[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 11:24 PM)bacan Wrote:  

Samseau and soup, respond to dismal operator's thoughtful post as well. He conveyed the idea very well.

We are not saying everyone is going to work to the point of having great game but many guys can close the gap between themselves and the top a little bit. Saying there is little benefit to learning game incrementally is just wrong.

Building your game is literally done one approach, one girl at a time. It is not like building half a submarine or power plant. Every single effort has at least a marginal effect that could result in guys being more attractive and cool to women. I'm not saying they are going to be banging girls the same nightbut they will be giving girls a stable and committed relationship alternative to being pumped and dumped by the top players.

If girls were interested in having stable and committed relationships today, there wouldn't be a need for game in the first place.

[bacan]

(05-26-2014 07:18 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

Hypergamy wouldn't go away, what would change is the cost benefit analysis for women in actually acting out on the hypergamy. If the top 20-30% of guys aren't so far removed from average, the risk of breaking up a stable relationship/family becomes too great to be worth the extra benefit a top guy might offer. Visually, the quality ladder of men probably looks something like this now, in order of high quality to low quality:

The Dos Equis Guy

Top Tier Alpha Types




Average Guys

Dregs

A girl with an average guy can easily justify leaving for a top tier type and above because there is so much more value to be attained that whatever collateral damage can be dealt with. In a dating market after all men improve themselves, it probably looks more like the following:

The Dos Equis Guy
Top Tier Alphas
Average Guys


Dregs

It would be much harder for a girl to act on her hypergamy in this scenario because the level of men has risen to the point that any individual guy is highly likely to satisfy her. It becomes pointless to then throw away a good thing just because there is a slight chance that you might get slightly greater tingles.

Well said (and illustrated).

[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 11:24 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think women should be able to do anything they like, provided they own the responsibility for their decisions. Yes, you can screw anyone you like, but if you get pregnant, that's on you, nobody owes you a dime, and nobody should have to pay for your abortion.

This is what true liberalism is because this is what liberty is, and what should be fought for. You don't need the shackles of gender roles to put society back on track, all you need is freedom and responsibility.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. Women are not compatible with freedom. That is why they are fundamentally attracted to strength in men, and it is why they are always seeking consensus from the group (without the group's power they are helpless).

Hence, "women's rights" is ridiculous nonsense and will not be around in 100 years from now. I will bet my soul on this.

[bacan]

So now you say girls don't want stable and committed relationships? Girls have to balance their desires for stable and commited relationships and the thrill of being with men that have many sexual options.

What are you trying to convince me of? That women enjoy being dumped and cheated on? Come on.

[Big Country]

I was thinking more along the lines of slavery, but that's cool. I'm pretty comfortable acknowledging how fucked up that is. What I meant was, we can't experience what life was like, but we can read about it, so two very different things.

[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 07:18 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  

I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Hypergamy wouldn't go away, what would change is the cost benefit analysis for women in actually acting out on the hypergamy. If the top 20-30% of guys aren't so far removed from average, the risk of breaking up a stable relationship/family becomes too great to be worth the extra benefit a top guy might offer. Visually, the quality ladder of men probably looks something like this now, in order of high quality to low quality:

The Dos Equis Guy

Top Tier Alpha Types




Average Guys

Dregs

A girl with an average guy can easily justify leaving for a top tier type and above because there is so much more value to be attained that whatever collateral damage can be dealt with. In a dating market after all men improve themselves, it probably looks more like the following:

The Dos Equis Guy
Top Tier Alphas
Average Guys


Dregs

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes men are setting the standards, when in fact it is women who set the standards for what they want in men.

Thus the gap will never be closed. If you want pussy, you will need to be near the top tier alpha range, and the barriers to entry will always remain sky-high.

[Wadsworth]

(05-26-2014 11:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 07:18 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  

I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Hypergamy wouldn't go away, what would change is the cost benefit analysis for women in actually acting out on the hypergamy. If the top 20-30% of guys aren't so far removed from average, the risk of breaking up a stable relationship/family becomes too great to be worth the extra benefit a top guy might offer. Visually, the quality ladder of men probably looks something like this now, in order of high quality to low quality:

The Dos Equis Guy

Top Tier Alpha Types




Average Guys

Dregs

A girl with an average guy can easily justify leaving for a top tier type and above because there is so much more value to be attained that whatever collateral damage can be dealt with. In a dating market after all men improve themselves, it probably looks more like the following:

The Dos Equis Guy
Top Tier Alphas
Average Guys


Dregs

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes men are setting the standards, when in fact it is women who set the standards for what they want in men.

Thus the gap will never be closed. If you want pussy, you will need to be near the top tier alpha range, and the barriers to entry will always remain sky-high.

I certainly agree with the emboldened. I'm not so sure about your second statement. Why do you think the value of women would increase with the value of males, precluding any gap from being closed?

[soup]

(05-26-2014 11:24 PM)bacan Wrote:  

Samseau and soup, respond to dismal operator's thoughtful post as well. He conveyed the idea very well.

We are not saying everyone is going to work to the point of having great game but many guys can close the gap between themselves and the top a little bit. Saying there is little benefit to learning game incrementally is just wrong.

Building your game is literally done one approach, one girl at a time. It is not like building half a submarine or power plant. Every single effort has at least a marginal effect that could result in guys being more attractive and cool to women. I'm not saying they are going to be banging girls the same nightbut they will be giving girls a stable and committed relationship alternative to being pumped and dumped by the top players.

I think things are getting more extreme.

And I do think that there is a higher level playerdom (the power plant) that emerges that is greater than the sum of it's parts.

I believe it is that level you need to get to if you are really going to live the dream and have freedom with women.

It's that secret society thing but it's not so much a secret anymore that it exists.

I'm starting to see the alpha/beta thing more as it applies to guys who are only in the game, and all the other guys are just bystanders/spectators/Omegas.

Why? The Beta doesn't really exist anymore in our culture because women are able to provide for themselves.

The Alpha/Beta thing only works good when we describe something like a club environment where you have girls who think they can get guys to buy them drinks (betas) wouldn't dare try that with a guy they think are Alpha. It's that kind of situation that most approximates the caveman times way.

There's the guys who are in the game, and the guys who are left out in the cold.

Are they the growing Omega class? I think it is fair to say, yes.

These are the guys who pretty much have given up on the game.

They don't serve women any purpose as either providers (beta), or as sex toys (alpha).

[bacan]

Samseau people are writing thoughtful responses to your thread and you are responding with weak two sentence posts that are thin on evidence and reason.

It must be fun to imagine that you are the wise man who we will all remember as the man who predicted the fall of western civilization due to hypergamous sluts but your thread is seriously frustrating and boring.

Men that are lower on the totem pole can decrease the gap and thus increase the opportunity cost of slutty and hypergamous behavior. Your thread lost credibility when you said women don't seek committed relationships.

Yawn at your lazy arguments. Going to bed.

[bacan]

And yes soup, I agree with you about the level of game needed to live the dream. That is probably getting harder as you suggest.

If building a power plant is a metaphor for putting all the pieces together to have true freedom from women, many men could probably do quite a bit better with just inserting some AA batteries--the most basic parts of game. They will never live the dream but may get the date, occasional lay, occasional girlfriend by being a decent option for women. They won't be as exciting as the top alpha males but may be closer, more persistent, at the right place at the right time, more willing to offer commitment, stability, family, etc. or anything else that in sum adds up to something more satisfying to a particular woman than what she expects to get from a top alpha male (a short fleeting thrill at best, feeling used at worst).

If women were purely hypergamous and never thought of tradeoffs, why does the phenomenon exist that ugly women will rebuff hot men that they know only are looking for a quick bang and they have no hope of ever getting anything more out of?

The fact that I had to type that basic example (in response to samseau's comments) is ridiculous.

[soup]

I think there are a lot of girls that think they want committed relationships but they also can't help but turned on by true alpha type guys.

Put them in the right situation where it's possible to have a taste of the dick, and I can pretty much guarantee that they will go for it. It's YOLO time for the majority of girls. At least that seems to be the case where I live.

Girls want both.

They want the boyfriend but they also don't want to "miss-out" on having fun during their good years. It must really suck to have to deal with mental confusion, and that's probably why a lot of them are on meds.

Life in general is rough no matter how you slice it, regardless of what your gender is. For men, we struggle for the early part of our lives, for women, they have a more dramatic rise and fall from power.

As I get older, and people I know or love pass away, I try to relish every good moment I do have in the now. I have a much greater appreciation of the time I'm spending with my family because I know they won't be around for ever. Feels like living in a memory as it is happening.

[bacan]

Yes they want both! Hence the discussion of tradeoffs, balance, etc. If the bottom 50% of men learned game, the balance would tilt in favor of not giving up a good thing with a decently cool guy vs. the risks and rewards of tasting the alpha dick.

If the bottom half can close the gap somewhat, women won't stop desiring the top 10% but will be more satisfied with the guy they have and will have more to lose and less to gain by making slutty hypergamous choices to go for another man.

[soup]

(05-27-2014 12:03 AM)bacan Wrote:  

If women were purely hypergamous and never thought of tradeoffs, why does the phenomenon exist that ugly women will rebuff hot men that they know only are looking for a quick bang and they have no hope of ever getting anything more out of?

The fact that I had to type that basic example (in response to samseau's comments) is ridiculous.

Those girls do that not necessarily because they are looking for commitment, but they feel insulted that they are thought of as sluts. Unfortunately for them, being a slut to an alpha male is the only way she will be able to connect with him.

It's more based on fear of being deemed a slut and thus being kicked out of the tribe or killed then it is them wanting a commitment.

The opposite is true for the hotter girls who want to get treated like shit because everyone treats them like princesses. They want something that feels real to them.

Either way, I don't believe that wanting a commitment is behind there motivations.

[bacan]

I think men suffer the same struggle..

I love the feeling of having a girl that is crazy about me and treats me like a prince and who I know will always be there for me..

I also love the feeling of fucking a girl I met in the last 24 hours.. Or just having a variety of girls in my sex life..

Those two things are not totally compatible..

Girls feel the same way I'm sure

[bacan]

I think it is about not wanting to feel used. Who is going to deem her a slut if she doesn't tell anyone?

In that case.. "Commitment" could be as little as.. Assurance of calling her again, promise of going on a date or two .. Anything other than basically being a free prostitute

[soup]

(05-27-2014 12:15 AM)bacan Wrote:  

I think men suffer the same struggle..

I love the feeling of having a girl that is crazy about me and treats me like a prince and who I know will always be there for me..

I also love the feeling of fucking a girl I met in the last 24 hours.. Or just having a variety of girls in my sex life..

Those two things are not totally compatible..

Girls feel the same way I'm sure

They are compatible. A good wife would be one that is cool with (either implicitly or explicitly) you boning other chicks and even having relationships with other girls. She'd feel good knowing that she's the main base.

It's unconditional love for you. A tall order, yes but possible.

[bacan]

Women like to feel loved, cared for, and special.. Like in your eyes they are the only girl in the world..

Of course there are women who would allow that but a part of them (for many) would be upset by it and have their enthusiasm for the relationship diminished. Also my ideal level of extramarital sex might be vastly different than what a wife is able to happily permit.

That's why they are not totally compatible even if they may be simultaneously possible.

[soup]

(05-27-2014 12:23 AM)bacan Wrote:  

Women like to feel loved, cared for, and special.. Like in your eyes they are the only girl in the world..

Of course there are women who would allow that but a part of them (for many) would be upset by it and have their enthusiasm for the relationship diminished. Also my ideal level of extramarital sex might be vastly different than what a wife is able to happily permit.

That's why they are not totally compatible even if they may be simultaneously possible.

Not all women. A lot of very attractive girls want the opposite because the whole world heaps too much unnecessary love and care on them. They want a guy that gets them and can dominate them.

[icefire57]

I didn't read thru the entire thread (did read the first page), so maybe this argument has already been presented, but the reason I think a night with a high-end hooker could've saved him was because she could've actually taught him what it MEANS to be intimate with a woman, what a woman likes, etc and made him realize that he is CAPABLE of getting women if only he changes his self-centered, entitled, and narcisistic mindset.

(if however he went in there like a ravaging sociopath, then he would've been too caught up in himself to take anything out of the experience. But we dont actually know which path he would've taken)

Just my 2 cents.

[bacan]

Yeah, I agree. I wonder at what point they want some of those same things too and those desires become more important than those you mentioned. I mean everyone wants to feel special and valued and cared for by the people they care about in some way.

This has been such a fast back and forth that I feel the need to sign off when I'm logging out- ha. Night.

[Rutting Elephant]

(05-26-2014 09:37 PM)tomtud Wrote:  

honour killings that they call are common in many cultures in that part or the world ( Middle East, SEA ) sorry to deflect the theme here, but it goes to show that the west is going towards that path too.

I assume you meant South Asia, not Southeast Asia. There are plenty of rapes, but honor killings and acid attacks are exceedingly rare. Some high school kids threw acid around on Jakarta buses last year, but that was just antisocial assholery.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

While I agree with most of Samseau's post, I don't believe that this is true:

Quote:

Likewise, I see guys arguing prostitution would have solved Elliots problems, but Elliot was (like hundreds of thousands of other betas are) seeking validation in addition to sex. Prostitution does nothing for a man seeking to validate himself upon the glowing affections of a hot woman draped across his body in the warm afterglow of sex that he had conquered with his own efforts.

You have to take account what marriage is - what it was before explicitly and what it is today implicitly through harsh child support and alimony policies. It's an economic union first and foremost, and paying is a given in one way or another. It's just that the man is paying with money rather than game.

The primary question from that comparison is this: did husbands of the last few milennia spend their nights sleepless and anxious about the fact that their women were with them only because they provided for them?

[Biologist]

Regarding prostitution being legalised - here in New South Wales prostitution is completely legal (as long as it takes place in a licensed brothel).

However, it hasn't done a damn thing in terms of forcing women to get their act together (putting effort keeping their weight down and dropping their attitudes). Additionally, the number of frustrated betas is still at an all-time high.

However, prostitution gives me SOME piece of mind, as I know it is at least an option men can resort to if they're feeling really desperate for sex, hopefully preventing events like the Elliot Rodgers shooting from happening.

[berserk]

Samseu has it right for the very reason that what would be classified as betas get laid plenty in regions like mainland Asia and EE. Female attraction is relative. It's not like a girl stops being attracted to guy if they don't meet a certain criteria. Proof is that some of the betas walking around with hot girls in Asia wouldn't get any girls in the US guaranteed.

Only widespread poverty or a deliberate destruction of welfare states will bring about beta happiness in the west and only the first is realistic.

[svenski7]

There's really no pleasing you, Samseau.

All this guy needed was a one-way ticket to Bangkok. I'm not even talking about hookers.

You said BKK is dirty and for losers who can't get laid elsewhere.

His insanity was repeatedly sitting on a park bench thinking women would approach his to talk to him about his BMW. Assuming he had learned Game with no luck, insanity would have been staying in Santa Barbara when no one would have sex with him.

Also, why would him fucking a girl mean that another man would go without? You talk a lot about hypergamy and girls on the cock carousel (rightfully so). What if the same girl was fucking another guy on the side? It's not zero sum.