[jeffreyjerpp]

(01-05-2019 11:33 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

There's basically an entire "hidden economy" of dating that takes place in the swipes and texts of women with SMVs 6+ and men with SMVs 9+. There is a constant flow of communication and sex between these groups that results in reduced activity among the other groups. Low SMV individuals both male and female (say 3s and below) are essentially incel and entirely out of the modern dating market. This leaves female 4s and 5s, who are below the standards of the highest value men and get no attention from them, to serve as the dating pool for male 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s and 8s. The problem then becomes apparent: you have a much smaller pool of available women for the average and even above-average man. The female 4s and 5s, initially saddened that they can't get the attention of the male 9s, are quickly comforted by the realization that they can get an endless supply of sex and attention from those thirsty male 4-8s. So they take full advantage of the cock buffet the dating apps provide, making up for their lack of quality with pure quantity. It makes the average girl feel sexy and desirable to know that she can have the attention of so many men. Hence the modern phenomenon of the 5 who thinks she's an 8 - from her dating app perspective, she really thinks she is. This is why 4s and 5s are the sluttiest women - the dating apps enable it, and their serial promiscuity serves to persuade them that they are more sexually desirable than they really are.

The end result is stratification of the dating market, as this study demonstrates. The highest-value men have unprecedented access to all the attractive women, while even above-average men are left with essentially scraps. Women in the 6-8 range will spend years hoping to luck upon their Prince Charming, and if they don't will eventually settle for a guy with lower SMV before the wall hits. But by that point they've been embittered by years of pump and dumps and broken promises from higher value men. Not a good recipe for a happy marriage, or a for that matter a healthy society.

This is the real red pill: the natural human sexual market is a brutal, winner take all harem system. It is radically, destructively unequal, and dating apps have simply revealed what many of us already knew, which is that every 6+ woman instinctively wants to bang a Chad harem-master, and will only tolerate anything less under strict social conditioning.

Obviously, this "natural" arrangement is wildly out of sync with having a functional society. 99% of tax paying, law abiding men get less out of society now than they contribute, and effectively subsidize the Chad-harem model involuntarily, especially via taxation.

Not to worry though- nature punishes any society that allows primitive impulses to run rampant:

"The sexually transmitted infection (STI) is gaining resistance against antibiotics, according to medics who say cases are soaring in Britain.

A report by Public Health England (PHE) has revealed resistance to three of the key drugs used to treat the infection - ciprofloxacin, cefixime and azithromycin - has grown.
...
Figures from 2017 show ciprofloxacin is now powerless in 36.4% of cases of gonorrhoea - a rise from 33.7% in 2016.

While azithromycin was resistant in 9.2% of cases compared to 4.7% the year before."

dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/751802/super-gonorrhoea-uk-epidemic-sti-std-antibiotic-resistant

Thanks to increasing Chad harems and low IQ third worlders flooding the West, it is only a matter of time until a massive, untreatable STD epidemic breaks out. My prediction is within the next decade. Only then will healthier social norms, especially slut shaming, return.

[jeffreyjerpp]

I should add to my previous post: the winner take all Chad harem sexual market, which brutally discards most humans in it's evolutionary wake, is the source of almost all sexual anxiety, coping, and cognitive dissonance.

Seriously- when women talk about body shaming, slut shaming, call men "pedophiles" for thinking 18 yr old girls are hot, rant about "rape culture", etc, they are just manifesting different anxieties related to Chad and his harem. Usually, the fact that they would never be included in it.

When men white knight, cock block, promote feminism, socialism, they are compensating for the devastating knowledge that they will never be Chad or have a harem. That, or attempting to reorganize society where they themselves get to exploit women like Chad would, hence the plague of rapey male feminists.

[supporttheright]

The top 10% of men must be paying the most child support! No wonder I never have any money

[AneroidOcean]

(01-05-2019 01:48 PM)a beer is enough Wrote:  

Yeah, guys who look better, have more interesting photos and can put together an amazing dating profile will get more play than some dude with selfies all over the app.

This guy fucks.

(01-05-2019 03:53 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:19 PM)Nefarias Wrote:  

Ok I'm gonna go against the flow and say that

In my area there is a lot of Chads on tinder and guess what - they are all the same boring shirtless selfie and "look at my car bro" types. There are girls that like them no doubt, but most girls still prefer the old "get to know you a little" before having sex (or at least pretend they do). And she wants to talk to somebody who is interesting and can talk about variety of topics other than lifting and cars. If I'm a girl I'm not gonna go on a date with some meathead and risk his roid rage. Instead I would go for this above average guy (being above average is honestly rather easy - just dont be fat and have good hygiene and style... And be tall) to have a drink and maybe something happens.

You need to wake up bro. You're living in la la land. Chicks are rubbing one out to jacked masculine men, firemen, and black dudes with 12 inch dicks.

Your theory of women dating a smooth talking salesman with good style is a concocted by men too lazy to hit the gym to improve themselves. And yes, women will eventually date these men, after they've had their fun with other men who had no interest in them as something more than a one night lay.

I know it's sad, but it's reality.

This guy also fucks and the guy he replied to does not fuck.

No guy that fucks says, "If I'm a girl I'm not gonna go on a date with some meathead and risk his roid rage"

That's some Grade A feminine made up fantasy bullshit.

The interesting statistic would be to see how many NUMBERS are given out (not that this equates to a bang or even a date/meetup but it's the closest things the apps could know). I bet that number (pun intended) would be far higher. like 70+ percent of the women would be giving it to the top 15-20% of guys (or smaller percentage).

These statistics are always interesting, though.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(01-07-2019 02:36 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

The interesting statistic would be to see how many NUMBERS are given out (not that this equates to a bang or even a date/meetup but it's the closest things the apps could know). I bet that number (pun intended) would be far higher. like 70+ percent of the women would be giving it to the top 15-20% of guys (or smaller percentage).

These statistics are always interesting, though.

I am sure these have been featured multiple times, but worth mentioning are the male model Tinder experiments, particularly those in which the model is depicted as a mega douche or criminal. They still get tons and tons of matches, numbers, and even women agreeing to come to his residence specifically for sex.




cheezburger.com/3017733/guy-conducts-twisted-experiment-on-tinder-as-fake-child-rapist-and-gets-horrifying-results

Evolution has enabled women to make any mental excuse imaginable in order to get access to Chad harem master. Understand this and understand game better.

Edit: French Chad causes outrage by explicitly saying youth is a qualification for his harem, sending all sub 7 women into a hysterical spiral:

"A high-profile French author and television presenter has triggered uproar by asserting that would be “incapable” of loving a woman aged over 50.

Yann Moix, himself 50, told Marie-Claire magazine’s French edition that women in their 50s were simply “invisible” to him.

“Come on now, let’s not exaggerate! That’s not possible … too, too old,” said Mr Moix, who has won several literary prizes including the prestigious Prix Goncourt, adding that women in their 50s were “invisible” to him.

“I prefer younger women’s bodies, that’s all. Full stop. The body of a 25-year-old woman is extraordinary. The body of a woman of 50 is not extraordinary at all,” he told the magazine in an interview on his new book, Rompre (Breaking Up).
........
The comments sparked outrage on social media.

Valérie Damidot, presenter on top private French TV channel TF1, wrote on Twitter: “Yeah, fatso, us 50-somethings don’t want your microdick. Happy New Year to you too!”

The journalist and writer Colombe Schneck, aged 52, published a photo of a derrière on her Instagram account.

“Voila, the buttocks of a woman aged 52…what an imbecile you are, you don’t know what you’re missing, you and your tiny, paunchy brain.”

True top tier hamstering on the part of these ladies, eternally furious they will never win Chad's favor.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/07/french-star-author-50-sparks-outrage-claiming-incapable-going/

[a beer is enough]

(01-06-2019 12:16 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:11 PM)a beer is enough Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:21 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:48 PM)a beer is enough Wrote:  

I just do not relate with the complaints about dating apps at all or guys saying how you have to be in the top 10% to get anything off of them. As someone who is a minority, albeit above average looks, I have had some degree of success with various dating apps and when I had higher quality photos done I could get myself to having a date every week or every other week. Most of this success came when I was in NYC but still, my point stands. The same goes for guys complaining about social media and how it is ruining game, nothing is ruining game, you're just not adjusting or evolving as a guy.

In my mind I have no doubt that if most dudes who have these complaints would just get higher quality photos done, learn the art of marketing themselves well through their pics and show to the world their interesting lifestyle that they would succeed with these apps and capitalize on this revolution. Please see this life changer of a thread to learn how to get the best possible photos for dating apps. Maybe I am missing something here but I don't get this whole notion of you having to be a Jason Momoa lookalike with a million dollar bank account to have success with dating apps, you just don't.

Dating apps have made my life a lot easier and I think they are probably the biggest blessing to the game, they have cut out the middle man.

I remember the nights of going out to bars and nightclubs, chatting up a cute girl only to find that she came with her crew and a lot of times her boyfriend. The amount of time wasted by going on wild goose chases and only occasionally getting lucky was a pain in the ass. Even with a lot of daygame I found that most of the women who were good looking were out with their boyfriend in the vicinity and simply did not want to be bothered.

Dating apps have cut out the middle man of a boyfriend and cockblocking friends, if she likes you and chats, it is implied that fucking or at least a date are going to be involved. I would not be surprised to find that vast majority of guys on this forum who have had a high lay count have done so because they used dating apps, it has made the whole process so much easier.

So I really do not get any of the complaints at all.

Yeah, women are going to like hot guys the same way guys like hot girls.

Yeah, guys who look better, have more interesting photos and can put together an amazing dating profile will get more play than some dude with selfies all over the app.

Yeah, younger people that look good love to fuck and experiment.

The point is that we're not complaining as Scorpion thoroughly explained, but simply laying out the consequences Dating Apps have on the Dating Market! And believe me, whatever results you're currently getting... with a proper social circle & a tight NightGame crew you would've gotten much much more before the "smarphone era"! If you go back to Roosh's initial writing with his DC Wings... you'll pick up the difference right away with how they were able to disable the Grenades!

Also think about this way: if you're getting adequate results now, with all the competition out there... image what it would've been back then. Of course there would be less candidates... but your success ratio would've been higher... and then by trying more... you'd probably exceed your current total

I did not mean for it to come off as anyone on this thread complaining, Scorpion is an elite user for a reason and you're a great mind too.

As for your post, I doubt it. My thoughts with dating apps is that they have actually made the game more fair to some degree in the sense that the best man wins. From what I have observed, social circle game is a godsend for uglier and less attractive dudes to get girls out of their league and most of the times it depends on factors way out of your control and tons of drama from jealous guys.

Online dating is more fair in the sense that the better man on paper usually wins and a genetic shitshow cannot weasel his way into girls out of his league.

If it were not for online dating and dating apps, I would be struggling a lot more.

Ok I understand where you're coming from now it's cool! But when you're talking about results... exactly what are these results. I'm assuming we're talking about Bangs right! Because Dates & Numbers are nice, very nice, especially as confidence boosters... but they're not REAL results! Let's agree to disagree on this one... but I'm still convinced that without dating apps, the proportions (not the sheer amount, very important distinction)

of the results you're currently getting would be higher since women wouldn't have an unlimited selection... and you'd be able to convert more! No one will dispute that a Chad can accumulate bigger numbers on a dating app than he would if only live approaching... but in a world without these apps, his success ratio would still be higher in my opinion. And with the Chads not having a look on Dime Pieces, your quality would be better as well!

It is always about the bang.

My issue with avenues like say social circle game is that a lot of it revolves around luck, growing up around the right popular people and peaking early as opposed to what you do yourself. In all truth I was never good at social circle game which is why I see it as a way for uglier men to weasel their way into top tier pussy but I find that online dating has made the game more just.

Back in the day, a 25 year old Chad who was out of school and on his own would have to either do cold approaches and rely on his old social circle. Now he can hop on a dating app with good photos and get a girl a week.

I really think online dating has presented women with the highest quality options in a way that Amazon has allowed us to shop for whatever we want without having to rely on a local supermarket.

[frankyja]

This new must be leaked by the nightclub industry lol. Bars and clubs are suffering big time from dating apps because not many dudes are wasting time there. Women also have gotten and prefer the instant attention they get from men without even dressing up to go out.

I think the end of these dating apps will be a very simple thing: GREED. Tinder and others will try to maximize their profits and completly ruin the experince. It has already started with their algos.

[a beer is enough]

(01-07-2019 05:06 PM)frankyja Wrote:  

This new must be leaked by the nightclub industry lol. Bars and clubs are suffering big time from dating apps because not many dudes are wasting time there. Women also have gotten and prefer the instant attention they get from men without even dressing up to go out.

I think the end of these dating apps will be a very simple thing: GREED. Tinder and others will try to maximize their profits and completly ruin the experince. It has already started with their algos.

Once again to side with the dating apps, you cannot blame guys because dating apps have cut out the middle man when it comes to chasing women. In most cases if you are a decent enough looking guy, it is as simple as having high quality pics (big thread on how to do this on this forum, obviously guys here are way ahead of the curve compared to most places) and swiping right. You match and that is all she wrote, you know there is interest and majority of the times she is single and looking for some kind of a relationship.

Compare this to going out at bars and nightclubs where women that look decent are usually out with a large crew, their boyfriends and to get wasted while fueling their party validation lifestyle. You make an approach only to find that after a while of chatting her up her friends are aggressively cockblocking or her boyfriend she never told you of is lurking around, all of this while having to talk over the music turned up at maximum volume so say goodbye to your hearing for the next few years.

Unless nightclubs and bars find a way to have a genuine singles night and exclude couples from coming to their venue (which they actually can't), most guys focused on getting laid will opt to go for dating apps while players with the cold approach skills will just go for daygame. The only reason nightclubs and bars appeal to me is because I actually love the party atmosphere with loud music playing while everyone has a good time, it is just more useful to go there with a crew and some friends than do it solo.

Dating apps are not going anywhere, it is like saying local supermarkets are going to beat out Amazon.

If Tinder slips up (which btw it is hardly as legit as it used to be), then you have Bumble and Hinge ready to take its place along with another dating app ready to hit the market hard as soon as an opening arises.

[Polniy_Sostav]

(01-05-2019 11:06 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  

1) Who the hell uses dating apps these days? You have to be a fool to do so because you are just validating 6s as 9s. Just go out and day and/or night game. Yeah, rejection sucks (as Roosh's book Game will note) and everyone knows the feeling of it but you miss 100% of the shots you do not take.
2) Is it any surprise that hypergamy is the name of the game for women. Women will shit on anyone who they perceive to be inferior but will do anything they can to get their hands on a man who they perceive to be alpha while acting almost violently against their competitors. Little different than what Jews will go to lengths to get the attention of the rising star while ignoring the low value options and plotting to get rid of the competition.

for the point number 1 , it s not because you are using dating apps that you are validating girls. I often have ironical comment on how ugly i find girls who could be considered 8's and write them in a very condescending & humiliating tone. I enjoy their agressive and immature reactions . On maybe 5% of them , when they have teh right IQ - I can start with something which might lead to a date..and i have a lower SMV than them in most of the cases. Some people are better at writing than talking. That s why I prefer online over uncomfortable oral situations. I have obviously met some girls at some parties but most would not find much interest in my body language. They can on the other hand (and especially if i do it my native language) very fast see a bright IQ in me when i type. I have always almost exclusively be seen as a potential serious husband than a night fuck. It is frustrating at times but on long time it s much better.
When the date is set online and I meet the girl , she has already given her OK to meet you. And all this without trying to interpret her polite smiles in a night club when you talk to a girl. Without mentioning that some girls can be a bit quirky if you meet them for the first time , with stress and/or fatigue.
Then when they talk to me during the date , they are already selected , and usually they find me more intellectual , clever , and calm than when I write when they thought I was a daunting guy with radical views.
Sometimes you ve got to mix it up a little bit. Use your strengths and weaknesses to your advantage.
I knew an alpha who would act well when writing and be a massive jackass when talking/meeting. i do the opposite.

[Aszhaeleos]

(01-07-2019 03:13 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  






Evolution has enabled women to make any mental excuse imaginable in order to get access to Chad harem master. Understand this and understand game better.

Its the halo effect. Women will automatically assume only positive things about you and short circuit any bad things if she is very physically attracted to you or your exceptional resources and status.

Its why I believe physical attractiveness always trumps game in the hookup. Game is important though for understanding and navigating female/societal pitfalls and personal development.

[Sgt Donger]

The guy in that pic looks gay as fuck. I bet it's a gay troll job.

[Ouroboros]

(01-07-2019 03:13 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

I am sure these have been featured multiple times, but worth mentioning are the male model Tinder experiments, particularly those in which the model is depicted as a mega douche or criminal. They still get tons and tons of matches, numbers, and even women agreeing to come to his residence specifically for sex.




cheezburger.com/3017733/guy-conducts-twisted-experiment-on-tinder-as-fake-child-rapist-and-gets-horrifying-results

Evolution has enabled women to make any mental excuse imaginable in order to get access to Chad harem master. Understand this and understand game better.

The bio is so outrageous that the women probably thought he was joking. In which case the experiment just indicates that women will forgive an inappropriate sense of humour if you look like a male model, which isn't surprising at all.

Of course there are plenty of examples of famous serial killers (not sure about paedophiles) receiving love letters in prison, so celebrity status is certainly enough to compensate for committing atrocities in the minds of a disturbingly large number of women. I'm not sure that looks alone can ever have the same power as fame though.

[atlant]

One huge thing being glossed over is that a huge reason this imbalance exists and girls get away with it is because of male thirst.

If guys, even top tier guys, stopped going after every 5 or 6 that comes their way, girls could not afford to be as picky. Guys should be as picky as girls are. Personally my rule has always been that I'd rather go home alone than with a girl below a 7. And I tend to swipe right maybe 1 out of 10 girls or even less. And sure I've slipped up here or there and I must also have missed out on a ton of bangs. And I've gone home alone a lot more than necessary. But I stick to it. By fucking low value girls just for the short term gratification, you give more power to women and you harm your fellow men. Or even your future son.

Just see the SEA threads for an extreme variant of this scenario, guys did this for years and now even the rattiest slum girls are realizing that they have the pick of the litter online. If those men had some self respect and skipped over the trash, this would not have happened.

Instead of just blaming girls for hypergamy it's time to take a moment and consider who and what enabled this in the first place.

[Seadog]

My personal fun tin foil hat theory is that we're seeing a fundamental shift in the way humans mate. In the past guys stood a pretty good chance of finding someone more or less in their league as life was hard, you truly had to be an exceptional male to be able to look after a harem and the kids that came with it. In such a world, a child's survival prospects would be much much higher with average genes, and a partner sticking around to hunt while the girl's pregnant in the cave vs. superior genes and left to fend for yourself while pregnant and with an infant.

In today's society however, a partner sticking around doesn't offer nearly as much advantage(some certainly, but not compared to dying), and girls know it. This on top of the fact that the vast majority or relations aren't anything to do with kids at all, so we're seeing a shift purely to the genes.

I'm really curious where the "neutral" point of response is. ie where do 1% of the guys get 1% of the likes, as in a perfectly matched world it would be all the way through, however with a Pareto distribution not so. The position of said point could be a numerical metric to track how much out of their league girls are aiming. The Seadog hypergamy index.

[the Thing]

Three thoughts;

1) I'm not surprised at all. I actually thought it would be a 80% -> 10% split. You know how the old saying goes, women don't compete they just hang out at the finish line and take the winners home.

2) It's not really competitive at all to go up to the top 10%. Create a girl profile on any of those swipe apps and see how horrendous most guys' profiles are. Assuming one is not seriously physically deformed, anyone could go spend $50 on a haircut, $500-600 on 2-3 new outfits, maybe throw in $100 to go to a tanning salon (or slam some Melanotan II) and $200 on a photographer. 2-3 solid pictures in a nice outfit would easily land any average/above-average looking guy into the top 10%. Actually not even that; go full steroids they're cheap and if you look jacked and juicy everything you wear will fit you well anyway.

All in 1000 dollars isn't a lot of money considering you're not investing in the app, you're investing in yourself.

* Unless you're fat of course. If you're fat, add $50-100/month to the budget for a gym membership and lose the lard.

3) With all being said, I completely agree with Scotian; fuck all those swipe apps. I'd rather be out talking to actual human beings than spending my time glued to a smartphone. Social skills are use-it-or-lose-it -- even if you have the best profile and can land date after date, if you come off as a total autist at the date because of inadequate human contact you're still not getting anywhere. Game is still king -- just think of the apps as a passive pussy stream.

At the end of the day. Even in a city like Vancouver (which many of you consider a single man's wasteland) it's possible to average 2-3 new notches/month assuming you're willing to lay down the ground work. And this is just from the apps not even including going out at night.

I'm not talking 6'4" 250lb jacked freaks or $5 grand Pal Zileri custom suits. Just decent facial features, a sharp haircut, clothes that fit well, high quality pictures featuring you doing cool shit.

Though I now kind of feel like 58% of this forum just prefers complaining that life isn't fair instead of doing something to get ahead.

Our survival as the human race is fully dependent on adaptation. Ever wonder why there aren't any blacksmith shops around anymore?

Because times change. You adapt or you become irrelevant.

Like it or not, the swipe apps are here to stay. Don't worry there are still girls there, they still fuck like usual.

Improve

[Echinox]

Sup dudes!

I've read this in more than just this one thread, that the dating app game is not fair and it should be changed.
But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?
I'm asking this because I think I know how to create an algorithm (thus a new app) that you won't be able to trick (as a woman) to appear sexier; but in the end, the highest value guys will get the best women.

[flyinghorse]

(01-08-2019 10:22 AM)Echinox Wrote:  

Sup dudes!

I've read this in more than just this one thread, that the dating app game is not fair and it should be changed.
But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?
I'm asking this because I think I know how to create an algorithm (thus a new app) that you won't be able to trick (as a woman) to appear sexier; but in the end, the highest value guys will get the best women.

Kind of.

My closest friend is better looking than me (6'4, 8 in the face, and charismatic) and yet I do way better online (he does better in bars).

He just chose bad pictures and insisted they were fine; he right swiped everyone (which lowers you on tinders algorithm for some reason), and I don't know for sure, but from the few messages he showed me - his text game is awful.

Online definitely works for some better than others and its not always the best in real life that come out on top.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(01-08-2019 10:22 AM)Echinox Wrote:  

But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?

"Fairness" isn't the main problem (women complain frequently about what is "fair"), more that dating apps have created a wildly unnatural and socially destructive situation.

I previously mentioned that human sexual markets tend towards harems, which is true. I should have been clearer about this, since what we see today are digitally enabled mega harems, as opposed to much smaller harems of the past.

Here is a photo of the harem of a modern king, Zofoa Ndofoa III of Cameroon:



By my count, he has 9 women. A high number, but he is a king after all.

A 1% turbo Chad in a major city could easily surpass that number in a month. Think about that- a top 1% guy with dating apps can easily surpass the KING of a third world country. Meanwhile, men in the 80th percentile will have to do ten times more work to get laid with women in a lower percentile. Men in the bottom half are incels, the sexual equivalent of the homeless.

Throughout most of history, an 8+ guy might have a harem with three women, perhaps his wife and then an additional mistress or two. Men in the bottom quarter might have a hard time with women, but could potentially still get a wife if they played their cards right. This is the organic distribution of winners and losers that we should see.

A game where a tiny group of participants win all the time, and no one else wins at all, is almost always rigged. In economies, this happens when lefitst bureaucrats, special interests, or oligarchs start interfering with the free market. This is exactly what we see now in dating markets. The turbo chads and 6+ women are having their winning subsidized in various ways by literally everyone else, and it is rapidly eating away at society. Most men are losing their incentive to improve themselves beyond a subsistence level, and if they even try it will not change their results.

Which leaves us in a situation where there is almost no household formation, and anyone who is not a Chad ends up massively depressed and alone, without realizing why.

Hopefully you can see why this needs to change.

[Seadog]

(01-08-2019 02:15 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 10:22 AM)Echinox Wrote:  

But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?

"Fairness" isn't the main problem (women complain frequently about what is "fair"), more that dating apps have created a wildly unnatural and socially destructive situation.

Thank you for reminding me about the female obsession with 'fairness'. It was a passing thought like a year ago and planning to make a thread but forgot.

How many times in business do you need to accommodate people you would prefer not to? Mat leave, them *having* to leave at 3 to pick up the kids, adjusting any physical requirement to accommodate women etc etc. Is it fair that as the single guy with no family commitments get stuck with more late nights? Is it fair that they get paid more and get promoted sooner? Depends where you're sitting I guess... But then, consistency and objectivity has never been their strong point.

Girl: "It's not fair that I get stuck with an inferior male."

Society: "OK, chase the same 1% as the other 30% of girls and leave the bottom 50% to hang themselves or stage a coup"

Girl: "He dumped me! It's not fair that after all my contributions of baking and sex that he not continue to support me forever at the lifestyle level I'm accustomed to"

Society: "That seems pretty reasonable..."

Girl: "Men and women are identical in every single way, If anything I deserve to be paid more than men because I have to accomplish the same amount of work in less time since I'm always away to deal with family issues"

Society: "Right on. You go girl!" Here are the physical requirements for for the Fire Dept"

Girl: "But pullups are haaaaaaaard"

Society: "Okay, see if you can bang out a handful of pushups on your knees then maybe?"

I find it fascinating that the sexual marketplace is the only place now where straight up Machiavellianism is accepted, encouraged, and getting worse, aside from illegal economies such as human trafficking or drugs. .

Inconsistencies such as this is what cause revolutions. Either embrace fairness and give the bottom half a shot at at least a wife/access to sex circa 1950, or have a no holds barred economic and sexual battle royal where the smart feast on the backs of payday loan clients and drug addicts.

[Echinox]

(01-08-2019 11:07 AM)flyinghorse Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 10:22 AM)Echinox Wrote:  

Sup dudes!

I've read this in more than just this one thread, that the dating app game is not fair and it should be changed.
But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?
I'm asking this because I think I know how to create an algorithm (thus a new app) that you won't be able to trick (as a woman) to appear sexier; but in the end, the highest value guys will get the best women.

Kind of.

My closest friend is better looking than me (6'4, 8 in the face, and charismatic) and yet I do way better online (he does better in bars).

He just chose bad pictures and insisted they were fine; he right swiped everyone (which lowers you on tinders algorithm for some reason), and I don't know for sure, but from the few messages he showed me - his text game is awful.

Online definitely works for some better than others and its not always the best in real life that come out on top.

So do you think the online apps should be changed and if so, what would you want to see different in them?

[flyinghorse]

(01-08-2019 11:27 PM)Echinox Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 11:07 AM)flyinghorse Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 10:22 AM)Echinox Wrote:  

Sup dudes!

I've read this in more than just this one thread, that the dating app game is not fair and it should be changed.
But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?
I'm asking this because I think I know how to create an algorithm (thus a new app) that you won't be able to trick (as a woman) to appear sexier; but in the end, the highest value guys will get the best women.

Kind of.

My closest friend is better looking than me (6'4, 8 in the face, and charismatic) and yet I do way better online (he does better in bars).

He just chose bad pictures and insisted they were fine; he right swiped everyone (which lowers you on tinders algorithm for some reason), and I don't know for sure, but from the few messages he showed me - his text game is awful.

Online definitely works for some better than others and its not always the best in real life that come out on top.

So do you think the online apps should be changed and if so, what would you want to see different in them?

I don't want anything to change because its working out fine for me.

[Bienvenuto]

(01-08-2019 02:15 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 10:22 AM)Echinox Wrote:  

But I never got why it is not fair? Shouldn't those with higher value (a.i. better looking) receive more interest from women? In the end, that is what this branch of game is all about.

What exactly would you want to be different?

"Fairness" isn't the main problem (women complain frequently about what is "fair"), more that dating apps have created a wildly unnatural and socially destructive situation.

I previously mentioned that human sexual markets tend towards harems, which is true. I should have been clearer about this, since what we see today are digitally enabled mega harems, as opposed to much smaller harems of the past.

Here is a photo of the harem of a modern king, Zofoa Ndofoa III of Cameroon:



By my count, he has 9 women. A high number, but he is a king after all.

A 1% turbo Chad in a major city could easily surpass that number in a month. Think about that- a top 1% guy with dating apps can easily surpass the KING of a third world country. Meanwhile, men in the 80th percentile will have to do ten times more work to get laid with women in a lower percentile. Men in the bottom half are incels, the sexual equivalent of the homeless.

Throughout most of history, an 8+ guy might have a harem with three women, perhaps his wife and then an additional mistress or two. Men in the bottom quarter might have a hard time with women, but could potentially still get a wife if they played their cards right. This is the organic distribution of winners and losers that we should see.

A game where a tiny group of participants win all the time, and no one else wins at all, is almost always rigged. In economies, this happens when lefitst bureaucrats, special interests, or oligarchs start interfering with the free market. This is exactly what we see now in dating markets. The turbo chads and 6+ women are having their winning subsidized in various ways by literally everyone else, and it is rapidly eating away at society. Most men are losing their incentive to improve themselves beyond a subsistence level, and if they even try it will not change their results.

Which leaves us in a situation where there is almost no household formation, and anyone who is not a Chad ends up massively depressed and alone, without realizing why.

Hopefully you can see why this needs to change.

For me its like Asbestos.

Great qualities as a building material and fire resistance is off the scale..

AAAANNNND it kills people .. horribly.

Still used widely in many shithole countries.

Opium was an amazing money maker for parts of the British Empire >>and tbh I think the people who clamped down on its use just obviously weren't getting high often enough on said Opium. Sour Grapes all round.<<<

How to clamp down on Dating Apps or social media? Fuck knows. I don't know.. But Sam Vaknin is right - there is almost zero content to these apps, the content there is is of our creation and fucking so banal as to be untrue.

But there's money involved right? A shit ton of money and its not you or me that's making it.

If social media was a drug that people physically ingested then it would be heavily controlled for its side effects.

I personally love swipe apps and their usefulness whenever I hit a new city but I can assure you that I have a good memory of the pre-social media/ swipe app days and ..what do ya know?.. I not only got laid plenty but I FELT 10 x better mentally and physically than I do after a day spent using swipe apps.

Tucker Carlson has remarked that we will look back on social media and devices and wonder why we didn't act sooner and I agree with him.

Probably whatever happens will be organic and maybe the ADD side of humans (the money making side of those that exploit it) will win.

I mentioned on another thread..

I was part of a religious group where we told our 'warts and all' life stories to one another on retreats.

There was a definite split between the pre-internet generation and the post internet generation.

The pre-internet generation were adventurous. They roamed around geographically, new towns, new cities, new countries.. new jobs, don't know a fucker in the new place? doesn't matter, just go anyway.

Some total soy boy faggots that I detested told stories where I had to admit.. those guys had soy-soaked balls.. but balls none the less.

The post-internet generation told tales of woe and angst and existential crisis. All experienced in their own bedrooms. A spectator sport their youths were not.

I look around today and see everybody everywhere glued to these little LCD screens all of their spare time .. and I wonder what the effect is.. well, maybe these little incels on the forum who blame their bad interactions on Anglo-women and NZ being a shit place full-stop and therefore all other people's fault or who want to hide away 'looks-maxing' are a sign that the post smart phone generation is kind of fucked up. Even more than the kids brought up on broadband.

Study after study seems to suggest that people's ability just to get basic shit done world wide is rapidly decreasing.
Meanwhile time wasted on anger, discord and miscommunication is skyrocketing.

Its not just human mating patterns that are changing, The Human Mind is changing.. And not for the better.

Even if you get laid plenty that is still a valid concern.

[BaatumMania]

Reminds me of a novel I was reading about the French invasion of Egypt under Napoleon. His troops stormed into a harem expecting 100s of THOTs. It turns out the women in the Sultan's harem were fat nasty cows and not many of them at that.

So popular culture's stereotype of 3rd world Kings having a 1,000 lovers is totally off.

So actually polygamy in Muslim countries doesn't really upset the gender ratios that much. What upsets the ratios in Muslim countries is women hiding indoors all day a lot and a lot of marriages being de facto arranged (cousin marriage is super high in Iraq and Pakistan for example ~ so you're screwed over if your Uncles don't have any daughters and it's a high chance given female infanticide was / is common).

[Avoy]

Or maybe some of you guys are overthinking this? Shallow girls will always swipe right on the hottest men. They know their supply is endless -- and often they only do it to see if the good looking men on the app "like them" back for validation reasons. Horny guys will swipe right on any reasonably good looking girl they would bang (men aren't picky). Neither scenario is deep or meaningful. If you know this going in, have fun with the people you do match with or don't play the game. Count yourself lucky if you meet someone you would want to see again after hooking up 2 or 3 times.

[The_e_man]

This is information that us on this forum have known for quite some time and have organically came through these conclusions through hitting the pavement, trial-and-error, learning game, garnering experience with women, and having discussions and theorizing our ideas into concrete concepts like this.

And our thoughts are seen as misogynistic, twisted, deranged, etc.

It seems that the truth our dirty little subculture has unravelled is slowly inkling into mainstream society. I feel that we are lucky to be ahead of this and to have this knowledge truly internalized. I also postulate that once these unescapable truths about love / dating hit the mainstream, some big changes will happen that feminist propaganda cannot wash away.