I agree with Rhyme or Reason, we shouldn't dwell in analysis but rather focus on action.
Want women?
1. Acquire game
2. Acquire fuck you money
3. Get in shape
Want women?
1. Acquire game
2. Acquire fuck you money
3. Get in shape
No. 1 Reason for Declining SMV in The West
the money part is the hardest. you cannot just become a millionaire overnight.thats why only a very small precentage of the worlds population are rich.
Is this going to turn into a money vs game thread
Hahahaha
Or working out doesn't matter.
Or working out doesn't matter.
Sadly I wasn't saying you needed all 3. I hope this doesn't turn into a debate
>>How many times are we going to cover the same tired old ground? What information in this thread is beneficial to the reader? Are we a group of doers or over analytical wankers?
If the underlying cause is unique to the developed western countries, then we need to know that, because then the solution is simple: move someplace else. In particular, if the welfare state is the underlying problem, there is no welfare state in poor countries and won't be for the foreseeable future. Provider game works that there now will continue to work.
By contrast, if smartphones are the problem, poor countries are no refuge.
The Philippines is a fine case study of western men's SMV plummeting in recent years, at least according to the various Philippines threads in the travel forum. But that plummeting SMV probably only applies to some men, the men running what Roosh calls clown game: hot tourist guy offering adventure sex to bored young girls. Smartphones eliminate boredom in girls and thus destroy the value of clown game. Whereas older guys playing what Roosh calls provider game with desperate single mothers should be unaffected by smartphones and their SMV should be as high as ever.
If the underlying cause is unique to the developed western countries, then we need to know that, because then the solution is simple: move someplace else. In particular, if the welfare state is the underlying problem, there is no welfare state in poor countries and won't be for the foreseeable future. Provider game works that there now will continue to work.
By contrast, if smartphones are the problem, poor countries are no refuge.
The Philippines is a fine case study of western men's SMV plummeting in recent years, at least according to the various Philippines threads in the travel forum. But that plummeting SMV probably only applies to some men, the men running what Roosh calls clown game: hot tourist guy offering adventure sex to bored young girls. Smartphones eliminate boredom in girls and thus destroy the value of clown game. Whereas older guys playing what Roosh calls provider game with desperate single mothers should be unaffected by smartphones and their SMV should be as high as ever.
I think I've got this issue pretty well fleshed out. I'd point to four major causes that explain the dating market crisis we're in today.
First, the two that are often correctly identified on here:
1. Overweightness*. An overweight population diminishes the supply of attractive women far more than the supply of attractive men. Big dudes can be, and often are, considered attractive. For some guys, their size is part of their appeal (football players, bodybuilders), and others are able to succeed in spite of their fatness (rich guys, guys with great faces/style/charisma/game). Big girls, on the other hand, are automatically undesirable to most men.
*I refuse to call it "obesity." It leads people who are merely overweight to believe they're not part of the problem.
2. Casual sex. If everyone pairs off 1-to-1, each individual should be able to land someone of similar value. But when casual sex is normalized and top guys build up rotations of multiple girls, that skews the ratio of people left on the market and forces regular men to date down (or not at all). Not only that, as I argue here, women who were EVER in higher value guys' rotations are often damaged goods, even if they aren't currently fucking anyone.
And now the two that are usually missed:
3. Older average marriage age. An older average marriage age means older people on the singles market. And just like an overweight dating market, an older dating market diminishes the viability of the women much more than that of the men. Think of it this way: In the old days, girls in their 20's were pursued almost exclusively by men in their 20's, because men in their 30's were nearly all paired off. Nowadays, girls in their 20's are pursued viably by men in their 20's AND the glut of single men in their 30's, who have little interest in the same-aged women whose value has depreciated to near zero. This effect exacerbates ratios that were skewed to begin with for people in their 20's.
4. It's all self-reinforcing. A skewed dating market means men have to try harder and women have to try less. Which sex do you see putting in serious effort at the gym? Which sex do you see taking supplements (and sometimes illegal substances) to help build an attractive body? Which sex do you see obsessing over what behavior patterns attract the opposite sex? Which sex do you see trying to optimize their clothing and style to attract the opposite sex? (Women may be more into fashion and style, but for them it's about crafting an image, not appealing to men.) Which sex do you see putting in effort to meet more people of the opposite sex, be it at bars, clubs, singles events, online dating, or on the street?
This effort gap skews the dating market even further, which necessitates an even larger effort gap, which skews the dating market even further... you see where this is headed. It's a feedback loop. And eventually, it reaches a singularity where overcoming the horribly skewed dating market becomes a virtually mandatory skill for men to spend hundreds of hours perfecting, while women's version of "game" is expressing their love for pizza and telling men to fuck off if they're not into dogs.
First, the two that are often correctly identified on here:
1. Overweightness*. An overweight population diminishes the supply of attractive women far more than the supply of attractive men. Big dudes can be, and often are, considered attractive. For some guys, their size is part of their appeal (football players, bodybuilders), and others are able to succeed in spite of their fatness (rich guys, guys with great faces/style/charisma/game). Big girls, on the other hand, are automatically undesirable to most men.
*I refuse to call it "obesity." It leads people who are merely overweight to believe they're not part of the problem.
2. Casual sex. If everyone pairs off 1-to-1, each individual should be able to land someone of similar value. But when casual sex is normalized and top guys build up rotations of multiple girls, that skews the ratio of people left on the market and forces regular men to date down (or not at all). Not only that, as I argue here, women who were EVER in higher value guys' rotations are often damaged goods, even if they aren't currently fucking anyone.
And now the two that are usually missed:
3. Older average marriage age. An older average marriage age means older people on the singles market. And just like an overweight dating market, an older dating market diminishes the viability of the women much more than that of the men. Think of it this way: In the old days, girls in their 20's were pursued almost exclusively by men in their 20's, because men in their 30's were nearly all paired off. Nowadays, girls in their 20's are pursued viably by men in their 20's AND the glut of single men in their 30's, who have little interest in the same-aged women whose value has depreciated to near zero. This effect exacerbates ratios that were skewed to begin with for people in their 20's.
4. It's all self-reinforcing. A skewed dating market means men have to try harder and women have to try less. Which sex do you see putting in serious effort at the gym? Which sex do you see taking supplements (and sometimes illegal substances) to help build an attractive body? Which sex do you see obsessing over what behavior patterns attract the opposite sex? Which sex do you see trying to optimize their clothing and style to attract the opposite sex? (Women may be more into fashion and style, but for them it's about crafting an image, not appealing to men.) Which sex do you see putting in effort to meet more people of the opposite sex, be it at bars, clubs, singles events, online dating, or on the street?
This effort gap skews the dating market even further, which necessitates an even larger effort gap, which skews the dating market even further... you see where this is headed. It's a feedback loop. And eventually, it reaches a singularity where overcoming the horribly skewed dating market becomes a virtually mandatory skill for men to spend hundreds of hours perfecting, while women's version of "game" is expressing their love for pizza and telling men to fuck off if they're not into dogs.
^No offense Delta, but I personally feel like a lot of guys in the manosphere/on the internet overstate how hypergamous most women really are.
I'm a young guy in my early twenties. I've put a good amount of effort into my fitness and game over the years, but all in all, I'm not some dark triad chad. I've been in a great relationship for two years with an attractive girl who loves me. Most of my friends either are or have been in a similar situation. We're all relatively normal guys with normal lives. I have a high notch count as a result of discovering game in my mid teens, but most of my friends don't. Regardless, very few people in my social circle are completely luckless with women.
This applies to guys all over the place. In college, I'd routinely see hot girls with relatively average guys. Even at my workplace, most of my coworkers -- also relatively average people -- are either dating or are married to cute girls.
In the realm of pure casual sex, women obviously have an advantage, but we're not living in some hypergamous nightmare by any means.
Similarly, I realized that a lot of the girls I had in my "rotations" weren't necessarily damaged, hypergamous, or particularly bad people at all. I just wasn't actually that into them and didn't feel a deeper connection beyond sex. Deep down, I wanted a relationship, and kept getting disappointed when these "hypergamous, cold-hearted women" ghosted me -- either to bang someone else or to date a guy they actually liked. I think a lot of people mistake their lack of compatibility with women for a massive social issue.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in the game/manosphere community. Honestly, I feel like gurus like RSD created these ideas just to make game seem like more of a necessity and therefore sell more shit. I think it's true that 20% of all guys are banging 80% of all girls in terms of pure casual sex, but the ratio is a lot more equitable when it comes to actual relationships.
I'm a young guy in my early twenties. I've put a good amount of effort into my fitness and game over the years, but all in all, I'm not some dark triad chad. I've been in a great relationship for two years with an attractive girl who loves me. Most of my friends either are or have been in a similar situation. We're all relatively normal guys with normal lives. I have a high notch count as a result of discovering game in my mid teens, but most of my friends don't. Regardless, very few people in my social circle are completely luckless with women.
This applies to guys all over the place. In college, I'd routinely see hot girls with relatively average guys. Even at my workplace, most of my coworkers -- also relatively average people -- are either dating or are married to cute girls.
In the realm of pure casual sex, women obviously have an advantage, but we're not living in some hypergamous nightmare by any means.
Similarly, I realized that a lot of the girls I had in my "rotations" weren't necessarily damaged, hypergamous, or particularly bad people at all. I just wasn't actually that into them and didn't feel a deeper connection beyond sex. Deep down, I wanted a relationship, and kept getting disappointed when these "hypergamous, cold-hearted women" ghosted me -- either to bang someone else or to date a guy they actually liked. I think a lot of people mistake their lack of compatibility with women for a massive social issue.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in the game/manosphere community. Honestly, I feel like gurus like RSD created these ideas just to make game seem like more of a necessity and therefore sell more shit. I think it's true that 20% of all guys are banging 80% of all girls in terms of pure casual sex, but the ratio is a lot more equitable when it comes to actual relationships.
Great post by Delta. Here's an excerpt from one of his previous posts that he linked, that I think is worth reading again:
However, I somewhat disagree with the bolded statement. That seems like apex fallacy to say that men have chosen the betrayal option. Some men have indeed become players. But most men I know still have chosen the proper life path, working hard in their 20s and settling down with less than optimal women, sometimes older than themselves.
Back in my suburban hometown, most of the productive young men I knew were content with the quiet life. It was the girls who were bored and moved to the city, even when there were jobs in the suburbs. I have no doubt that if more girls had stayed, fewer young men would have felt the need to move to the city.
Caveat: I come from a high-achieving upper middle class demographic/area, so my perception of the dating market is not necessarily representative of the USA or Anglosphere as a whole.
Quote:Delta Wrote:
The idea that:
-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans
-Like a prisoner's dilemma, it requires sacrifice on both sides that is ultimately beneficial to both sides
-It must be socially enforced to be the norm
-If it is not socially enforced, the societal consequences are disastrous
-Its social enforcement in our society is waning, the disastrous consequences have already begun, and they are going to get much worse.
...
The prisoner's dilemma has played out. In 2018, both genders have chosen "betray"; trying to have it all, and as a result, receiving nothing. The results aren't pretty, and they will not be getting prettier any time soon. I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.
However, I somewhat disagree with the bolded statement. That seems like apex fallacy to say that men have chosen the betrayal option. Some men have indeed become players. But most men I know still have chosen the proper life path, working hard in their 20s and settling down with less than optimal women, sometimes older than themselves.
Back in my suburban hometown, most of the productive young men I knew were content with the quiet life. It was the girls who were bored and moved to the city, even when there were jobs in the suburbs. I have no doubt that if more girls had stayed, fewer young men would have felt the need to move to the city.
Caveat: I come from a high-achieving upper middle class demographic/area, so my perception of the dating market is not necessarily representative of the USA or Anglosphere as a whole.
I wonder how much worse Jonathan Soma's data looks now ... that was from 2012, Delta. Breathtakingly awful at that time. Again, please read my siggie below. ![[Image: idea.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/idea.gif)
Quote: (11-13-2018 09:38 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:
I agree with Rhyme or Reason, we shouldn't dwell in analysis but rather focus on action.
Want women?
1. Acquire game
2. Acquire fuck you money
3. Get in shape
You don't get it, that takes actual work and actually doing something to make that happen.
1. Game means not just going out talking to random women you don't know but it has so many aspects to it. Online game means having good photos which reflect a life she would care enough to be a part of. Night game means going out to those evil bars and nightclubs with those hedonists running around, if only those fools would read philosophy on their spare time. Day game means getting away from your usual habits and actually talking to women, its too much.
You might even have to think outside the box and get creative here but at that point you're just putting pussy on the pedestal.
2. Money takes hard work too, it takes working in a job that pays well even if it doesn't mentally interest you. It means, dare I say, working long hours which is so not cool because you are potentially working for the man. It means taking risks that can pay off, fuck that!
3. Getting in shape means conforming to what society wants instead of being a guy that is actually in shape. It means actually looking good so people see you in a better way which means you care about how people see you. Fuck that too!
Now how many men in this day age and are even willing to work on any of that? Very few to be honest. Most modern men find it more comforting to point fingers and take the easy way out. They cope by trying to act high and mighty towards the idea of sex and relationships, come off as above it all and enlightened in order to preserve their ego.
So fuck all that shit, lets just talk about how awful women are, how much society sucks, how millennials or boomers (take your pick) made shit go haywire and protect our egos.
Quote: (11-14-2018 08:52 PM)Jaxon Wrote:
^No offense Delta, but I personally feel like a lot of guys in the manosphere/on the internet overstate how hypergamous most women really are.
I'm a young guy in my early twenties. I've put a good amount of effort into my fitness and game over the years, but all in all, I'm not some dark triad chad. I've been in a great relationship for two years with an attractive girl who loves me. Most of my friends either are or have been in a similar situation. We're all relatively normal guys with normal lives. I have a high notch count as a result of discovering game in my mid teens, but most of my friends don't. Regardless, very few people in my social circle are completely luckless with women.
This applies to guys all over the place. In college, I'd routinely see hot girls with relatively average guys. Even at my workplace, most of my coworkers -- also relatively average people -- are either dating or are married to cute girls.
In the realm of pure casual sex, women obviously have an advantage, but we're not living in some hypergamous nightmare by any means.
Similarly, I realized that a lot of the girls I had in my "rotations" weren't necessarily damaged, hypergamous, or particularly bad people at all. I just wasn't actually that into them and didn't feel a deeper connection beyond sex. Deep down, I wanted a relationship, and kept getting disappointed when these "hypergamous, cold-hearted women" ghosted me -- either to bang someone else or to date a guy they actually liked. I think a lot of people mistake their lack of compatibility with women for a massive social issue.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in the game/manosphere community. Honestly, I feel like gurus like RSD created these ideas just to make game seem like more of a necessity and therefore sell more shit. I think it's true that 20% of all guys are banging 80% of all girls in terms of pure casual sex, but the ratio is a lot more equitable when it comes to actual relationships.
I agree. It really isn't that bad out there. The idea that 20% of men are banging 80% of the women is probably somewhat true, but it's not because women are so hypergamous that they'll only fuck ripped millionaires, but rather that only 20% of men are actually really putting themselves out there and taking any real significant action.
It's probably the same small percentage of men that can actually execute in other areas of their lives too which widens the gap between them and the average man even more. For example most men I work with are soft and don't even have the discipline not to sit around eating cakes and biscuits all day, and I work in a very masculine profession where physical fitness and bravery is important.
Oveckin,
Not judging here but the story of a surgeon’s son who came from a model Irish family who is forced to frequent the Swiss halfworlds for harlots sounds like a tragic story from the pen of Oscar Wilde.
Not judging here but the story of a surgeon’s son who came from a model Irish family who is forced to frequent the Swiss halfworlds for harlots sounds like a tragic story from the pen of Oscar Wilde.
Combination of 1 and 2.
Quote: (11-14-2018 08:52 PM)Jaxon Wrote:
^No offense Delta, but I personally feel like a lot of guys in the manosphere/on the internet overstate how hypergamous most women really are.
I'm a young guy in my early twenties. I've put a good amount of effort into my fitness and game over the years, but all in all, I'm not some dark triad chad. I've been in a great relationship for two years with an attractive girl who loves me. Most of my friends either are or have been in a similar situation. We're all relatively normal guys with normal lives. I have a high notch count as a result of discovering game in my mid teens, but most of my friends don't. Regardless, very few people in my social circle are completely luckless with women.
This applies to guys all over the place. In college, I'd routinely see hot girls with relatively average guys. Even at my workplace, most of my coworkers -- also relatively average people -- are either dating or are married to cute girls.
In the realm of pure casual sex, women obviously have an advantage, but we're not living in some hypergamous nightmare by any means.
Similarly, I realized that a lot of the girls I had in my "rotations" weren't necessarily damaged, hypergamous, or particularly bad people at all. I just wasn't actually that into them and didn't feel a deeper connection beyond sex. Deep down, I wanted a relationship, and kept getting disappointed when these "hypergamous, cold-hearted women" ghosted me -- either to bang someone else or to date a guy they actually liked. I think a lot of people mistake their lack of compatibility with women for a massive social issue.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in the game/manosphere community. Honestly, I feel like gurus like RSD created these ideas just to make game seem like more of a necessity and therefore sell more shit. I think it's true that 20% of all guys are banging 80% of all girls in terms of pure casual sex, but the ratio is a lot more equitable when it comes to actual relationships.
Good post.
By the way, welcome back Agastya/Bastard Sword! Why do you keep changing your handle over and over again?
Pussy ain't for pussies...
Quote: (11-14-2018 08:52 PM)Jaxon Wrote:This point gets brought up all the time. I was taught hypergamy is when a woman moves up if better options come. They have NO sense of loyalty and will leave or atleast cheat when a better option comes around.
^No offense Delta, but I personally feel like a lot of guys in the manosphere/on the internet overstate how hypergamous most women really are.
I'm a young guy in my early twenties. I've put a good amount of effort into my fitness and game over the years, but all in all, I'm not some dark triad chad. I've been in a great relationship for two years with an attractive girl who loves me. Most of my friends either are or have been in a similar situation. We're all relatively normal guys with normal lives. I have a high notch count as a result of discovering game in my mid teens, but most of my friends don't. Regardless, very few people in my social circle are completely luckless with women.
This applies to guys all over the place. In college, I'd routinely see hot girls with relatively average guys. Even at my workplace, most of my coworkers -- also relatively average people -- are either dating or are married to cute girls.
In the realm of pure casual sex, women obviously have an advantage, but we're not living in some hypergamous nightmare by any means.
Similarly, I realized that a lot of the girls I had in my "rotations" weren't necessarily damaged, hypergamous, or particularly bad people at all. I just wasn't actually that into them and didn't feel a deeper connection beyond sex. Deep down, I wanted a relationship, and kept getting disappointed when these "hypergamous, cold-hearted women" ghosted me -- either to bang someone else or to date a guy they actually liked. I think a lot of people mistake their lack of compatibility with women for a massive social issue.
There's a lot of doom and gloom in the game/manosphere community. Honestly, I feel like gurus like RSD created these ideas just to make game seem like more of a necessity and therefore sell more shit. I think it's true that 20% of all guys are banging 80% of all girls in terms of pure casual sex, but the ratio is a lot more equitable when it comes to actual relationships.
The MGTOW counter to your belief is "Cock Carousel". This is when women sleep around for a certain amount of time to get the "hoe" out her system and settle for a less than man until something better comes around. College USED to be the time to do this but with social media and easier access to transportation, girls are doing this in their early to mid teens. It's not rare to find an 18 year old girl with a notch count in the 20's
I'm not here to tell you-you're wrong, Due to confirmation bias we can both find evidence that supports and even "proves" we're both right. I like your opinion and took it into consideration.
Also the high SMV men don't want to commit to a single woman, so of course the best looking women end up in relationships with lesser men. This isn't the rule ofcourse just my viewpoint.
Hypergamy was first used in the English language in a book about India’s caste system.
As far as I’m aware Roger Devlin, a socially conservative Roman Catholic, who took part in the pre-smartphone Game forums, transposed the term to manosphere parlance.
As far as I’m aware Roger Devlin, a socially conservative Roman Catholic, who took part in the pre-smartphone Game forums, transposed the term to manosphere parlance.
Gendernomics’ Book Value offers some explanation by comparing 1938 and 2008’s women’ expectations.
“The greatest gains observed came in the form of Education/Intelligence that went from 11th place in 1938 to 4th in 2008. Sociability, rising from 12th to 6th place, Good financial prospect,rising from 17th to 12th place, finally good looks rising from 12th place to 6th place.”
https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/11/02/g...ook-value/
“The greatest gains observed came in the form of Education/Intelligence that went from 11th place in 1938 to 4th in 2008. Sociability, rising from 12th to 6th place, Good financial prospect,rising from 17th to 12th place, finally good looks rising from 12th place to 6th place.”
https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/11/02/g...ook-value/
It's an effect of living in what sociologist Jacques Ellul called "The Technological Society."
As society became more technological, traditional groups such as church and family began to disintegrate leading to isolation of the individual. This creates a social group called "mass society." Mass society is an undifferentiated, collective whole that can only find direction from appeals to the herd mentality of people. Basically, it is individuals stripped of all personal connections to any traditional group and are being shepherded and manipulated with never ending propaganda from a central authority. (Sounds like NPCs)
Another characteristic of the technological society is that society begins to depend on organization and standardization, which makes it impersonal as it relies on methods, protocol and instructions than human nature. This makes everything mechanical, which ultimately makes life inhuman. As Ellul said:
Such a living arrangement made the herd discontent so the central authority began to create distractions like sports and when those began to fail, it resorted to the promotion of sex as recreation. So it created sex education which mechanized the connection between men and women. The problem is that we aren't machines but emotional creatures. Note this also created the thirsty beta as it convinced him that he needed to anything for women to get sex as that made him a man.
While that was going on, the discontent of industrialized people drew some of them to the appeals of Marxism. As Ellul noted, the machine created the proletariat as it moved them from natural settings of village life to the unnatural isolated settings of industrial city life. So Marxism springs to life and infests our educational system which instructs people on methods and protocol. Some women, feeling regret about following the central authority's promotion of sex or just plain mad they never got male attention (natural reactions of emotional creatures), are weaponized by this. The central authority then uses these women to convince the other women that they are victims of oppression, a career is more important than a man, that traditional masculinity is toxic and courtship is rape, thus further severing the connection between the sexes and isolating the individual. Combine that with the entitled princess programming that the central authority sends out via retail and mass media and you have a disaster on your hands.
When profiting off of the herd, the central authority also markets to the lowest common denominator, so it uses cultural Marxists to degrade the standards of society until none exist.
The effects on the dating market is that in today's technological society, men have been reduced to a photo and bunch of statistics (IQ, credit score, salary and etc.) and they better not have voted for Trump. Meanwhile women are now able to wreck themselves however they want and still deserve the best man and shame on you for judging them in any way, shape or form. Add to it the thirsty beta phenomenon and the distraction called social media that was newly introduced by the central authority enabling all women to get a nonstop dopamine hit from said betas and you have a perfect storm.
As society became more technological, traditional groups such as church and family began to disintegrate leading to isolation of the individual. This creates a social group called "mass society." Mass society is an undifferentiated, collective whole that can only find direction from appeals to the herd mentality of people. Basically, it is individuals stripped of all personal connections to any traditional group and are being shepherded and manipulated with never ending propaganda from a central authority. (Sounds like NPCs)
Another characteristic of the technological society is that society begins to depend on organization and standardization, which makes it impersonal as it relies on methods, protocol and instructions than human nature. This makes everything mechanical, which ultimately makes life inhuman. As Ellul said:
Quote:Quote:
The machine, so characteristic of the nineteenth century, made an abrupt entrance into a society which, from the political, institutional and human points of view, was not made to recieve it; and man had to put up with it as best he can. Men now live in conditions less than human. Consider the concentration of our great cities, the slums, the lack of space, of air, of time, the gloomy streets and the sallow lights that confuse night and day. Think of our dehumanized factories, our unsatisfied senses, our working women, our estrangement from nature. Life in such an environment has no meaning. Consider our public transportation, in which man is only a parcel; our hospitals, in which he is only a number. Yet we call this progress...
The Technological Society Chapter One, Page Four
Such a living arrangement made the herd discontent so the central authority began to create distractions like sports and when those began to fail, it resorted to the promotion of sex as recreation. So it created sex education which mechanized the connection between men and women. The problem is that we aren't machines but emotional creatures. Note this also created the thirsty beta as it convinced him that he needed to anything for women to get sex as that made him a man.
While that was going on, the discontent of industrialized people drew some of them to the appeals of Marxism. As Ellul noted, the machine created the proletariat as it moved them from natural settings of village life to the unnatural isolated settings of industrial city life. So Marxism springs to life and infests our educational system which instructs people on methods and protocol. Some women, feeling regret about following the central authority's promotion of sex or just plain mad they never got male attention (natural reactions of emotional creatures), are weaponized by this. The central authority then uses these women to convince the other women that they are victims of oppression, a career is more important than a man, that traditional masculinity is toxic and courtship is rape, thus further severing the connection between the sexes and isolating the individual. Combine that with the entitled princess programming that the central authority sends out via retail and mass media and you have a disaster on your hands.
When profiting off of the herd, the central authority also markets to the lowest common denominator, so it uses cultural Marxists to degrade the standards of society until none exist.
The effects on the dating market is that in today's technological society, men have been reduced to a photo and bunch of statistics (IQ, credit score, salary and etc.) and they better not have voted for Trump. Meanwhile women are now able to wreck themselves however they want and still deserve the best man and shame on you for judging them in any way, shape or form. Add to it the thirsty beta phenomenon and the distraction called social media that was newly introduced by the central authority enabling all women to get a nonstop dopamine hit from said betas and you have a perfect storm.
This can be easily answered with capitalism; supply and demand. Women have so many options to choose from. 2 months ago I went out and banged a 6 (was going through a dry spell and needed some action). I met her on tinder and asked to see her profile. She had over 100 matches. It showed me some insight on how skewed the dating market is for men. Go to any bar or club and it always a cockfest (with the best ratio I have seen at 2.5 guys per girl). The ratio gets worse when you try to only look at the decent looking girls (6s and above). Delta made good points on the ratio because of delayed marriage and how now 20 year olds are competing with 30 year olds and above, and how more girls are overweight. I would also like to point out how immigration is affecting western civilization. First we are getting a larger pool of immigrants from repressed cultures. They add nothing to the dating pool (since Muslim girls are scared to date due to death threats) and skew the ratio more. Also since they tend to have 5 or more kids this affect is further amplified in the younger generations (since they are out breeding the natives who follow the normal dating culture). There is also the immigration of the elite of the developing countries or wealthy arabs to the west. When I spent a year on a student exchange in London I saw wealthy people from the gulf states, ghana and even Vietnam ( I knew this guy who was a son of a big politician ) who come to school to the west. They have the cash, cars and flair to get any lady they want and we have to compete with them. And again fewer women study than men abroad (from developing nations) since more emphases is put on sons getting an education and leading the family. So there is more of demand for women and that has increased their smv.
Quote: (11-14-2018 08:52 PM)Jaxon Wrote:
^No offense Delta, but I personally feel like a lot of guys in the manosphere/on the internet overstate how hypergamous most women really are.
I'm a young guy in my early twenties. I've put a good amount of effort into my fitness and game over the years, but all in all, I'm not some dark triad chad. I've been in a great relationship for two years with an attractive girl who loves me.Quote:Quote:We're all relatively normal guys with normal lives. I have a high notch count as a result of discovering game in my mid teens, but most of my friends don't. Regardless, very few people in my social circle are completely luckless with women.
Most of my friends either are or have been in a similar situation.
Quote:Quote:Even at my workplace, most of my coworkers --
This applies to guys all over the place. In college, I'd routinely see hot girls with relatively average guys.Quote:Quote:
also relatively average people -- are either dating or are married to cute girls.
In the realm of pure casual sex, women obviously have an advantage, but we're not living in some hypergamous nightmare by any means.
Hi man,
Next time you share this information it'd be handy to share town and city as what you describe is what seems to be a 'pussy paradise'.
Truth is the Sexual marketplace and overall hypergamy has never been this messed up for the most part and things are getting tougher. Most girls are really messed up and the huge amount of options these bitches have is out of control.
I lost a bang the other day in this 'pussy' paradise due to my terribly bad luck with logistics in a love motel. Took an UBER and told the complete story to the driver as I needed to let it out. The average looking Guy told me - dude, don't worry about being sexless for three months, I've been celibate for 3 years-. I felt sorry for him.
Among other stuff I've noticed on a daily basis that tell me otherwise as far as hypergamy are:
*My younger brother is struggling with girls. I will have to teach him some asshole game soon as he's 19 and he hasn't kissed any girl yet. Bad luck to him he is a nice, intelligent and good looking dude, that doesn't seem to be enough for the skanks in this fucking city*
*My best friend who's been in a 7 year LTR with a woman he doesn't love was really excited when I told him I was this close to get a surprising one night stand with a hottie but failed to reasons out of my control. That seemed to be impossible! He's invited me to try to wing it and if everything fails, try to bang some hookers. Paying for sex in a pussy paradise isn't hypergamy I guess*
*There was some tension between me and a good-looking white brazilian (no homo) whom I thought was trying to steal a lead from me in my workplace. That was a few months ago. Now the guy is in a LTR with one of the most average bitches there. Hadn't I know about game like I do now and I wouldn't think he is dating down but he is! the Thirst is real! He should have stayed in South brazil!
*I have a good friend of mine who's got the magic bundle. Decent game, good looks, tattoos, piercings and great logistics. He's smashed more than I have but he complains to me the quality he gets is not as high as he wants. Go figure, he's an 8 smashing 6s yet 8s seem to be really tough for him. I guess hypergamy is not real *
*Another friend of mine is still in a 8-year long ltr with a really ugly and fat chick. I mean I see my friend and I see her and it makes me feel bad. Not for him as he's in 'love'. But it makes me understand why I'm still alone. I won't date a fat bitch, and I don't give a f about being alone or cope with dryspells, i'll fight*
*I had the opportunity to be a back-up manager in my workplace for a month and was in charge of a new group of ladies. I couldn't bother trying anything out with none of the girls as all of them were chubby and kind of fat and I can't really stand that. Two months later nearly all the guys were hitting on them and they are not single anymore *
*Lots of busted and entitlted bitches by the hand of decently-looking men. Everyday, cousins of mine, friends, acquaintances for years*
Man If I were to keep putting examples I wouldn't be finished soon. But to partially agree to your thoughts, I want to tell you I've experienced the place you describe. I used to live in it. It was in my younger years in a different city. It was just exactly as you are describing it or even better. Fat guys by the hand of cute girls. Even nerdies had their share of women. White, sweet, and sexy latinas who were nice and fell in 'love' with you. Girls had to game you as they were competing with each other.
News about that place spreaded fast all around the world and now the place is full of back-packers, incels and foreign guys who basically took the best already. That was Medellin between the 2000s and the 2010s.
Guess what happened about years of increasing tourism, dating apps, instagram and a surplus of Blonde and blue-eyed guys. Guess what? Medellin is not any easier now! haha. Check the Colombian master thread and what it seemed to be a cakewalk is now harder even for my fellow rooshvfers from the west! Now you have to use Game in Colombia. We locals didn't have to use much game 10 years ago imagine how things were like for westerners.
Good news is Game is our only hope regardless of the sexual market place we live in and our 'status'. Cheers to all. My rant is over. I hope dating apps and instagram die soon. Not going to happen though. Adapt and keep going.
A lot of posters don't seem to realise that there was never a time when getting good looking women was easy other than through college or university. I've been going out regularly for about 19 years and even back then you were competing for women with professional footballers, gangsters, security, and all the other typical nightlife characters. If anything I'd say it's easier now because women have a much more casual attitude towards sex.
With all the knowledge that's out there now because of the internet when it comes to game, fashion, training, grooming, sexual skills, etc., there's never been a better time for somebody that wants to have success with women. I started going to bars and clubs at 15 and I didn't even go on the internet until I was 16, and even then it was for a couple of hours a week at college for school work. We had to work it all out for ourselves. The women didn't look as good as they do now back then either (less fat ones though), and there was way less integration between different races other than black male white female. I'd love to be a teenager coming up in this day and age because all the tools are there to build whatever life you want, young men really don't know how lucky they are.
With all the knowledge that's out there now because of the internet when it comes to game, fashion, training, grooming, sexual skills, etc., there's never been a better time for somebody that wants to have success with women. I started going to bars and clubs at 15 and I didn't even go on the internet until I was 16, and even then it was for a couple of hours a week at college for school work. We had to work it all out for ourselves. The women didn't look as good as they do now back then either (less fat ones though), and there was way less integration between different races other than black male white female. I'd love to be a teenager coming up in this day and age because all the tools are there to build whatever life you want, young men really don't know how lucky they are.
I've been thinking about this again and thought of this thread. More so when I saw the Roosh tweet about birth rates and spring break in Texas. Along with my previous reasons I actually believe the main problem is the culture now. Even if you have a good girl the culture surrounds her everywhere including other people. I can understand why people would not want to have children with lack of suitable females along with the culture.
You can find a good girl and she can stay good as I have but the culture is not one that makes for healthy relationships or healthy upbringing of children. For every 1 person who is wanting good relationships and children, the other 99 are encouraging the downfall with divorce, single mothers and so on.
I like this tweet as well. The main thing women have to offer is their looks and these are fleeting as we know. They waste their prime 18-25 and no of any worth wants used up sloppy seconds with declining looks.
You can find a good girl and she can stay good as I have but the culture is not one that makes for healthy relationships or healthy upbringing of children. For every 1 person who is wanting good relationships and children, the other 99 are encouraging the downfall with divorce, single mothers and so on.
I like this tweet as well. The main thing women have to offer is their looks and these are fleeting as we know. They waste their prime 18-25 and no of any worth wants used up sloppy seconds with declining looks.
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/IntjOnfire/status/1106234632595533825][/url]
Quote: (03-15-2019 02:43 AM)Kieran Wrote:
there's never been a better time for somebody that wants to have success with women.
I think the issue is what happens after you have success with women. You have the enjoy the decline crowd on the one hand; then you have have the fix society types. Success with women is only satisfactory until you get playing the field out of your system, then it becomes a highly nihilistic existence.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)