (yeah sorry, I know mentioning this angers everyone on this forum including its owner, but it matters a lot when you don't have game), and generally unattractive. Boston simply does not qualify under these criteria. Atlanta, DFW, Houston, and Chicago EASILY beat Boston in that regard just by quality of women alone. NYC also qualifies if you get rid of poor.

DC sucks, I won't dispute that. You should not go out of your way for it for women by any means. But there are worse major US cities to be stuck in if your priority is women. SF Bay (the home of Man Jose) and Denver (aka Menver and the land of ski-bums with trust funds) immediately come to mind.

Women have a funny way of rationalizing how great things are for them even when they are not. A few years ago I read through college guides that surveyed actual students at the actual schools (http://collegeprowler.com/ - ratings may have changed since then and I can't vouch for them now). Girls gave great ratings for guys at schools they flat out should not have, such as UGA. I remember reading the FSU guide giving the guys a high rating, even though when I visited they were anything but compared to the men of Toronto. I suspect that is what is happening here.

I'm not advocating that this forum should talk up DC. I just worry sometimes that it may encourage guys to go to another area in the United States, Canada, or NW Europe that just because it has other amenities such as skiing or great weather that will leave them even more frustrated with women. I speak from painful experience.

I agree about SF. The women there are actually far less attractive than women in DC. They may have cool attitudes about hooking up but they don't invest in their appearance like the professional women you see out and about in DC.

Had no idea about Denver. I have a go-to girl out there, but I was hoping there was some talent around in that town.

[j r]

(03-10-2012 06:15 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 03:45 PM)joehoya Wrote:  

I still don't know why hot chicks from around the country (especially the South) don't just move to DC in groups, get some waitressing job, and go out on the hunt for a husband. They would be the happy housewife to some high powered lawyer making $300K+ in under 2 years.

I honestly don't understand how the place isn't descended upon by fly High-Class Escorts looking to turn tricks and make bread.

DC has one of the few good economies.

You would think the place would be chock-a-block with hot hookers. They would clean up. Especially with the weesh civilian population.

I mean, Economic Law dictates that it would be.

Anyone know what that isn't so?

There's a temptation to overstate DC's economy or, rather, to see it as something that it's not. There's a lot of people in DC making above-average salaries, but that doesn't mean that DC is full of ballers. DC is not like NY, LA or Miami where you have a concentration of young, single people with lots of disposable income to blow. Think about what people in DC do; they're government bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers, economists, etc. We're talking comfortable salaries, but not exactly hedge fund money.

Take the lawyers for instance. DC probably has a higher percentage of lawyers than any city on earth, but a good portion of them aren't even practicing, much less making Big Law money.

[thegmanifesto]

(03-10-2012 09:56 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

There's still a high end prostitution scene (escort girls) but that's discreet. Escort services are often used for foreign dignitaries and politicians. I used to have a friend who worked at the Four Seasons and he said the State Department would routinely have escort girls arrive for visiting officials from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

Your post was accurate.

Although, wouldn't you think the place would be swarmed with hot $8 an hour girls from Arizona?

They could probably make $200k easy in DC.

Maybe no one has stepped up to the plate.

Young bucks on here looking for a job:

This could be the new frontier of American Pimping.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-10-2012 11:42 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 09:56 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

There's still a high end prostitution scene (escort girls) but that's discreet. Escort services are often used for foreign dignitaries and politicians. I used to have a friend who worked at the Four Seasons and he said the State Department would routinely have escort girls arrive for visiting officials from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

Your post was accurate.

Although, wouldn't you think the place would be swarmed with hot $8 an hour girls from Arizona?

They could probably make $200k easy in DC.

Maybe no one has stepped up to the plate.

Young bucks on here looking for a job:

This could be the new frontier of American Pimping.

No way the federal gestapo is letting that happen. DC is a fortress these days. Girls can't just be out standing on the corner, no sir. For the past several years, cops in DC - and I've only seen this in DC - have their lights flashing at all times (even when they are not in pursuit). They got this idea from Israel when DC's Chief of Police went there on a security trip some years ago. Israeli military vehicles do the same thing when they patrol Palestinian areas in the West Bank. So dude got the idea to bring that to DC. I was actually in DC when they instituted that policy. Talk about unsettling. You'd see a cop directly behind you in your rear view with his lights flashing but he wasn't even in pursuit of you. They do that all day, every day 24/7.

DC has changed a lot. As I said, Anthony Williams, an Ivy League alumnus, reversed Marion Barry's policies and courted business interests. So many poor DC natives were priced out of the city during Williams' tenure. Many pockets of the city became gentrified as a result. All of his successors have followed in his footsteps.

Any pimping in DC, like drug sales, are going down behind closed doors these days. All those hoods that used to be dope spots during Barry's tenure are now empty and deserted (or completely gentrified.) Completely different town.

[Deluge]

(03-10-2012 11:42 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

This could be the new frontier of American Pimping.

Everywhere G goes, he sees business opportunities. Baller mentality.

[Brian]

(03-10-2012 11:39 PM)j r Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 06:15 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 03:45 PM)joehoya Wrote:  

I still don't know why hot chicks from around the country (especially the South) don't just move to DC in groups, get some waitressing job, and go out on the hunt for a husband. They would be the happy housewife to some high powered lawyer making $300K+ in under 2 years.

I honestly don't understand how the place isn't descended upon by fly High-Class Escorts looking to turn tricks and make bread.

DC has one of the few good economies.

You would think the place would be chock-a-block with hot hookers. They would clean up. Especially with the weesh civilian population.

I mean, Economic Law dictates that it would be.

Anyone know what that isn't so?

There's a temptation to overstate DC's economy or, rather, to see it as something that it's not. There's a lot of people in DC making above-average salaries, but that doesn't mean that DC is full of ballers. DC is not like NY, LA or Miami where you have a concentration of young, single people with lots of disposable income to blow. Think about what people in DC do; they're government bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers, economists, etc. We're talking comfortable salaries, but not exactly hedge fund money.

Take the lawyers for instance. DC probably has a higher percentage of lawyers than any city on earth, but a good portion of them aren't even practicing, much less making Big Law money.

Disagree here in some ways. You dont have the NYC banker money flowing thru, but there is plenty of disposable income. Definitely more so then Miami, where there is more 'high end' disposable income (trust fund kid types) but less median income. In DC everyone does good but no one does great. But you also have less of the lower earning artist types that are more prone to be in NYC or LA. People come to DC for jobs, not to surf or paint or do theater or try and become a movie star while waiting tables.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-11-2012 12:19 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 11:39 PM)j r Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 06:15 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 03:45 PM)joehoya Wrote:  

I still don't know why hot chicks from around the country (especially the South) don't just move to DC in groups, get some waitressing job, and go out on the hunt for a husband. They would be the happy housewife to some high powered lawyer making $300K+ in under 2 years.

I honestly don't understand how the place isn't descended upon by fly High-Class Escorts looking to turn tricks and make bread.

DC has one of the few good economies.

You would think the place would be chock-a-block with hot hookers. They would clean up. Especially with the weesh civilian population.

I mean, Economic Law dictates that it would be.

Anyone know what that isn't so?

There's a temptation to overstate DC's economy or, rather, to see it as something that it's not. There's a lot of people in DC making above-average salaries, but that doesn't mean that DC is full of ballers. DC is not like NY, LA or Miami where you have a concentration of young, single people with lots of disposable income to blow. Think about what people in DC do; they're government bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers, economists, etc. We're talking comfortable salaries, but not exactly hedge fund money.

Take the lawyers for instance. DC probably has a higher percentage of lawyers than any city on earth, but a good portion of them aren't even practicing, much less making Big Law money.

Disagree here in some ways. You dont have the NYC banker money flowing thru, but there is plenty of disposable income. Definitely more so then Miami, where there is more 'high end' disposable income (trust fund kid types) but less median income. In DC everyone does good but no one does great. But you also have less of the lower earning artist types that are more prone to be in NYC or LA. People come to DC for jobs, not to surf or paint or do theater or try and become a movie star while waiting tables.

Exactly. I have friends in practically every major city in the US, and my friends in DC, on a whole, are doing better than everyone else.

There are definitely very powerful people who are billionaires and millionaires in DC. There are some very well-paid lobbyists in the city as well.

But J.R. is correct in that there's nothing generating wealth in DC like what you're seeing on Wall Street. Those hedge fund guys are practically printing money.

Also, many more wealthy people--of the international variety--choose to live in NYC. Just think about it - for who does it make most sense to live in NYC? The young and the wealthy.

The wealthy people in NYC have the world at their feet; from the arts to entertainment to fine dining. DC is still second or third-tier in many of those categories. We fall behind cities like Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, Boston, and even Los Angeles in that respect.

Miami is also a city that attracts the very wealthy. They are the ones most responsible for the real estate prices and cost of living, as there is no vigorous economy generating high-paying jobs to justify it otherwise.

[Chad Daring]

(03-10-2012 08:55 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 07:27 PM)assman Wrote:  

Interesting study. Seems like the too much choice phenomenon seen with consumer choice. Basically as you increase the number of choices from none to a moderate amount, consumer satisfaction goes up, but with continued increase in choice, consumer satisfaction goes down. IIRC, they attributed it to higher levels of regret. If a car came in only 2 colors, it would be pretty easy to pick one and never look back. If it came in 20 colors, not only is it harder to choose, but it's much more likely that after living with the chosen color for a while, you'll wish you had picked another.

I'm skeptical of this explanation, of too much choice causing the contempt we see. When people are faced with too much choice, according to that theory, they feel anxiety, uncertainty, insecurity. Look at these women bitching. They are expressing contempt, disdain and disgust at men, and pride and self-love towards themselves. There is no overlap between the emotions associated with 'too much choice' and our example of hating men as a group, or those women feel when at a sausagefest. All that aside, the whole 'consumer choice anxiety' theory is not exactly proven fact either.

When women walk into a party of normal guys, and the ratio is abysmal, they think 'losers.'* When women have multiple men fight over them, in those three dudes one girl matchups, you see at a bar, the girl secretly thinks they're *all* losers, and no one fucks her more often than if there had only been one man chatting her up. Women associate cockfests with low value, and when the whole country becomes a cockfest, they start thinking they live in a country of lame men.

*Except for preselected high value men, like athletes and top frat bros.

Thats some interesting next level shit right there.

Im curious, do you think this effect spills over into the small scale of individual groups in a venue?

Assume the ratio is good, 2:1 girls:guys, but on the smaller scale you're with a group of four buddies, so five of you total, vs being with one buddy (wingman)

[Mrs. Chocolate]

They are happy, but they wouldn't dare leave DC if they could know what the world demands and expects from them.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-11-2012 10:10 AM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Thats some interesting next level shit right there.

Im curious, do you think this effect spills over into the small scale of individual groups in a venue?

Assume the ratio is good, 2:1 girls:guys, but on the smaller scale you're with a group of four buddies, so five of you total, vs being with one buddy (wingman)

How often is the ratio that good? Makes no sense to assume something that's rarely true. Roosh made a similar post a while back, about how women clam up when the ratio is bad.

That aside, it's all about whether cool people do it. For instance, playing Dungeons and Dragons really isn't inherently any more lame than say, playing chess or any number of other hobbies. But the people who play it are so often losers that saying you play D&D totally trashes your value, at least early on when she knows little of you. If cool people played D&D, admitting to playing it wouldn't be social suicide. So if she's gone through life and most of the time guys in big groups were not high value, then it's not going to help. Tack on the logistical difficulties below, and rolling five cocks deep gets ugly quickly.

It's possible to still look high value with a pack of four or five dudes, but it's harder, and you probably still won't look better than if you had just two. The logistical difficulties are strong. You can only talk to a big group of girls, or you have to merge two different groups. Having more guys than girls in your conversation is a total cockblock: Women naturally draw attention to themselves, and I have yet to see a group of men ignore an attractive pleasant woman in conversation. 99% of guys are not going to withdraw so that you can get your mack on, so you're left with five bros talking to the two or three girls you've just snared, and there may be only one available bangable girl.

Personally, I try to get into one on one conversations ASAP, and a four man group would probably make that harder. Also when you have that many people, it's only natural you form a huddle so that you can all see and speak to each other. Once in a huddle, it's going to be hard to turn on your friends and start approaching. And if you holler at a girl nearby, it'd be weird not to introduce her to your friends, but if you do they'll cockblock you.

I haven't gone out in big groups regularly, so I could be missing the positive aspects. But when I do see guys doing it, I never feel jealous, that they have some leg up on me. I see them and think, wow, if I was rolling that deep, I'd always just look like another cock in the crowd. On the other hand, a mixed group could be to your advantage - there are already girls, so your boys won't maniacally focus on your prospect. Plus whenever you want to neg your target, you could ignore her for a sec and chat up a girl in your entourage. But you might get a little too comfortable and stop approaching.

If you and your group are *obviously* high value, then being in a big group could magnify your presence and build intrigue among girls standing by. But this is exceedingly rare - like I said, it requires very high preselection, as top frat bros or a star athlete team on their own campus might have - think ten huuuge dudes partying, who just happen to be on the UT football team.

I remember seeing pickup literature saying stuff like "have fun at the bars with your friends and women will naturally be drawn in." Haven't found that to be true - it's crowded enough that no one is paying attention to you, or they're looking at someone else.

[Brian]

G is on to a good point I've sometimes wondered about myself. If you were a hot 25 y/o chick ready to get married, pop a few kids out, stop working and get a nanny then DC would be a spot where you had lots of potential suitors and a lower standard of competition.

[Perseus]

WOW i'm never visiting DC! that's for sure. So many bad reviews about it and quite frankly it sounds a lot like Toronto's TWIN!

I've read all posts in this thread and i agree with most of them, not that i have visited DC but mainly because it sounds EXACTLY as horrible as Toronto, so its easy to relate to this thread.

I think because DC is like a financial center/hub, men flock there of course to make something out of themselves, and of course none of these males would admit that they are going for the high paying jobs and success to impress women on some level IMO.

I sometimes wish in cities like DC, Toronto, etc, a large scale, on the streets protests or more like a strike by single males occur to pretty much collectively not approach nor date and basically avoid any interaction with women, and most importantly STOP GIVING UGLY WOMEN HIGH VALUE! I wonder what the outcome would be.

I've stumbled unto this AWESOME article, written by a Toronto guy, but i think it applies to DC and anywhere where unattractive extremely below average women hooking up with as many high value/above average males easily.

http://livinginthedeadcity.weebly.com/1/...girls.html

Anyways, i wanna thank this thread and its participants for the heads up about DC!

[Screwston]

(03-11-2012 11:15 AM)Mrs. Chocolate Wrote:  

They are happy, but they wouldn't dare leave DC if they could know what the world demands and expects from them.

It must be funny when all these 4's and 5's go visit their family in normal cities and get ignored by good looking guys

[Gmac]

(03-11-2012 09:43 PM)houston Wrote:  

(03-11-2012 11:15 AM)Mrs. Chocolate Wrote:  

They are happy, but they wouldn't dare leave DC if they could know what the world demands and expects from them.

It must be funny when all these 4's and 5's go visit their family in normal cities and get ignored by good looking guys

They don't put two and two together I'm sure.