Quote: (07-14-2018 06:47 PM)Repo Wrote:
And yet you posted one which didn't make your point at all. Anyway, I'm on my way to pick up a much younger chick, which has gotten increasingly easier as I've gotten older. Good chat.
It shows, assuming one believes the source of the data and the way it's been collected, that the number of men in the 22-35 cohort who haven't had sex over the last 12 months has increased from around 6% to 14% in the period 2008-2016. If this isn't one source of evidence for my thesis that in the last decade or so the number of guys shut out of the sexual market place has significantly increased, then please tell me what would count as evidence for you?
To argue that it's because guys have just let themselves go and become slobs gets the causation the wrong way around, in my view. A lot of guys have let themselves go precisely because they have found themselves unable to compete as the quicksands of the sexual market place have shifted against them and so from a certain point decided to go full basement dweller mode. If there's no pussy incentive on the table because most of the rewards now go to a small percentage of sexually active men, then it's a logical consequence of this that a lot of guys locked out of the market will start to let themselves go and just focus on maintaining themselves in a minimal state.
It's an interesting debate, I agree, since you focus on the role of the individual Game practitioner as if he exists atomistically in a vacuum and I'm more concerned with the macro-framework which largely determines the parameters that the Game practitioner has to operate in. We all know that a young, 6'4" muscular athelete running daygame on university campus Plain Janes is going to experience a radically different response rate to a 5'6" Indian chode chasing Heidi Klum-lookalikes, even when the latter has a much more refined Game toolkit at his disposal. If only for the reason that, for many women, especially those in the Anglosphere, whether to give a guy the time of time of day in an initial random encounter is first determined by his physical level of attractiveness to her and so a lot of guys will get blown out simply before they've had chance to demonstrate worth through other Game-mediated means. I've witnessed this myself on the street when running Game with other guys, by the way, enough times to know what I'm talking about. It sounds like Game denialism on my part, but it isn't, since I've personally gotten lays from daygame in the recent past - unfortunately not nearly as many as I'd have liked - and quite a few makeouts, dates, e.tc., some near lays, et.c. from much more attractive - and younger - women that I could have pulled online, so I know what is in principle possible. My concern is more that we're reaching an inflexion point in the West where relocation may be a more sensible move for many guys rather than trying to grind it out running daygame for ever-diminishing returns as female hypergamy surges to feral proportions, such that only the highest tier of guys looks- or game-wise are now able to hack it. There may well come a point - and quite soon - when simply exhorting guys to be in the top 5% ... 4% ... 1% just won't cut it, since it becomes too narrow and therefore unrealistic a goal to reach. Irrational optimism will, no doubt, surely get a guy laid much more often than any form of rationally-informed realism, my own variety included, but sooner or later the arid reality of sexlessness for those not able to make the grade will catch up with them and they'll need to find alternative solutions to their predicament. In my case, for example, it was moving from the UK to Germany, and running daygame there in a major city, which improved my situation. Not massively, since daygaming in a northern German city such as Hamburg is hardly easy mode, but it still a much more realistic proposition than grinding it out on the streets of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and not even getting dates, let alone bangs.
Incidentally, do you believe that if every guy who couldn't get laid developed Game to a sufficient extent, in addition to making reasonable improvements to his dress style, personality, et.c., that they would
all manage to get laid, secure a LTR, et.c.? Or, as I suspect, would the bar just get pushed higher in terms of the minimum level of personal fitness, presentation, Game, that women then require before dropping the drawers? Game can only work because it's a hack to the system that the majority of men still don't practice, but it seems that being both Game savvy and implementing its core principles is becoming a bare minimum requirement today for a guy to stand a chance of getting laid.