I live right by one of the most expensive colleges in the USA--which is right by the local nightlife. Vast majority of the students are female; most of them have fakes. So it's not unusual for me to run into 18 and 19 y/o's on a night out.
I cast a wide net--what some guys here would term 'spam approach'--so I interface with a wide variety of females--from the bar stars, to the mega slvts, to the college athletes who just go out socially, to the foreign exchange students, to the homesick alcoholic who's about to drop out next semester, to the bookworm who's roommates drag her out for drinks on the last night of the semester, to the crazy druggy chick who drops acid every weekend.
But for the purpose of this post, let's focus on the 'quality women'. I could go out this Friday and meet 5 sexually available girls (notice I didn't say single) who invalidate your checklist. So you can definitely do better than you are currently by placing yourself in a better environment & getting off OLD
.
But let's take it a step further: let's just take the girls from stable two-parent households, with intergenerational wealth, who love their dads and whose dads sound pretty alpha, who have well-rounded interests and hobbies, who project class, whose general demeanor is pleasant & polite, who had the best in education & etiquette training, who don't get noticeably drunk in public, whose social media presence is tasteful, possibly including bible verses. Some of them possibly have socially acceptable boyfriends, some of them don't. But basically girls who had every environmental advantage to become the mythical 'unicorn.'
This past year I've met a handful or two of girls like this who also met my physical standards. A year or so ago when I found SS & the manosphere, I thought my women-related experience could be boiled down to daddy-issues and that if I found a girl from the background above and just stayed alpha enough it'd be smooth sailing. I no longer believe that.
Some of these girls just flat out weren't interested (I don't shoot 100% or anywhere close) or were leaving town the next day & logistics were bad--so possibly the 'real unicorns' escaped lol (but realistically they probably just wanted a different flavor). However, of the ones I've gotten to know (and fooled around with, if not slept with), I've found that it's just a different presentation. Behaviorally and verbally, most of these girls display massive red flags that would make me uncomfortable pursuing monogamy with them--though if I met them in a different context, say through social circle or class or work, I'd think these were the sweetest, most innocent girls ever (HINT they're not; they're just more discrete). A lot of seduction/manosphere literature mentions how girls have a sort of duel personality for Lovers vs. Providers, Alphas vs. Beta, Secret Society vs. Non-Secret Society, however you want to classify it. I've found that to be 100% true.
Girls will be whatever
you expect them to be. You define the qualification and, as long as you can provide a safe, nonjudgmental environment and eliminate social risks, they'll live up to that qualification. For me, I've found that if I present my more logical qualifications--that I am, deep down, a nice person, that I have monetary ambitions and a realistic chance at realizing them, that I'm generally a law-abiding citizen who makes generally responsible decisions, etc. (like your resume list above)--I'd get placed in the boyfriend, time & attention & dates to nowhere;
I'm not that type of girl; category. BUT, and sometimes with the
exact same girls, if I play up my more 'socially unacceptable' attributes I'll get an entirely different, much looser set of rules and get a much different portrayal of the girl re: her past and current behavior. For me that's embodying a (possible) deadbeat who won't give them my real name, won't give them a straight up answer about my job (I often tell them ridiculous stories about super low status jobs, some of which they believe), who tells them about other girls I'm seeing or I've seen and some of my less--gentlemanly--anecdotes in that regard, who accuses them of being crazy, bad, sexually deviant, etc. Basically shady AF--to the point where I'm shocked and almost disappointed when a girl, who should know a lot better, comes home with me. Some girls will even excitedly ask if I'm a criminal or a sociopath--and these are 'good girls.'
If you make it seem like socially expected behavior, and environmental factors stack up in your favor, most girls
will cheat on their boyfriends (maybe not all, but certainly some of the 'good ones' that are 'already off the market'). This leads to a kind of false dichotomy, where 'quality girls won't cheat' and 'if a girl cheats she wasn't really quality,' when really it's just about what behaviors you incentivize or dicentivize via your own judgmentalism. What I think it comes down to is that girls in the modern environment have an overabundance of options--especially if you (
@Tenacity) lead with your logical attributes. In the upper social rungs,
she already knows guys who make as much or more than you do; she already knows guys who are in as good of shape as you; she already knows guys who'd like to find a nice girl to settle down with. By the time you start to look like an exception, it's because her own options in that regard have dwindled, probably because of the factors mentioned above. I'd argue you'll get more and better options by being fun, nonjudgmental, a little edgy, a little less 'safe'--those qualities, especially for girls from certain social classes, are more rare in the men she encounters and thus more highly valued. Of course, I can already anticipate your counter arguments--but I'm just offering my view from the ground level about what works and what doesn't, not what
should work.
For the guys who say things like 'Be a quality guy and quality women appear' I'd say on one level that's true, but be mindful of what qualities you're developing and what motivations girls have for mirroring those qualities back to you--or else you won't ever get the full picture.
