[scorpion]

No one ever said a guy can be a huge fat fuck and suffer no hit to his SMV. What I said is first of all that men carry extra weight a lot better than women do, and secondly that men are graded on many more attributes than simply appearance, so that even taking a hit to their looks by being a bit overweight they can still compensate in other areas. There is very little if anything a woman can do to compensate for being fat.

And by the way, this is what I'm talking about when I say that a guy can be "fat". I'm not talking about egregious obesity. Even excluding their massive fame, both of these guys would still do well with women even while carrying extra weight, because they have other factors to compensate (height, charisma, humor, facial aesthetics, money, status etc...). Every guy will obviously have a higher SMV if he's in great shape, but a little extra weight is simply a much bigger problem for women than it is for men.

[questor70]

Male celebrities are held to a higher standard, though. Chris Pratt wouldn't have been Star Lord and wouldn't have done that scene in Infinity War comparing looks with Chris Hemsworth if he hadn't gotten and kept himself jacked. Inversely, Russel Crowe ain't getting romantic roles anymore now that he's gone to pot. It's not just his advancing age. Both of these guys earned their sex symbol rep by being jacked even though Pratt's sense of humor and Crowe's hot-head personality help.

[InvoluntaryHermit]

(11-07-2018 01:44 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

Your post is hard to understand. What does female behavior have to do with male SMV?

You saying that a man’s SMV is affected by women? The only thing a man’s SMV is affected by is himself, IMO.

Unless you’re talking about man’s inherent value to women?

Women's SMV is dictated by men and vice versa to a certain extent. Just like in any capitalist market (SMP) the value of products (men's or women's SMV) is dictated by what people are willing to pay. Men go for women and thus their SMV is dictated by men, and the opposite. The thing is women are setting their price way too fucking high so no one buys their product, or can't afford it...

[Shemp]

>>Women's SMV is dictated by men and vice versa to a certain extent.

Not "to a certain extent" but rather 100% the value of the product is determined by the buyer. Which is why we can settle the question of which sex is hurt more by being fat very easily. Do you see more lean guys with fat women or fat guys with lean women? (Ignore the other possibilities: fat+fat, lean+ lean.)

Where I am now (bumblefuck, USA), among wealthier married couples, dad bod or disgustingly big pot-bellied men with lean women is very common, and lean men with fat women uncommon. Among less wealthy, it's the opposite.

Which gets back to hypergamy. If you're an top 10% man in all respects except being overweight, you are overwhelmed with sexual choice, and the women know that, so they have to keep up their looks to keep you. If you are not in the top 10%, you are fighting for scraps with the other bottom 90% of men and so you are the one who has to stay lean to get a woman.

For both men and women, sexual market value is clearly determined by more than weight: face, personality, fame, youth, health, money, etc. But most people agree that youth and beauty count as bigger factors for women than men. So yes, being fat hurts women more in that sense. However, any decline in an individual woman's SMV due to fatness can be overwhelmed by an overall decline in the SMV of all non-elite men, as has clearly happened where I live in the USA, as shown by all the lean non-elite guys having to settle for land whales.

[BadBoyGamer]

The average male is pathetic, weak, unattractive and asexual.

Girls do not want to bang the average guy.

His value is low which makes the value of girls go to the roof.

But this only matters for the average guy.

The player who learns Game has high value.

Girls have no choice but to bang him.

[DJ-Matt]

I'm about 20 pounds over my ideal weight and I don't get shit. Bitches 20 pounds over get so much thirsty fucking attention.

[N°6]

Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions

http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf

Most men have a lower Sexual MV than women because sex is a female resource to exchange.

Men’s perceived social value needs to be hypergamously higher than a woman’s SMV for exchange to take place.

Perhaps PUA was an attempt to raise men’s SMV to compensate for the decline in men’s social value since the 1970s.

[jordypip23]

(11-08-2018 09:26 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Being a fat guy hurts more than being a fat girl.

I am talking about in the West, not FSU, not EE, not Asia and not Latin America.

Fat girls in the west have boyfriends and husbands, even obsese chicks have partners as well.

Many times guys have posted how in Australia, jacked dudes date chubby girls. I wouldn't say Canada is much better and judging by this forum you can insert any western country.

The competition is fierce and getting worst, the quality of decent looking women has declined for some time now in the West.

Fat guys don't get love, I don't care how much charisma or money they have. True, not every girl wants a super jacked guy but being fat is the kiss of the death for a man.

Guys bust their asses in the gym to lose weight and gain a little muscle. I don't see anywhere the same amount of dedication from girls, their attitude is that they don't need to because they can always find a guy.

The girls that workout the hardest that I know are strippers. As someone stated before, I even see many strippers with ugly bodies and yet they still make money.

Good point. If a man becomes too fat the chick is likely not getting with the guy for the sex or physical tingles lol. She is more likely getting with him for his wallet (whether that means short term shopping sprees or long term financial security).

[EndsExpect]

(11-07-2018 01:48 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:12 PM)gework Wrote:  

From reading here it seems like this year has been a banner year in The West for the decline of male SMV.

You could have made this post every year since the inception of this forum.
Every year, there's a select group of guys that will whine to no end about how the sky is falling.
Yet if you think about it logically, "the decline of male SMV" makes no logical sense.
Until women figure out a way to reproduce by themselves, male sexual market value will remain constant. It is not in decline.
What I think the old heads are complaining about is that male SMV is changing and they are feeling left out. Gone are the strong alpha males, the Paul Newmans and Marlon Brandos of yesteryear. , they lament.
But so it goes. Values do not decline, they change. In the age of social media, Fame is now more important than Game. And some guys will cling to their old beliefs until they finally figure that out.

I believe your view on this is wrong. I believe that in the west male SMV becoming more unequal... not declining. This is why we can't really agree on the topic. It's getting WAY easier for top tier guys and way fucking harder for the bottom 80%. Combined with the fact that the cities are now packed with guys that would be normal in a different culture, but instead are convinced the best way to attract women is to lick their high heels clean every day.

A lot of the guys on the game thread think that the politics thread is stupid... and vise versa. That's wrong too. Women vote in mass numbers and their collective goal is to create the largest safety net possible while sticking men with the bill.

The greatest check that has ever existed on Hypergamy is limited resources. Women who have their basic needs unmet will look for a man to rely upon. Women who grow up with every financial need met will instead be driven much harder by hypergamy. They have their needs met, so they can risk producing babies with Alphas that bounce... or not having children at all.

Which leads me to the biggest point where I think you are wrong. It isn't women choosing to reproduce by themselves.... instead they choose not to have children at all.... because no suitable alphas make themselves available and many won't settle for a beta because their basic material needs are met.

[John Michael Kane]

(11-09-2018 04:00 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:48 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:12 PM)gework Wrote:  

From reading here it seems like this year has been a banner year in The West for the decline of male SMV.

You could have made this post every year since the inception of this forum.
Every year, there's a select group of guys that will whine to no end about how the sky is falling.
Yet if you think about it logically, "the decline of male SMV" makes no logical sense.
Until women figure out a way to reproduce by themselves, male sexual market value will remain constant. It is not in decline.
What I think the old heads are complaining about is that male SMV is changing and they are feeling left out. Gone are the strong alpha males, the Paul Newmans and Marlon Brandos of yesteryear. , they lament.
But so it goes. Values do not decline, they change. In the age of social media, Fame is now more important than Game. And some guys will cling to their old beliefs until they finally figure that out.

I believe your view on this is wrong. I believe that in the west male SMV becoming more unequal... not declining. This is why we can't really agree on the topic. It's getting WAY easier for top tier guys and way fucking harder for the bottom 80%. Combined with the fact that the cities are now packed with guys that would be normal in a different culture, but instead are convinced the best way to attract women is to lick their high heels clean every day.

A lot of the guys on the game thread think that the politics thread is stupid... and vise versa. That's wrong too. Women vote in mass numbers and their collective goal is to create the largest safety net possible while sticking men with the bill.

The greatest check that has ever existed on Hypergamy is limited resources. Women who have their basic needs unmet will look for a man to rely upon. Women who grow up with every financial need met will instead be driven much harder by hypergamy. They have their needs met, so they can risk producing babies with Alphas that bounce... or not having children at all.

Which leads me to the biggest point where I think you are wrong. It isn't women choosing to reproduce by themselves.... instead they choose not to have children at all.... because no suitable alphas make themselves available and many won't settle for a beta because their basic material needs are met.

I think EndsExpect is on to something here.

Many women are not able to get the alphas they get to sleep with them to commit, much less commit to marriage. Many beta/omega male types in the West are not desirable to most women. (Due to them actually not being desirable, as in overweight, poor job prospects, lack of emotional maturity, or...they are desirable, but the women have unreasonable standards.) It is a combination of many men being total schlubs, and also because women's basic and collective needs being taken care of, they chose to not have children, because they choose not to marry, because they can't find anyone they find attractive to marry them.

Also, with high-def porn, I think many men are just choosing to be omegas and not bother with women in general, meaning the number of men who have taken themselves out of the relationship/marriage game is significant, especially when you factor poor male career prospects in many areas, now that those same jobs have been taken over by women, outsourced overseas, or eliminated by technology.

[a beer is enough]

In nature, species that cannot adapt tend to go extinct and this principle also carries over to the business world too. Businesses that used to be great fail when they cannot adapt to the changing times that come with new trends and new technology that changes the way we do things. I find that a lot of it also has to do with ego, it is tough to teach an old dog new tricks and at some point, men become stubborn and too set with their old way of doing things that is no longer as effective. You even notice this with presidential elections where a candidate can use social media to great effect and no longer needs the help of news outlets to win.

Right now we are going through a shift in business as well where the more mundane jobs are either being shipped to the third world or taken over by machines. What is going to happen is that the people who are creative are the ones who are going to make all the money and thrive in the modern economy.

Now that is what has happened with game, you have men who have learned to adapt and are doing well versus guys who are unwilling to adapt. Game requires a lot more creativity now.

In the old days, a simple spam cold approach was enough and I don't doubt that it works even to this day. The reality is as Corsega has mentioned and others, a lot of the game has gone online now. Now this is where the divide is, the guys who get that will market themselves in ways that makes them appealing to women on social media, dating apps and portray that right image. The current market is made for those men, the ones who are willing to think outside the box.

I always chuckle whenever a member on here says "you're doing all that for pussy" or knocks a guy for doing something other than spam approaching like some aspie PUA, these are guys of an older time.

The newer times have called for newer methods, more creativity.

In recent years and even recent weeks, mostly all of my dates, lays and success from women has come through dating apps. I used to struggle but then I learned how to take good pics, portray the right image and work that angle to success. Now I am still working on my social media game which is weak because I didn't use my college years to build a following, I deleted my social media in those years because I was in the old man crowd of thinking it is a waste of time.

Women are bored, they don't have an incentive to really chase a guy for his money anymore. What the bored crave is attention and excitement, that feeling of new that takes them off their feet. Now because of that, it is those guys who market themselves in unique way and build a unique lifestyle that score the hottest girls.

The guy who decides to photograph models on the side, the guy who takes up hobbies that help him meet hot girls, the guy who takes a gig that helps in meeting women and the guy who creates the kind of value that is unique, creative and worth a second look that women want a part of.

Unfortunately, most men cannot be reasoned with. Most men are stuck in their old ways and convinced that their way is the only way, so they will get angry at the young guy who takes good pics for social media, call the guy trying to get a lot of Instagram followers a fag and rag on him for dedicating so much of this time to being more attractive to women by saying "all that for some pussy" but the reality is, these modern times are made for that guy.

[EndsExpect]

(11-09-2018 04:14 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Also, with high-def porn, I think many men are just choosing to be omegas and not bother with women in general, meaning the number of men who have taken themselves out of the relationship/marriage game is significant, especially when you factor poor male career prospects in many areas, now that those same jobs have been taken over by women, outsourced overseas, or eliminated by technology.

I didn't mention this... but you are very correct! It is a huge issue because it provides a thumb sucking mechanism for the low quality men. Porn kills their overall desire to improve themselves.

Over the years I have found that if you really dig deep into the female psyche... what most of them want is the ability to do whatever they please with no consequences. What they hate more than anything is responsibility. That's why the ones who seek out leadership positions tend to be horrific bitches.

Also... just in case everyone is confused about why all major western institutions are busy training boys to be beta as fuck... think about this for a moment. If you are at the top looking down... would it be easier to control a nation of thirsty beta losers? Or would you rather try dealing with a nation of Alphas? Which group do you think will be more submissive to government?

[Donfitz007]

One thing I have noticed is corny pick up lines in person work GREAT! As long as those pick up lines aren’t too sexual. Women 18-30 love corny.

[John Michael Kane]

(11-09-2018 05:11 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

One thing I have noticed is corny pick up lines in person work GREAT! As long as those pick up lines aren’t too sexual. Women 18-30 love corny.

I think it can be said more broadly that women just appreciate a sense of humor. A bit of corny can work just fine, and is a good filtering tool to see if a woman takes herself too seriously, or if she can laugh with you.

In general, it is fun to playfully accuse (key word is playfully!) women of all kinds of things. I've accused girls of only wanting a relationship with me because I'm a good cook. I've told them if they want me to make dinner with them, I get to go to her house and steal the food from her fridge for ingredients. Bottom line is, if you test and joke around, it helps filter out bitchy girls and filter in good ones.

[questor70]

(11-09-2018 04:35 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Porn kills their overall desire to improve themselves.

But simultaneously so do dating apps for women.

[John Michael Kane]

(11-09-2018 05:30 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 04:35 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Porn kills their overall desire to improve themselves.

But simultaneously so do dating apps for women.

Both forms of technology give too much access and too little incentive to improve. The illusion is that there are unlimited hot and sexually available women (porn) and for the women, the illusion that there are tons of men who will commit to her (online dating/social media). It is best if we disconnect as much as possible and form real close social circles organically.

[EndsExpect]

(11-09-2018 05:30 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 04:35 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Porn kills their overall desire to improve themselves.

But simultaneously so do dating apps for women.

Disagree.

Significantly fewer women than men even bother to use dating apps. Most women try them out for a short period and exclusively chase the "Hot Guys"... only to get pumped and dumped or treated like shit.

What kills the female drive to improve is our culture. Women are WAY more susceptible to marketing than men. I'm fairly convinced at this point that western women don't date men... they date stereotypes.

[Donfitz007]

Men are so (for lack of better words) a thirsty that women feel they can get away with any thing.

SMV isn't declining. I know this has been said but think about all the tinder/pof/okcupid/etc accounts. Countless accounts have women BRAGGING about the terrible qualities they have. Women also post cashapp links! Yet more and more men are going after them, giving such bad behavior validation.

I see it more and more often and it's sickening.

Women won't get better until men get better but here's the paradox. Men are working harder and harder and setting a higher and higher baseline, all for women who are worthless. The basic "requirements" of pre-2000s won't even stand in today's world. (cook, clean, not fat, feminine, etc) Yet we have more men learning game, working out, building financial success, dressing better etc.

one thing about the rise of the internet i love the most is, it shows the HUGE differences between men and women. You would think with the ease of obtaining information that the gap between men and women entrepreneurs would be close but no. Infact its so wide that there are hundreds of special grants, and funding that goes into female business owners specifically.

[1RationalDoc]

(11-09-2018 10:38 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

Men are so (for lack of better words) a thirsty that women feel they can get away with any thing.

SMV isn't declining. I know this has been said but think about all the tinder/pof/okcupid/etc accounts. Countless accounts have women BRAGGING about the terrible qualities they have. Women also post cashapp links! Yet more and more men are going after them, giving such bad behavior validation.

I see it more and more often and it's sickening.

Women won't get better until men get better but here's the paradox. Men are working harder and harder and setting a higher and higher baseline, all for women who are worthless. The basic "requirements" of pre-2000s won't even stand in today's world. (cook, clean, not fat, feminine, etc) Yet we have more men learning game, working out, building financial success, dressing better etc.

one thing about the rise of the internet i love the most is, it shows the HUGE differences between men and women. You would think with the ease of obtaining information that the gap between men and women entrepreneurs would be close but no. Infact its so wide that there are hundreds of special grants, and funding that goes into female business owners specifically.

I agree absolutely. Not a decline of SMV, but more men with a scarcity mindset aka the thirsty beta orbiting.

When it comes to the online game, its all about followers, and your lifestyle. It works for guys like Christian Mcqueen ( @thecadclub), The Tate Brothers ( @cobratate and @talismantate) and Tony Tutouni (@lunatic_living).

Because these guys are wealthy through hard work of investing and vowing not to live that 8-5 job lifestyle.

Just take a look at their IG, and you see the true definition of being a G with fuck you money. Tony for instance (@lunatic_living) dosent give two cent what some tinder/IG toots write on her bio, and what she is looking for, and they know that too. These guys use online game not to look for chicks, but for HB9 and 10 to find them. Basically chicks are approaching them.

I agree with Roosh stance on an online game. If you just an average guy your best chance is to approach. I only use tinder when I'm traveling.

So if you dont have that fuck you money, then online game isnt worth it. Unless you somehow can fake it, like Bow Wow with his private jets lol.

[Kid Twist]

(11-07-2018 02:20 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

I think it is a combination of things:

1. Lack of strong father figures that encourage kind, sweet, feminine daughters. Too many absent dads, abusive dads or soyboi dads. None of these give a young girl the formation she needs to be a well-adjusted young woman.

2. Too much crappy food, combined with too many women taking legal and illegal drugs has really screwed with their bodies. SSRI's, birth control pills, and crappy food has made women in many parts of the West fat and sick. They feel as miserable as they look, and treat men accordingly.

3. Cultural Marxism and the constant anti-male fear-mongering has had an effect on many Western women. They are scared that according to feminists, there are tons of men going out there and raping girls left and right with no consequences. The "high education" system teaches them as much for four years, and how do you think they can relate to men after they are done with the brainwashing?

4. Online dating has screwed up the market like crazy. Tons of offers of cock (but no commitment) of higher-end alphas that blow middling and lower SMV womens' expectations up to be sky high. They can get plenty of sex, but the fuckboys aren't sticking around, hence the redirection of hate towards the beta male types that are their natural pairing.

5. Smartphone addiction outside of dating apps is making many women in the West socially retarded. There are few women who can actually put their phone down for an extended period of time and have true intimacy with a friend, much less a man.

6. Mass immigration from foreign countries, the majority of which has been male imports. You skew the market with too much cock, and women become scared/entitled when they are hit on constantly, especially if it is the IRT's or similar unwelcome advances.

Bottom line is, online dating is a near complete waste of time in the West if you're looking for a LTR/marriage. The best girls for serious relationships will only be found through social circle, church, etc. I think the only viable places you will find where online dating makes sense for a man trying to find a quality woman is where the woman in question has fairly low-quality guys to chose from in her own dating market. She feels lucky if you best the SMV/MMV of her local men, and works hard to gain your attention and commitment. I'm amazed on VietnamCupid, for instance, how many girls state they want marriage in their profile.

I don't recall EVER seeing an American woman, even if she is late 20's or 30's put that in her profile. It is amazing to me that even if they want marriage, they won't say it, because they want to be "independent" or something. Bottom-line is, get off the online dating scene if you're in the West and build a better social circle, or use online dating in the developing world to find a sweeter version of the woman you want who is looking for a quality man, and be that man of quality. That is all.

(11-07-2018 02:20 PM)Montrose Wrote:  

I think the question is not well framed. Consider an analogy with dowry. In certain countries (India), women (or her family) must pay the husband to get married. In other countries (Islamic), the husband pays money to the bride family. Marriage brings value to both participants, but depending on the culture either men or women must pay the cost of the deal.

Using that analogy we see that on certain sex markets, men must pay (in money or in time and effort) a certain amount to get pussy. Call that the cost of pussy. That amount depends on the market and varies with time. In a market where men are very horny/desperate and women very prudish, we expect the cost of sex to be very high (or in OP’s terms, the SMV of men to be very low). Conversely, in a market where women are ugly and easy like the West now, we would expect the cost of pussy to be very low or negative, but that is not the case. Cost of pussy seems to have increased. This is a paradox.

To solve this paradox we must see that the market is not a market for just resource (time/money) vs pussy. It is a market where commitment + resource are exchanged for pussy. Commitment from men has decreased to zero, so men must compensate with increased resource payment. If you ignore the commitment variable, you think that cost of pussy has increased, but it has not, because commitment has gone to zero.

Now what would happen if a man was willing to pay in commitment? It wouldn’t work because commitment is non enforceable! (Because of divorce and general promiscuity) So women value commitment rationally at zero. (Similar effect to Akerlof lemon model in microeconomy).

Hence my answer, market cost of pussy has increased (in apparence) because commitment from men is valued at zero due to promiscuity and destruction of marriage.

Note that cost of prostitution has *not* increased (they have gone down slightly according to the Economist magazine), which is consistent with my thesis. Because cost of prostitution has never included any commitment component.

I have to say, consecutive

[Kid Twist]

(11-09-2018 09:29 AM)InvoluntaryHermit Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:44 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

Your post is hard to understand. What does female behavior have to do with male SMV?

You saying that a man’s SMV is affected by women? The only thing a man’s SMV is affected by is himself, IMO.

Unless you’re talking about man’s inherent value to women?

Women's SMV is dictated by men and vice versa to a certain extent. Just like in any capitalist market (SMP) the value of products (men's or women's SMV) is dictated by what people are willing to pay. Men go for women and thus their SMV is dictated by men, and the opposite. The thing is women are setting their price way too fucking high so no one buys their product, or can't afford it...

Just like the other saying, "All SMV is local". So read my signature below.

[Kid Twist]

(11-09-2018 04:00 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

...

The greatest check that has ever existed on Hypergamy is limited resources. Women who have their basic needs unmet will look for a man to rely upon. Women who grow up with every financial need met will instead be driven much harder by hypergamy. They have their needs met, so they can risk producing babies with Alphas that bounce... or not having children at all.

Which leads me to the biggest point where I think you are wrong. It isn't women choosing to reproduce by themselves.... instead they choose not to have children at all.... because no suitable alphas make themselves available and many won't settle for a beta because their basic material needs are met.

Great stuff. On these hang all the rooshvforum law and the prophets

The problem is that we entered a 20-30 year period about 10-15 years ago, where until the economies/welfare of the West run out, women are running amok and men post here to diffuse how sucky it is to have lived during this time. "Enjoying the decline" gets old because mostly, if people are frank around here, it's with 6s from the west = who cares, ultimately.

[Dasein]

I think people are looking at the situation from the wrong point of view.

The real issue is that the average man is extremely low quality and that low quality men have perpetuated themselves for ages in all cultures through the institution of marriage and deliberately prohibiting women from providing for their own material needs. It is a mate-guarding strategy.

Prior to the social engineering project of Civilization we know that polygyny (one man with multiple women committed to him) was the main trend due to the percentages of male and female DNA. Polygyny is closest to our natural state and monogamy is an interesting deviation from it. Monogamy itself may be tied to the development of weapons, i.e., the practice is common because if one man threatened the genetic viability of another man, rather than have a contest of strength/quality, they could just use technology. So, marriage is then an arrangement wherein men of lower quality were able to secure reproductive success under threat of violence to superior men.

The strategy largely worked and became normalized. Most cultures also bred women for faithfulness-- they literally executed any woman known to have been unfaithful. That is a eugenic project that has actually had remarkable success. Despite all the horror stories, fewer than 4% of children have misattributed paternity: that means 96%+ of the time, the system worked.

However, in our present time the strategy is ceasing to be effective. Women no longer need a provider to meet their basic needs so they are not being held hostage. They have access to multiple social networks and travel is easier, so they are no longer able to be isolated or restricted to a small-town community. With changes to law, women can no longer be treated as property.

Thus, many of the pressures that created our mating system, one where even weak men could have reproductive success, are gone. So, what are we left with? I suspect it's a trend towards polygyny, where multiple women will want high value men and lower value men will not have reproductive success. This, in my opinion, is a better state of affairs than a system where men do not need to be excellent to reproduce.

The strategy of our time is: be excellent. 90% of this stuff is just showing up. The average man is poor, unhealthy, out of shape, untraveled, unassertive, and not exactly hard to be better than. So, just having a real career, working out, traveling, and being assertive is enough to be one of the "top 10%/20%/30% whatever % whiners say you need to be to get laid". This stuff is not that hard.

My thoughts are that all these shooting sprees and incels, etc. It's the execution of the unspoken threat of violence implied by the previous equitable marriage age. The thing is, it doesn't work anymore because conditions have changed. Threat of violence is not enough to allow inferior men to reproduce.

Luckily, I think excellence is more accessible than ever at the present time. And the rewards of being excellent are only getting higher.

[Kid Twist]

^ I think that you're missing the point of social cohesion and sanity that goes along with everything, making the entire social construct problematic. What happens if you're excellent but even 7s are scarce?

The only way any of us will know if the guy typing on the other end of these conversations is FOS is if we meet him, but there is no doubt that in the west the percentage of 7+ is crashing, and that is due to social and technological movements that provide major roadblocks to looks, youth, and truly feminine qualities.

Yes, an answer is global expansion. It's becoming clear to me that, at least for those who are beyond 30, it's actually not that hard vs. playing the lottery here.

[Swordfish1010]

The girls are definitely getting fatter/less sweet and also have higher expectations. It's twisted.