All it takes is One Slip

[Redwood]

How is it difficult to simply not associate with someone outside of work or family? It literally requires doing nothing with someone.

For my situation, it's mainly just work. I have no real problem with this in regards to my personal life.

 

[Manure Spherian]

For my situation, it's mainly just work. I have no real problem with this in regards to my personal life.

Good.

 

[Lotus Effect]

Or maybe it's as a writer that I take words and their meanings more seriously than you.

It is probably it.

I suspect you didn't know the word Coven is only used for witches. I

I knew. I used it as an allegory tho.

I have no doubt about that. I prefer to communicate in person. You can let me know whenever you're in Amsterdam.

Will most definitely do!

 

[GoodMan32]

You're damn right, all it takes is one slip.

One thing I've heard on this forum before is "If a woman loses interest in you, it's rarely because the woman found another guy. Typically, it's because you did something to make her lose interest."

While it's technically true to say (in most cases at least) the man did something to make her lose interest, it's still the woman's fault. Why is it her fault? Because her standards are unreasonably high. As you illustrated, she'll "next" you over the tiniest slip-up.

And even if the woman doesn't have another guy yet at the exact moment she "nexts" you, that's beside the point. The point is she could find another guy with extreme ease. If a woman, even with average looks, were to set up a swipe app profile, she could find 20 men looking to bed her within a few hours of setting up her account. Since a woman, in the back of her mind, knows this, she has no incentive to try to make it work with you after you do your first tiny slip-up.

 

[SW15]

While it's technically true to say (in most cases at least) the man did something to make her lose interest, it's still the woman's fault. Why is it her fault? Because her standards are unreasonably high. As you illustrated, she'll "next" you over the tiniest slip-up.

And even if the woman doesn't have another guy yet at the exact moment she "nexts" you, that's beside the point. The point is she could find another guy with extreme ease. If a woman, even with average looks, were to set up a swipe app profile, she could find 20 men looking to bed her within a few hours of setting up her account. Since a woman, in the back of her mind, knows this, she has no incentive to try to make it work with you after you do your first tiny slip-up.

Female abundance is one of the biggest changes in dating since the 1990s. Women have far less tolerance for slip ups now than in the 1980s-early 2000s because it is now easier for them to generate abundance as compared to the 1980s-early 2000s.

In the 1980s-early 2000s, women could generate abundance. It wouldn't have that much effort but it would take enough effort. The effort that it would take was enough of an incentive for a woman to try to make it work after some tinier slip ups. In the 1980s-early 2000s, women needed to get dressed provocatively and go to bars to generate interest. They might even need to show up on multiple first dates after meeting men in bars too. While that isn't a lot of effort, it's enough of an effort to incentivize a woman to stay in an interaction.

In more recent times, a woman can generate a lot more interest sitting at home on her smartphone or computer as compared to the 1980s-early 2000s. All she needs are a few good pics and a video that a friend can get for her. She puts those on Instagram and/or a swipe app and she has far more male suitors than she would have had going to a bar 3 nights a week looking for men in 1999.

I agree with you that women know this in the back of minds. Tech-based dating forms have been de-stigmatized now for around 20 years and women 18-early 40s today know well about how easy tech-based dating is for them in terms of getting men interested in them.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

All this fear of being abandoned by a woman... If a woman abandons you for making an honest mistake, she's unworthy of your care and affection. People here should really work on their self-esteem.

 

[Sega Genesis]

While it's technically true to say (in most cases at least) the man did something to make her lose interest, it's still the woman's fault. Why is it her fault? Because her standards are unreasonably high. As you illustrated, she'll "next" you over the tiniest slip-up.

It depends on the stage you're in; if you just began dating, and thus she's observing your behavior (as YOU should be doing as well) then depending on the "slip" that lightswitch swiches off and she's done.

She most likely was not that into you and/or found it difficult to connect with you.

Considerate it a blessing and move on from it.

On the other hand, if you have been dating (banging) for a while and she's very into you, she will "forgive" just about anything, barring abuse, cheating, deception. But even then, she may forgive you, I've seen it!

Even if it involves deluding herself which as a woman and not proud to admit, I have been known to do, as have many women. As I've matured not so much anymore but I used to.

Abuse, cheating, no I don't delude myself about those things, I leave quietly.

I think it's a great insult to men to say they're left clueless and guessing as to why she left?

Intelligent men know exactly why she left if/when they screw up, they don't need her to tell him. Only to then accuse her of creating drama or something in some cases, not all.

But again for the most part, IF she nexts you for the "tiniest thing" then she was looking for an out, a reason to disqualify you and most likely not that into you.

Important distinctions.

 

[GoodMan32]

Female abundance is one of the biggest changes in dating since the 1990s. Women have far less tolerance for slip ups now than in the 1980s-early 2000s because it is now easier for them to generate abundance as compared to the 1980s-early 2000s.

In the 1980s-early 2000s, women could generate abundance. It wouldn't have that much effort but it would take enough effort. The effort that it would take was enough of an incentive for a woman to try to make it work after some tinier slip ups. In the 1980s-early 2000s, women needed to get dressed provocatively and go to bars to generate interest. They might even need to show up on multiple first dates after meeting men in bars too. While that isn't a lot of effort, it's enough of an effort to incentivize a woman to stay in an interaction.

In more recent times, a woman can generate a lot more interest sitting at home on her smartphone or computer as compared to the 1980s-early 2000s. All she needs are a few good pics and a video that a friend can get for her. She puts those on Instagram and/or a swipe app and she has far more male suitors than she would have had going to a bar 3 nights a week looking for men in 1999.

I agree with you that women know this in the back of minds. Tech-based dating forms have been de-stigmatized now for around 20 years and women 18-early 40s today know well about how easy tech-based dating is for them in terms of getting men interested in them.

As much as I like how convenient it is to live in 2024 (thanks to modern technology), one unfortunate side effect of modern technology is the ease in which a woman can "next" a man.

I remember one of the posters on here (probably you) said on a past post that a woman in the current year can get more suitors in one month (thanks to technology) than a woman a mere 30 years ago would have had in a lifetime.

Even though I'm against this idea, I see why a lot of incels support the idea of assigning a woman to a man. As you pointed out, the sheer abundance the modern woman has access to is unreal. The sheer abundance in 2024 also explains why incels are much more of a thing now than 30 years ago.

 

[SW15]

I remember one of the posters on here (probably you) said on a past post that a woman in the current year can get more suitors in one month (thanks to technology) than a woman a mere 30 years ago would have had in a lifetime.

I don't remember saying that but it sounds like something I would say / something that I would have some level of agreement with if someone else said it.

Let's work through your hypothetical. The year is 1994 (30 years ago) and we're in the United States. There's a 30 year old woman, meaning she was born in 1964. A 1964 birth is someone born at the tail end of the Baby Boomer generation and right at the cusp of Generation X (1965-1980 birth years). In this hypothetical, I'm going to make the woman childless. In 1994, median age at first marriage was about 4 years younger for women than it is now. The median 1st marriage woman was getting married around age 24-25, as compared to 28-29 now.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

A 30 year old woman in 1994 who found herself single would have been less common, since the median woman in 1994 was getting married at 24-25. A 30 year old unmarried woman in 1994 would have likely lived in a big city and been a careerist if she were never married OR she got married at 24-25 and got divorced within 3-5 years without having children.

If a 30 year old woman was single in 1994 USA, she was probably going to bars 1-3 nights per week to try to meet men if she wanted to date. This means she needs to have enough single friends/acquaintances to accompany her out to bars 1-3 nights per week. That alone is a challenge for women both in 2024 and 1994. But let's say she's able to do that. Let's say she's able to get approached by 5 men per night out. That's somewhat of a generous assumption for a 30 year old in 1994, but not too unrealistic. Let's say she also gets some non-bar approaches too. Between her non-bar and bar approaches, she might get approached by 30-60 men per month. That's not bad but it's nothing compared to women from the mid-2000s to present. A 30 year old single woman in 2024 would have 300+ right swipes on swipe apps in a month + social media DMs + real life approaches. Whereas 1994 woman has 30-60 men per month a good deal of effort in real effort, 2024 woman has close to 500 male suitors per month with less effort than the 1994 woman made.

Most Millennial/Gen Z females have upped their quantity of suitors by a big factor (10x +) as compared to their Boomer/Gen X equivalents at a similar age.

I see why a lot of incels support the idea of assigning a woman to a man. As you pointed out, the sheer abundance the modern woman has access to is unreal. The sheer abundance in 2024 also explains why incels are much more of a thing now than 30 years ago.

In the 19th and for most of the 20th Century, there were cultural and logistical factors that regulated the sexual marketplace to an extent. While there was no assigning, the sexual marketplace functioned somewhat efficiently. Subpar females (2-4s) were more likely to pair off with subpar males (2-4s).

Incel status was far less common in the time up until the earliest Millennials reached adulthood circa 2000. The case of incel killer George Sodini (born 1960) was considered unusual in his era. Neil Strauss (born 1969) got famous for getting into PUA circles in the early 2000s. Strauss was a 1990s incel/borderline incel because of his 5'6" height and balding. Even though Strauss had an Ivy League bachelor's degree and was a prominent music journalist at the time, that was not enough status and money to offset his looks deficiencies. Incels in the Baby Boomer and Generation X generations were far less common than what's happened with Gen Y/Millennials and Generation Z who have had sexual marketplaces with less regulation and more technology.

Boomer and Generation X women had much less abundance and were more inclined to be loyal to a man because of having fewer options. As a result, there are plenty of age 60+ men today that have had girlfriend/wives that would have been incels had they been born in the 1980s-1990s instead of being born in the late 1940s to mid 1960s.

In simpler terms, the following statement is true for a lot of younger adults today.

Your mom and your dad would not have been a longer term couple had swipe apps or social media existed when your mom and your dad were under age 35.

 

[GoodMan32]

All this fear of being abandoned by a woman... If a woman abandons you for making an honest mistake, she's unworthy of your care and affection. People here should really work on their self-esteem.

What you're saying is true (she's unworthy of our affection if she'd abandon us over an honest slip-up)

The problem is how many broads have become emboldened to do that (thanks to Tinder-induced abundance)

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

What you're saying is true (she's unworthy of our affection if she'd abandon us over an honest slip-up)

The problem is how many broads have become emboldened to do that (thanks to Tinder-induced abundance)

No, that is not a problem, because these women are unworthy of a man with self-esteem. Only men with low self-esteem care about the opinions of these women. They're not the problem. You are your own problem for accepting their behaviour. Blatant disrespect should never be tolerated.

 

[GoodMan32]

It depends on the stage you're in; if you just began dating, and thus she's observing your behavior (as YOU should be doing as well) then depending on the "slip" that lightswitch swiches off and she's done.

She most likely was not that into you and/or found it difficult to connect with you.

Considerate it a blessing and move on from it.

On the other hand, if you have been dating (banging) for a while and she's very into you, she will "forgive" just about anything, barring abuse, cheating, deception. But even then, she may forgive you, I've seen it!

Even if it involves deluding herself which as a woman and not proud to admit, I have been known to do, as have many women. As I've matured not so much anymore but I used to.

Abuse, cheating, no I don't delude myself about those things, I leave quietly.

I think it's a great insult to men to say they're left clueless and guessing as to why she left?

Intelligent men know exactly why she left if/when they screw up, they don't need her to tell him. Only to then accuse her of creating drama or something in some cases, not all.

But again for the most part, IF she nexts you for the "tiniest thing" then she was looking for an out, a reason to disqualify you and most likely not that into you.

Important distinctions.

I ended up sorta getting "nexted" by the woman I had my last date with. I have a thread about it:

https://www.sosuave.net/forum/threads/i-had-my-first-date-in-ages-heres-the-good-and-the-bad.279247/

I say sorta nexted because it was my idea to cut ties. I proposed cutting ties, however, because the short-lived relationship was starting to become more stress than it was worth (a mere 4 days after our 1st date, she started giving me attitude)

In hindsight, my biggest slip-up was the fact I refused to pick a venue for our 2nd date (she repeatedly asked me where we were going for our 2nd date; I repeatedly told her we'd make a gameday decision).

A peripheral slip-up was the fact I failed to get a joke she made.

Some might say my refusal to pick a venue in advance for our 2nd date was worthy of her losing interest in me. And on the surface, I see why one would think that. But it's crucial to take the following into account:

Even though we hadn't even met until the day of our 1st date, she was gung ho about offering me rides to work, a ride to the dermatologist, etc

The fact she was willing to do all that for a man she had just met would suggest sky high interest level. How strange that her interest level plummeted as quickly as it did.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Even though we hadn't even met until the day of our 1st date, she was gung ho about offering me rides to work, a ride to the dermatologist, etc
The fact she was willing to do all that for a man she had just met would suggest sky high interest level. How strange that her interest level plummeted as quickly as it did.

You evoked the Florence Nightingale in her, not Die Lustige Witwe.
But I guess that's why you're attracted to older women, for the maternal feelings.
You're looking to bone your sublimate mother.

 

[GoodMan32]

I don't remember saying that but it sounds like something I would say / something that I would have some level of agreement with if someone else said it.

Let's work through your hypothetical. The year is 1994 (30 years ago) and we're in the United States. There's a 30 year old woman, meaning she was born in 1964. A 1964 birth is someone born at the tail end of the Baby Boomer generation and right at the cusp of Generation X (1965-1980 birth years). In this hypothetical, I'm going to make the woman childless. In 1994, median age at first marriage was about 4 years younger for women than it is now. The median 1st marriage woman was getting married around age 24-25, as compared to 28-29 now.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

A 30 year old woman in 1994 who found herself single would have been less common, since the median woman in 1994 was getting married at 24-25. A 30 year old unmarried woman in 1994 would have likely lived in a big city and been a careerist if she were never married OR she got married at 24-25 and got divorced within 3-5 years without having children.

If a 30 year old woman was single in 1994 USA, she was probably going to bars 1-3 nights per week to try to meet men if she wanted to date. This means she needs to have enough single friends/acquaintances to accompany her out to bars 1-3 nights per week. That alone is a challenge for women both in 2024 and 1994. But let's say she's able to do that. Let's say she's able to get approached by 5 men per night out. That's somewhat of a generous assumption for a 30 year old in 1994, but not too unrealistic. Let's say she also gets some non-bar approaches too. Between her non-bar and bar approaches, she might get approached by 30-60 men per month. That's not bad but it's nothing compared to women from the mid-2000s to present. A 30 year old single woman in 2024 would have 300+ right swipes on swipe apps in a month + social media DMs + real life approaches. Whereas 1994 woman has 30-60 men per month a good deal of effort in real effort, 2024 woman has close to 500 male suitors per month with less effort than the 1994 woman made.

Most Millennial/Gen Z females have upped their quantity of suitors by a big factor (10x +) as compared to their Boomer/Gen X equivalents at a similar age.



In the 19th and for most of the 20th Century, there were cultural and logistical factors that regulated the sexual marketplace to an extent. While there was no assigning, the sexual marketplace functioned somewhat efficiently. Subpar females (2-4s) were more likely to pair off with subpar males (2-4s).

Incel status was far less common in the time up until the earliest Millennials reached adulthood circa 2000. The case of incel killer George Sodini (born 1960) was considered unusual in his era. Neil Strauss (born 1969) got famous for getting into PUA circles in the early 2000s. Strauss was a 1990s incel/borderline incel because of his 5'6" height and balding. Even though Strauss had an Ivy League bachelor's degree and was a prominent music journalist at the time, that was not enough status and money to offset his looks deficiencies. Incels in the Baby Boomer and Generation X generations were far less common than what's happened with Gen Y/Millennials and Generation Z who have had sexual marketplaces with less regulation and more technology.

Boomer and Generation X women had much less abundance and were more inclined to be loyal to a man because of having fewer options. As a result, there are plenty of age 60+ men today that have had girlfriend/wives that would have been incels had they been born in the 1980s-1990s instead of being born in the late 1940s to mid 1960s.

In simpler terms, the following statement is true for a lot of younger adults today.

Your mom and your dad would not have been a longer term couple had swipe apps or social media existed when your mom and your dad were under age 35.

I thought of a brilliant idea. While there's no way to fully take us back to the 80s, here's an idea where we could make some major strides in offsetting a woman's 2024 abundance:

Outlaw Tinder, OnlyFans, and Instagram.

That alone would help men to a massive degree (and for the best of both worlds, we'd still have the internet, therefore we'd still have modern conveniences)

As for George Sodini, even though he was born in the 60s, it's crucial to point out he went on his rampage in 2009. Society was starting to feel the effects of female abundance by then (although nowhere near 2024 levels)

You're probably right about my parents never becoming a long-term couple if they were from a younger generation. While my dad's looks have obviously faded, he was somewhat of a Chad in his younger days (college athlete). That alone would have made him one of the rare guys to get a lot of attention on swipe apps.

As for my mom (and you're, to the best of my knowledge, the only poster who's seen what she looks like at her current age), simply by being a woman she would have had lots of abundance had swipe apps existed in her younger days.

 

[GoodMan32]

No, that is not a problem, because these women are unworthy of a man with self-esteem. Only men with low self-esteem care about the opinions of these women. They're not the problem. You are your own problem for accepting their behaviour. Blatant disrespect should never be tolerated.

Agreed, blatant disrespect should never be tolerated.

That's why I found an exit plan when the woman I had my last date with started giving me attitude.

That's also why, after a coworker whose booty I was infatuated with made a racist comment about my people, I stopped talking to her cold turkey (which she didn't take well)

 

[GoodMan32]

You evoked the Florence Nightingale in her, not Die Lustige Witwe.
But I guess that's why you're attracted to older women, for the maternal feelings.
You're looking to bone your sublimate mother.

The woman I had my last date with is only 6 years older than me.

 

[SW15]

George Sodini, even though he was born in the 60s, it's crucial to point out he went on his rampage in 2009. Society was starting to feel the effects of female abundance by then (although nowhere near 2024 levels)

Sodini went on his rampage in 2009, but his sexual struggles started in the late 1970s/early 1980s. That was a different sexual marketplace than the 2000s.

As for my mom (and you're, to the best of my knowledge, the only poster who's seen what she looks like at her current age), simply by being a woman she would have had lots of abundance had swipe apps existed in her younger days.

You are confusing me with another poster. I have never seen your mom.

I have thought about how some of my older female relatives would have dealt with having abundance from tech tools in their young adult years.

I have some older female relatives that have used online dating websites after middle aged divorces but I don't think any have used swipe apps.

These female relatives all have Facebook accounts. Only 1 is on Instagram but she has barely ever used it.