Post: #326

(05-24-2018 08:13 PM)Delta Wrote:  While I'm on a roll with the depressing (but frankly cathartic) writing, let me expand upon this idea:

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  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.

A while ago I would've argued that this forum is collectively over-nostalgic about the pre-1960's. Yes, it was very easy for a regular man to land a good, faithful wife while she was young. But there was no expectation of sexual gratification back then. Men did not demand that their wife be 'hot.' And I would've argued that if we all dropped our demand for a sexually appealing woman, most of us could land a decent, loyal woman too, just like our forefathers.

Here's the flaw in that thinking that I just recently came to realize:

We're only capable of landing a faithful 4 or 5/10 because we've put in a stupid amount of effort into being sexually appealing ourselves, while our forefathers didn't have to.

Back when I was like 19, scrawny, poorly dressed and gameless, I would've killed for a 5 to come along and agree to marry me. But of course, that option was not available to me at the time. Girls were sure as fuck not out husband-hunting back at that age. They were out looking for muscular, stylish, popular guys who could make them feel good in the short-run. Obviously I didn't stand to succeed in that environment.

Contrast that with previous generations: To your knowledge, were either of your two grandfathers avid weightlifters? Were they over 6' tall? Were they rich? How much did they know about men's fashion and hairstyles? Were they exceptionally gregarious and charismatic guys who were super popular within their community? How was their game? Did they have a good cocky/funny persona? Were they familiar with push-pull? Did they know dominant body language and voice intonation? Were they good at kinoing and escalating smoothly?

You get the point. Yet they still found a wife. Probably when they (and she) were incredibly young by today's standards. And she was probably loyal to them. And, I don't want to speculate about whether anyone's grandmother was considered 'hot' back in her day, but I'll bet your grandmothers were at the very least decent women rather than nasty and/or obese dregs.

* * *

So here I am, years later. Since I was 19, I've worked tirelessly to earn wealth, put on lean muscle, dress better, become a better conversationalist, and learn what triggers attraction in women. I've spent an ungodly amount of time pursuing women, getting rejected, being flaked on, having my time wasted, going on miserable dates, finding some success here and there, and over-analyzing all of these experiences in hopes of gaining an even deeper understanding of what works and what doesn't.

So do I still want that 5 to come along and marry me?

Fuck. No.

I'm sure many of you can relate to this: When you've put in this much effort, the idea of committing to an average woman just seems like a slap in the face. In a way, I feel broken in much the same way that Tinder sluts are; not that I think the women I'd be interested in are all out of my league, but that most members of the opposite sex do absolutely nothing for me emotionally or sexually. Here's some sage advice to any newbies: Self-improvement will increase the quality of woman you can land, but it will not increase the exhilaration you get from women. You'll simply find that to achieve the same satisfaction you used to get going through the mating dance with a 5, you'll now need a 7 or 8.

What's the takeaway here? I already described in my previous post how a not-strictly-monogamous society can be disastrous for a woman. But here's how it's also disastrous for men like us:

Men in strictly monogamous societies, such as your grandfathers, get back what they put in. You will get far less.

Great post. I see what you're saying.

But this leads to a topic I've written about and we should really start a thread about: "Getting in on the ground level."

Back when people met and married young, it was enough for the woman that the guy be merely cute and responsible. That meant he looked good enough, but would be a good provider.

Once the age of marriage started getting pushed towards 30, a much bigger and more competitive singles market emerged. This is when you started to get women in their twenties earning their own keep and looking for men who were richer, better looking and, more powerful than they.

None of this was an issue for my aunts, uncles, or parents who met as teens and married by age 23 (the latest). It wouldn't have been an issue for me either, but I passed up good catches for a bunch of reasons that now seem petty and foolish.

This has the opposite of a happy ending. Women's standards tend to go up as they age, because they earn more money and can afford a better lifestyle. So if you're in your forties, good luck. There is nothing more dispiriting than meeting 40-year-old women who have a fraction of the looks of the girls you dated as a teen, but ten times the demands.

Post: #327

^If you're saying you'd advise any high school boy to start relentlessly lifting weights and learning game, go to college, join a frat to gain campus status, find a solid girl in college and don't let her go, I agree with you 100%. The people I know who stuck with their college bf/gf are absolutely oblivious to the depressing realities of modern dating that we discuss ad nauseum here. I envy that.

But, of course, the elephant in the room is that this advice would be of no use to at least 90% of the forum's readership. Just about all of us are past that stage. Unless you have tips on how men in their 20's and 30's can land college girls.

Post: #328

(05-24-2018 07:45 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  The biggest redpill, on my end, is having the chance to watch girls use Tinder in real time. I strongly suggest that you try and see it happen - it will shatter any illusion you may still have about online dating.

I can only guess ... your experience? There's a reason I stopped plugging into that cesspool years ago. Your response should be entertaining.

Post: #329

(05-24-2018 08:30 PM)KMK Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 08:31 PM)Tiger Man Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:01 PM)nek Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 04:05 AM)Tiger Man Wrote:  I look at another man and I wonder how he (A MAN) can allow himself to fall that far. Maybe I have some latent fear that, if these men could become that pathetic

Here's a red pill, some men (I'd actually argue MOST), are meant to be cannon fodder for the species.

I actually have had a number of hours-long conversations about this topic with one of my former grad students. His conjecture was that a lot of the sexually non-participant men (incels, Herbivore men, bad gammas) were, essentially, filling a much-needed role in the world that would have previous been handled by dead men. A lack of a one-off global wars or repeated local conflicts, combined with improved health and medicine practices, have led to a surplus of men (compared to much of history).

Men certainly are more variant than women. It seems that nature decided to use men to test out what works and what does not. I think it's easy to argue that those "cannon fodder" men are doing it wrong. A red pill, indeed.

I agree with your grad student, and made a post on that subject here: /thread-67021...pid1729838

No one seems to get it.

Red pill: Have as many kids as you want, but if you spend hours upon hours on forums encouraging other men to marry and reproduce in order to strengthen western civilization, you're part of a 5th column whether you mean to be or not.

Yes, I've been thinking on this a lot lately. It's not that we are overpopulated in the strict sense, because that usually suggests lack of room or resources. What's closer to reality is that we are unbalanced due to the technological improvement in all sectors; social, medical, and economical.

Post: #330

Men need to absolutely stop their daughters from becoming whores.
Dads should be shame and guilt factories.

Post: #331

(05-22-2018 11:07 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  It may seem hard to believe to young men today, but there really was a time when being asked out an a date, being courted and pursued by a desirable man was an exciting experience for a girl.

Today, the whole subject is kind of "meh" for a lot of women. She'll go out with you if she has the time — if she has nothing better to do. And if she agrees to the date and then something more important comes up (work, other opportunities), she has no qualms about flaking on you.

A few fairly recent examples of the degeneracy:

-Girls at work, one a 6 another a 7.5. Flipping through Tinder. Every 10 swipes or so they land on a very good looking guy, "OMG he's sooo hot but he looks/sounds like a total douche." Swipes left. Girls are on there to just swipe through profiles and get a real joy in rejecting guys that are 2-3 points higher SMV than them.

-At a dinner part at my house. GF's friend: "Yeah...there's this guy, I think he really really likes me but he asked me out to this really fancy place for dinner, like on a DATE, and I dunno it was just so weird." I'm not making this up.
I spoke up, "So let me get this straight. You're complaining because...he wants to take you out? Wow sounds like a real jerk." There was a silence in the room, as if she's not used to other people calling her out on her ridiculous behavior and judgement. Of course, I fully understand why she doesn't want to go out with this guy. She'd rather get fucked by someone like me that would treat her like a disposable fucktoy. She couldn't think of anything to say so I eased back onto her side with some sarcasm, "I know I know, you'd rather just get some buffalo wings and whiskey shots amirite?" She responded yes. Didn't want to make the effort to get dressed up and act the part. And just like that, she gave up another suitor that could have been her life partner.

-At the same dinner party, a different friend of my gf, talking to the other girl loudly so the whole room could hear, "...hey whatever you need to do to get that dick, girl." I looked at her completely disgusted. This was under my roof. I didn't make a scene, but afterwards told my gf, "She's not welcome here anymore. This is a fucking dinner party and she should have some class and act like a lady. Imagine if I said to a guy friend in front of all of our friends 'Yeah bro did you slam that pussy or what?'" Again, response as if none of these girls are used to being called out. The girl who said this had her bf there, totally quiet in the corner.

I'm no alpha. But I'm sure as hell dominant when the situation calls for it, and what I can tell is there is a serious lack of male dominance in regular social scenarios. If we, as a group, do not start controlling what is socially acceptable, it's just going to go to shit way worse than it already has.

Post: #332

(05-24-2018 02:44 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 06:43 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  Forced monogamy (or any form of "mass monogamy") means most people get to reproduce. This is anything but natural, as you alluded to, and it will weaken the genetic material of any society/species/race that attempts this model. Really, in all of human history this model has only been employed for a few decades to be very strict; the post war years and up until say the late 70`s. You could argue that the baby boomers with so many Government dependant "freaks" are a direct result of this breeding pattern. It simply can`t work as a long term solution.

Many, if not most men not reproducing is just the way of things in nature. For example, only 1/10th of male hippos app. succeed in the battle for survival. This ensures the strength of the species. It`s why men are better than women also, we have to strive harder. The female (the "sifter" of genetic material) not reproducing in larger numbers however is highly unprecedented in natural history.

There is a dynamic at play here called "time preference" that needs to be mentioned. In economics, time preference is how much you value the immediate use of something, versus delaying the use of something for an additional benefit (i.e. investing). Polygamous societies increase male time preference in mating, because investing the time and effort to get a wife and raise a family is unlikely to pay dividends in an increasingly degenerate environment. You get more utility from using women for quick sex and abandoning them with no long term commitment. Healthy societies benefit from the stability that monogamy provides, and also increase time preference by making sure men get a lot of benefits from investing in their families and children. Love, sex, respect, support in old age, etc. There is a reason animals and third wold populations are polygamous, and real civilizations have monogamy.

Also, to the point of monogamy "decreasing fitness", just LOOK at the results of polygamous populations. How many brilliant scientists, explorers, artists came from these? Monogamy encourages assortive mating, where the fittest men are matched with the fittest women. Eventually, due to disease, starvation, warfare, etc, the less fit will be removed, while the better genes are refined generationally.

You can flip the economic analysis and look at the female perspective as well. If you have a background in economics, you probably understand this better than I do. Very early on in my studies, I was studying sexual economics theory. One of my professors made a compelling case for applying the LiCalzi interpretation of the Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Theorem to the "eventual" mate choice for a woman. In, say, the US, a woman exists in a society that is, broadly speaking, practising monogamousness with lots of cheating, mate switching and stealing, and extra-pair engagements. Provided a woman has some desire to reproduce, she will usually attempt to secure the company of a primary mate to that end.

Assuming that she will not land on her ideal mate with the first man she sleeps with (very unlikely and she knows it), she will begin to see her future looking something like X -> X -> X -> Y. X, in this case, are the discardable sexual partners who do not quite fit the bill. Y is the eventual Prince Charming to whom she will be married. One can already begin to see the problem here, but it gets worse with the LiCalzi interpretation.

As the woman progresses through her sexual life and, more importantly, observes the sexual lives of her friends (and even random celebrities she does not know), her "base reference" becomes skewed. So, she is basing the Mr. Y (who only exists in her mind) off of an amalgam of the best qualities of multiple partners of other women. Add to that the almost inevitable case that she will compare Mr. X5 to Messrs X1 - X4. Then, her choice window begins to look like X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> Y. And the reference point is ever changing, ever improving. It ends up breaking the theorem, because there is no way to interpret the woman as a rational actor after a given point.

Sorry to slightly derail the thread there, but there has been a lot of interesting talk about polygamy and the nature of monangamy in the human species. I had to add my two cents.

As to the development and utility of monogamy in humans, two random points. Why does the Gouldian Finch have such an interesting mating call? Some (social) behaviors develop in various species at random, and have continued through millennia due to a continued benefit to the existence of (or order of) the species. Also, sometimes that cannon fodder analogy breaks down from a eugenics/dysgenics analysis (if we choose to look at it that way). Look at the UK in WWI. Something close to twenty percent of the Army officer class died. That is compared to around twelve percent of enlisted men. Many, many of those officers were from the top schools and best backgrounds in England. They gutted a whole generation of the crème de la crème of their society. I know the historians on here will jump all over me for that one. But, I mention the point to draw an analogy to the current state of affairs, in which an ex-con (who comes from a family line of sadistic murderers) can marry in to a billionaire family. At the same time, geniuses at the JPL couldn't land a decent date off of Plenty of Fish. Broadly speaking.

Post: #333

(05-25-2018 01:23 AM)Tiger Man Wrote:  Also, sometimes that cannon fodder analogy breaks down from a eugenics/dysgenics analysis (if we choose to look at it that way). Look at the UK in WWI. Something close to twenty percent of the Army officer class died. That is compared to around twelve percent of enlisted men. Many, many of those officers were from the top schools and best backgrounds in England. They gutted a whole generation of the crème de la crème of their society.

Being from a wealthy family and attending expensive schools does not make one gifted. However, a prime example of the dysgenic effect of WWI was the calamitous loss of Henry Moseley at Gallipoli.

One reason why reading In Stahlgewittern was amusing was that one could find fluent speakers of French even amongst enlisted Germans. The Tommies and the Fritzes could communicate with one another in French, shouting from one trench to the other.

Post: #334

Marrying young does solve things but the problem is these girls are very sexually active at a young age. I will never forget the time my friend got out the pool and this 8-10 year old girl said "hmmm he looks like a snack" and licked her lips. IT DISGUSTED ME

These women are growing up in a society where morals are based off feelings and logic takes the lack of emotion. They are also growing up in a time where they can have almost any guy with a click of a button (IG, Tinder, and Snapchat). IF that wasn't enough they are growing u in the confusing time of "women who are perverts are showing sexual dominance and power" vs "men who are pervert are creeps, rapist, etc etc". So these women at a very early age are already compromised. Not to mention that women watch porn almost as much as men now.


About the tinder situation, its a confusing mix of most women feel worth it but not worth it. They feel like they should be able to have whatever they want and not settle for anything less, HOWEVER, they also feel that if somebody treats them better than normal then they don't deserve it or they're scared.

Women want to be treated like high priced escorts.

If any of you guys are into gaming, just think Jack off mass effect 2. Most women are exactly like her.

Post: #335

(05-24-2018 10:32 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 07:45 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  The biggest redpill, on my end, is having the chance to watch girls use Tinder in real time. I strongly suggest that you try and see it happen - it will shatter any illusion you may still have about online dating.

I can only guess ... your experience? There's a reason I stopped plugging into that cesspool years ago. Your response should be entertaining.

I remember back in 2009 one of my gay friends was telling me about grindr and how awesome it was. This was before I took the RP. "Girls aren't THAT slutty", I said to myself, while contemplating whether a straight version could catch on.

Boy was I wrong.

Post: #336

(05-25-2018 10:23 AM)Enoch Wrote:  I remember back in 2009 one of my gay friends was telling me about grindr and how awesome it was. This was before I took the RP. "Girls aren't THAT slutty", I said to myself, while contemplating whether a straight version could catch on.

Boy was I wrong.

You know that there are no girls on grindr...

Post: #337

Reading is fundamental.

Post: #338

It's not worth killing yourself or going on a rampage over a relationship that doesn't work out or if a woman doesn't like you or for a stupid obsession. That's just life, some things just don't work out.

The examples of why you don't, look at Elliott Rodger or even Ricardo Lopez. Elliott is more recent but I'll discuss Ricardo Lopez. He was known as the Bjork stalker back in the 90's, he was obsessed with the singer for a few years then got mad at her for dating and being engaged to someone else. The guy had a video diary of him going completely nuts and then decided to mail an acid bomb to her. He then recorded himself in his last hours in facepaint, listening to her songs then shooting himself hoping his brains would be splattered on a sign saying the best of me. The bullet wasn't hollow enough to do an exit wound, it put a dent in his skull. It was disturbing to hear his death groan then hear the blood spilling out.

It's just one woman, but damn the effect they have on some guys.

Post: #339

As has been said before, the plethora of guys with SMV higher than a vast % of women (usually in the West, as the women are unfeminine or just on average not in good shape at all, let alone not young or at their hottest when available) doesn't work biologically re: marriage or settling down/commitment.

Post: #340

The fact that the world does not care who I am, but only what I can do for it. When I got swindled out of an apartment by my ex in Moscow, moved in with roommates, had no money to eat (ate through my last bag of potatoes in a few days) - was shocked that no one came to my rescue. Then it dawned on me- the world does not owe me food, sex or anything! I will never forget the hungry Holidays of 2013. As my body was deprived, my brain finally moved out of neutral.

Post: #341

(05-25-2018 04:19 PM)Enoch Wrote:  Reading is fundamental.

My bad, did not read properly.

Post: #342

A real man can get the best out of a woman. But a weak man can get the slut and the bad out of a good one.

Post: #343

(05-24-2018 10:32 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 07:45 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  The biggest redpill, on my end, is having the chance to watch girls use Tinder in real time. I strongly suggest that you try and see it happen - it will shatter any illusion you may still have about online dating.

I can only guess ... your experience? There's a reason I stopped plugging into that cesspool years ago. Your response should be entertaining.

I can visualize the precise moment even now, clear as day.

It was last year. I was in Budapest on my summer vacation. Through a get-together with Matt Forney and several of his friends in the Swedish alt-right-sphere, I managed to meet up and make friends with a well-put-together Swedish guy (his ethnic background half Ukrainian, half Cuban.) As opposed to the interests of the other guys in his group, which primarily revolved around drinking beer and lamenting the current state of affairs in modern Sweden, he (like myself) wanted to experience what the local (and tourist) girls had to offer him in terms of sexual variety.

As it turned out, he had been hosting in his apartment (through Couchsurfing) a French-Algerian girl who was also vacationing in Budapest for the summer. I'll be charitable in saying that this girl was a 6/10 on a good day.

We're all hanging out in his apartment pre-drinking, and somehow (I can't remember how) the topic turns to using Tinder. She's complaining about how hard girls have it on Tinder, how they can't find any decent guys on there. I, having the general sense that girls have more options on Tinder than guys, ask her to pull out her phone and start Tindering.

Have you ever seen any of those videos of super-nerdy Asian guys who, through thousands of hours of practice, get really good at playing computer versions of Dance Dance Revolution? Have you ever seen what their fingers look like on the keyboard? You can imagine that it looks like they're about to mash the keyboard into oblivion.

That was what it looked like when she Tindered. She was blazing through photos of guys so fast you would think she'd be suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome by now. I looked on, in sheer amazement, as hundreds of photos suffered the cruel execution of left-swipes under her unforgiving thumb. Many of these photos were of guys who looked attractive, or athletic, or well put-together. Nope, she said. "Trop douche." I had to stop her at a certain point cause I couldn't take watching it anymore.

Her match count? Well into the 450s.

I had my (well put-together) Swedish friend pull out his Tinder profile to show her, in comparison.

Less than 30.

I then decided, for the fun of it, to try an experiment. I set their two phones, side by side, and started right-swiping on the 100 next profiles to come across. I told her that if she had more than 20 immediate matches, she had to buy us the first round of drinks when we got to the bar. If she had less, we would pay for her drinks the entire night. (She was a student so I didn't make the bet equal, out of a sense of magnaminity.) She readily agreed, thinking that there was no way that could happen.

He had 0 immediate matches.

She had 32. (I know precisely, because I counted.) And something like 10 or so more in the hours thereafter.

Amusingly, her smartphone was buried under a blizzard of so many notifications and messages that she actually felt compelled to turn it off. I guess that counts as some sort of victory.

Post: #344

^Interesting anecdote.

It feels as though the female population is collectively gaslighting us. The enormous gulf between how women describe the dating world, and what I observe with my own two eyes, literally has me questioning my sanity sometimes.

No part of HighSpeed's story comes as any surprise. We've all heard girls complain how difficult it is to find a decent guy, yet we know that even a plain-looking girl's dating profile is blowing up with eager suitors, and that these girls snap-reject scores of attractive, successful men for the most trivial of reasons.

Also recall Scoundrel's post from the previous page of the thread:

(05-22-2018 11:07 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  Today, the whole subject is kind of "meh" for a lot of women. She'll go out with you if she has the time — if she has nothing better to do. And if she agrees to the date and then something more important comes up (work, other opportunities), she has no qualms about flaking on you.

One thing you have to get used to, particularly if you're using apps like Tinder, is that your level of enthusiasm for getting together and making something wonderful happen will almost always far exceed hers. You simply cannot expect her to have anywhere near the interest and motivation that you do.

We've all had the experience of chatting with a girl who initially seemed fairly engaged, only to have the conversation fizzle out completely on her end for no apparent reason.

More and more, young women just don't give a shit. About anything. They don't care much about their appearance, their attitudes, their health, their future.

As of now this post has received 19 likes, so it clearly resonates with our experiences. But lo and behold, women speak as though the exact opposite is true: They try soooo hard to impress us, and every text they get from a guy sends them into a tizzy. And I'm just like... What?! The vast majority of you never bother to exercise, 90% of your dating profiles are so uninspired it seems like you took special caution to make sure they provide absolutely no conversational fodder, many of you post pics of yourselves with dog features superimposed over your face, or shoving greasy junk food into your mouth that's open so wide it looks like you unhinged your jaw python-style, you usually take hours to reply to texts from guys if you reply at all, your responses are typically terse and generic, leaving sheer force of will on the guy's end as the only possibility of the conversation leading anywhere, half the time when you agree to a date you don't follow through with it, and when you do, most of the time you're 15+ minutes late with no apology or acknowledgment, most of you have a blank, zombie-like demeanor while on dates, as though you're an audience member and the guy is a performer being paid to entertain you... and you're telling me that, collectively, women try really hard and care too much??

All I can say is it's comforting to know that I'm far from the only man who perceives this.

Post: #345

(05-24-2018 08:13 PM)Delta Wrote:  I'm sure many of you can relate to this: When you've put in this much effort, the idea of committing to an average woman just seems like a slap in the face. In a way, I feel broken in much the same way that Tinder sluts are; not that I think the women I'd be interested in are all out of my league, but that most members of the opposite sex do absolutely nothing for me emotionally or sexually. Here's some sage advice to any newbies: Self-improvement will increase the quality of woman you can land, but it will not increase the exhilaration you get from women. You'll simply find that to achieve the same satisfaction you used to get going through the mating dance with a 5, you'll now need a 7 or 8.

It's a hell of a double edged sword.

Depending on what your standards are, I'd say it's easier than ever to bang the kind of women our forefathers could only fantasize about. Women are so sexualized now that banging a chick with fake tits that loves to deepthroat and is open to threesomes is much more accessible than ever before. Note that I'm not saying it's easy, but it's out there now.

Those same over-sexualized women will be the same ones to tell you they're not ready to settle down until they're 30.

My favorite thing to ask these women, "What do you want to do with your life, that you feel marriage will hinder?" I never really get a concrete answer. They never answer with career. It's usually, "I'm just not ready."

Hypergamy is just too thrilling, easily the most destructive and addicting drug the modern woman encounters.

Post: #346

(05-31-2018 10:22 AM)Veloce Wrote:  My favorite thing to ask these women, "What do you want to do with your life, that you feel marriage will hinder?" I never really get a concrete answer. They never answer with career. It's usually, "I'm just not ready."

Hypergamy is just too thrilling, easily the most destructive and addicting drug the modern woman encounters.

This reminds me of Patrice O'Neal's classic question for women:

Post: #347

After being on this Forum for about a month, traveling between red pilled stories of Incels, MGTOW's, PUA's, MRA's, guys with very high SMV AND cucks(both figuratively and literally) male feminist, The average joe, and lastly betas I've come to the conclusion that men are in trouble

The "average" man see's getting rich, and working out as a shallow form of Self Improvement. They think being nice, being understanding and open will "win the girl over" they believe that Nice guys create healthier relationships and Guys with high SMV can't form healthy relationships and move around 50 or so women.

Many of these guys have tried to be the "alpha" and was either to lazy or too weak to do so. So they resort back to their blue pilled ay of thinking. I thought the SJW age was beginning to die but it seems genZ or whatever are even worse than us. Many are depressed beyond beliefs (like xxxtentacion, most of his fans are age 10-20)

The average guy is no longer the guy who dreams to be with many women, who dreams to be an alpha male, but more so the guy who wants to treat his woman like a queen....which wouldn't be bad but these women aren't queens

I've read thousands of comments, threads, blogs, stories, etc etc etc and it's depressing.

It's gotten to a point where women are embracing their hypergamous nature yet men believe it to be a lie

Post: #348

Maybe not my biggest, but my first of note.

In 6th grade, I used to have one of those wipe on/wipe off boards inside my locker. My friends and I listed, among other things, the top three girls of the week, criteria being looks and attitude.

Word eventually got out, and our classmates went apeshit. Some girls complained to us, saying they'd report us (never did, thankfully). A lot of guys (future SJWs, I'm sure) criticized us, too, though almost always to the girls and never to our faces.

Funny thing was, from then on, you'd see most the girls putting a lot more effort into their appearances and being a lot more pleasant in interactions with us.

Post: #349

(05-27-2018 07:27 PM)Delta Wrote:  ^Interesting anecdote.

It feels as though the female population is collectively gaslighting us. The enormous gulf between how women describe the dating world, and what I observe with my own two eyes, literally has me questioning my sanity sometimes.

No part of HighSpeed's story comes as any surprise. We've all heard girls complain how difficult it is to find a decent guy, yet we know that even a plain-looking girl's dating profile is blowing up with eager suitors, and that these girls snap-reject scores of attractive, successful men for the most trivial of reasons.

Also recall Scoundrel's post from the previous page of the thread:

(05-22-2018 11:07 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  Today, the whole subject is kind of "meh" for a lot of women. She'll go out with you if she has the time — if she has nothing better to do. And if she agrees to the date and then something more important comes up (work, other opportunities), she has no qualms about flaking on you.

One thing you have to get used to, particularly if you're using apps like Tinder, is that your level of enthusiasm for getting together and making something wonderful happen will almost always far exceed hers. You simply cannot expect her to have anywhere near the interest and motivation that you do.

We've all had the experience of chatting with a girl who initially seemed fairly engaged, only to have the conversation fizzle out completely on her end for no apparent reason.

More and more, young women just don't give a shit. About anything. They don't care much about their appearance, their attitudes, their health, their future.

As of now this post has received 19 likes, so it clearly resonates with our experiences. But lo and behold, women speak as though the exact opposite is true: They try soooo hard to impress us, and every text they get from a guy sends them into a tizzy. And I'm just like... What?! The vast majority of you never bother to exercise, 90% of your dating profiles are so uninspired it seems like you took special caution to make sure they provide absolutely no conversational fodder, many of you post pics of yourselves with dog features superimposed over your face, or shoving greasy junk food into your mouth that's open so wide it looks like you unhinged your jaw python-style, you usually take hours to reply to texts from guys if you reply at all, your responses are typically terse and generic, leaving sheer force of will on the guy's end as the only possibility of the conversation leading anywhere, half the time when you agree to a date you don't follow through with it, and when you do, most of the time you're 15+ minutes late with no apology or acknowledgment, most of you have a blank, zombie-like demeanor while on dates, as though you're an audience member and the guy is a performer being paid to entertain you... and you're telling me that, collectively, women try really hard and care too much??

All I can say is it's comforting to know that I'm far from the only man who perceives this.

Gonna rant a bit. The reason for this is that women learn later.

Men find out real quick that no one gives a shit about them. It's everywhere in school, the law, TV, and even great movies like Saving Private Ryan, which in a lot of ways is about brotherhood, still hint that to be a man is to roll the dice with fate.
Men find out real quick that if they want to be a somebody in this world, they have to go out and take it for themselves.

Quote:The best belongs to mine and me; and if it be not given us, then do we take it: the best food, the purest sky, the strongest thoughts, the fairest women!

- Thus Spoke Zarathusthra

As for women? Not so much. They are coddled from birth and everywhere in society they are given preferential treatment. Education, academia, the job market, all kinds of special grants, and the law all favour women. Of course, the biggest source of attention and free stuff comes from men's attraction in the dating market. They receive all this from they get-go. They can't imagine it would every go away.

But you know, I'm fine with this. Women are born, but men are made. Men have always had to build themselves up and gain status, wealth, character, physical strength, skills, wisdom, and a personality. It's a journey and it's a good thing. Women, on the other hand, start life with most of the power they'll ever have and then try to keep it by staying healthy, not spoiling her reputation, and using that power to lock down a solid man while they still can. Men try to gain things, women try not to lose things.

Men learn early; they don't need anybody to tell them how it works. Women learn late and always needed someone to tell them the deal. However, between the media and a lack of 'grandmother's wisdom', in the 21st century women have collectively forgotten that their looks won't last forever. I mean, they are vaguely aware that they won't be as hot in their 30s as in their 20s, but they don't act like it. There is no urgency because there is nobody to remind them.

Sadly, though maybe for the best, I think women in the West are in for a gigantic reminder. Age of 1st marriage is at an all time high, whereas the marriage rate itself is at an all time low. In a handful of years, when the millennial generation 'ages out,' women are going to be in a for a world of hurt and stuff like that sex and the city article are going to be a lot more common.* Things that can't last forever won't.

I just hope the younger generation takes note. Few things make me sadder than seeing beautiful young women opt for the career and serial-dating path - only to run smack into the wall, dazed and confused, and without any options.

"A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance." I guess it works for girls, too.

*Quick edit: I'm not rooting for this. Lots of decent girls I know who slipped up or just didn't have any guidance and it's not going to be fun watching the aftermath. Gonna be a lot of lonely hearts and wasted potential.

Post: #350

Reading Mike Tyson's biography was one of the biggest red pills I've swallowed. I read it when it came out, but was just trying to finish the rather large book as I was travelling so didn't properly absorb it. I recently listened to the audiobook version.

Being that famous, especially for a manner of being that garners so much admiration, respect, and fear from other men is an enormous aphrodisiac. Many, many of the women he got were skanks, callgirls and strippers. BUT, many weren't. They simply wanted an indiscretion with the most famous, fearsome man in the world — and if he wanted them to be more than one offs, then they were more than willing. Scores and scores of university students, nurses, cheerleaders, etc. Even into his early 40s when he was fat and no longer scary. But in his 20s and 30s... jesus, the sheer numbers are insane. It didn't make him happy, but it simply shows the power of fame and infamy, and the true nature of hypergamy. It doesn't make women look good, put it that way, since not only does it show what they're willing to do for money and bragging rights, but also that they can be manipulative and deceptive thieves.

It's an incredibly well-read book too, by the actor who narrates it, and the stories about his formative years are utterly fascinating.