All it takes is One Slip

[Bingo-Player]

Stay away from mentally unstable, immature, disloyal people.

Easier said than done especially as you get older

I feel about 70% of the people I meet now have some sort of disorder / addiction or issue

 

[Manure Spherian]

I feel about 70% of the people I meet now have some sort of disorder / addiction or issue

I’m not trying to be a wiseass here. That means those 70% of people are to be avoided from the start.

And yes, I actually think the majority of the people in the West, particularly America, are psychologically screwed up in one way or another.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

I’m not trying to be a wiseass here. That means those 70% of people are to be avoided from the start.

If you want to keep your sanity, you have to be selective with the emotional attachment in your interactions.

 

[GoodMan32]

Don't make sex a priority.
Don't pursue women, let them chase you.
Don't bend over backwards making women feel 'comfortable'.

Relax and don't give an airborne copulation about other people's opinions. Including mine.

Your pointers are pretty much what I do.

Yet look where it's gotten me.

 

[GoodMan32]

OP I see hot women with average low game dudes all the time. No way these dudes have game that tight where every word out of their mouth is perfect. I think your premise is wrong.

The men you speak of probably have money.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Your pointers are pretty much what I do.

Yet look where it's gotten me.

Yet, you keep quoting me to attract my attention. If only you'd step out of your house and try to interact with real people...

 

[jhonny9546]

Don't make sex a priority.

But be a sex god when you do it.

 

[itouchyou]

The men you speak of probably have money.

No, and the women don't need their money either. I know plenty of women from well off families dating average men seriously.

 

[BaronOfHair]

One slip.

That's all it takes.

One slip, and it is all over. You are nexted.

You are always under severe scrutiny. Always. People are waiting for you to fail.
They want you to fail. It can't be, you can't be that awesome.
You must fail. Why does he not fail?

And you don't.

But, you make a remark about that dress. You overpush push and pull. You let your guard down for a minute.

That is it.
That is all they need.

After that, they will run to their little coven, telling what you've done. And that will be digested and analysed, and debated, again, under severe scrutiny, and sadly, against you. Her friends, her exes, her orbiters, her sisters, her brothers, mothers, your mutual friends, her kid. You name it.

And everyone, and I mean, everyone is against you.

With that said and done, that is enough reason for her to go cold, get distanced, and sooner than later, fvck the next guy.

By then, it's bella ciao!

Whats even worse is, you never know what have you actually done. She is not coming back to tell you, it was that remark.
Leaving you to guess what the f just happened.

It does not matter how great you are, how awesome you can be, nothing. Nothing matters against the reasoning of the coven.
It took enourmos proportions by now.

Since they have infinite ammount of options, they would not care to call you and say, babe, there is something wrong. This and this happened.

They will just default to default. Flaky, cold, distance... and the eventual penis.

And that is how you are nexted
And also that's why they are so screwed up in their minds. Because they are forever stuck in this cycle.

How do you prevent that?
You don't. They are always looking for something to go wrong. And since they are hellbent on that, they will find it, you like it or not.

The only thing you can do is:
Spin plates yourself. Always have a plan b, and c. And dump the btch as soon as things get lukewarm, 'cause that's the first warning.

If you walk away at the first sign of disrespect, then you might have the chance to keep balls rolling for a longer period.

But don't hold on to that feeling. You just gained another day. Remember what is their default.

Use this approach in life. Keep winning!

Thou shall not fall

 

[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 just thought of another possible solution to the epidemic of a woman "nexting" a man (thanks to the abundance broads have in 2024):

While I admitted I find it silly to assign a woman (who probably isn't into him in the slightest; and vice versa) to a man (therefore I don't support the idea of assigning a woman to a man), here's a more realistic idea: Outlawing a woman from "nexting" a man over a trivial reason.

As for what constitutes a trivial reason? That'd be up to a judge.

My idea is more reasonable than assigning a woman to a man, as it doesn't mandate a man and woman who aren't even into each other get together. All it would do is prevent a woman from doing a trivial "nexting" of a man she is into.

Unfortunately, my idea will never happen.

Some would say my idea is unnatural because it meddles with natural selection. In which case, my rebuttal is: The sheer abundance a woman has in 2024 is unnatural. My idea simply aims to take us back to the era when the marketplace was more natural.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

While I admitted I find it silly to assign a woman (who probably isn't into him in the slightest; and vice versa) to a man (therefore I don't support the idea of assigning a woman to a man), here's a more realistic idea: Outlawing a woman from "nexting" a man over a trivial reason.

If I were a woman, that would be a good reason to "next" someone.

 

[Vanderdonck]

I just thought of another possible solution to the epidemic of a woman "nexting" a man (thanks to the abundance broads have in 2024):

While I admitted I find it silly to assign a woman (who probably isn't into him in the slightest; and vice versa) to a man (therefore I don't support the idea of assigning a woman to a man), here's a more realistic idea: Outlawing a woman from "nexting" a man over a trivial reason.

As for what constitutes a trivial reason? That'd be up to a judge.

My idea is more reasonable than assigning a woman to a man, as it doesn't mandate a man and woman who aren't even into each other get together. All it would do is prevent a woman from doing a trivial "nexting" of a man she is into.

Unfortunately, my idea will never happen.

Some would say my idea is unnatural because it meddles with natural selection. In which case, my rebuttal is: The sheer abundance a woman has in 2024 is unnatural. My idea simply aims to take us back to the era when the marketplace was more natural.

If it's happening, it's natural. Men created the tech that women exploit for abundance. Billions of years of evolution led to that and are still in progress. Just because you don't like that it's happening does make it unnatural.

As for outlawing nexting, the only reason anyone should need is "because I want to." Would you really stay with a woman who wants to next you but can't?

 

[SW15]

Some would say my idea is unnatural because it meddles with natural selection. In which case, my rebuttal is: The sheer abundance a woman has in 2024 is unnatural. My idea simply aims to take us back to the era when the marketplace was more natural.

Any of the solutions that you propose are too far fetched to be realistic.

The sexual marketplace is evolving in response to new technologies and other cultural changes. Some cultural changes can be made on laws made and others are based on social movements that become a part of study of various social science disciplines.

As I see it, in post World War II USA, there are have two big era of changes.

The first significant era of change took place between the 1960s-1980s, but more of the big events took place in the 1960s-1970s.The big changes of the 1960s-1970s that impacted the USA's sexual marketplace were:

• The birth control pill, growth in use of all contraception methods, and promiscuity
• No fault divorce
• Women entering the workplace in less traditionally female roles

The next era of change took place between the 1990s-2010s. The 1990s-2010s built upon the 1960s-1980s changes in the marketplace, but it was computer chip based technology that changed it all. The internet started to gain adoption in the 1990s, but the changes to the dating marketplace didn't take effect until the mid-2000s. Match.com launched in 1995, but it sort of lingered around until the early to mid 2000s, waiting for internet based initial matching to get de-stigmatized. Social media and smartphones also changed all too. Both emerged in the mid to late 2000s and quickly changed dating. The computer chip and computer networking based technology advancements of the 1990s-2000s really came together in the 2010s. App-based initial matching started for heterosexuals in 2012 with the launch of Tinder.

There were other social changes from the 1990s-present. Promiscuity was even more promoted in the media. People continued to delay marriage while not delaying sex and even marriage was considered more optional.

While this isn't everything that changed in the marketplace, I think I covered a lot of the things that have led to the 2010s-2020s market.

Things might change in the future if women see bad consequences for too much abundance. That has yet to happen. It might happen more in the 2030s, as the first half of the Millennial generation gets to perimenopause/menopause with almost nothing to show for 20-30 years of penis carousel riding.

 

[GoodMan32]

If it's happening, it's natural. Men created the tech that women exploit for abundance. Billions of years of evolution led to that and are still in progress. Just because you don't like that it's happening does make it unnatural.

As for outlawing nexting, the only reason anyone should need is "because I want to." Would you really stay with a woman who wants to next you but can't?

Lots of unnatural stuff is happening right now (not just in the dating/sex realm; in other realms too)

The current status quo (where a woman will next a man for reasons that wouldn't have gotten a man nexted 30 years ago, when a woman couldn't pull out her iPhone and get 20 men begging her for sex within minutes) isn't sustainable.

Yeah, I'd be down for staying with a woman who (hypothetically) wanted to next me but couldn't.

As an example, the woman I had my date with in 2023 nexted me for 2 main reasons:

• Failure to get a joke
• Unfamiliarity with the social norm that the man is supposed to pick the venue for dates

If (in the society I envision) a judge were to rule those reasons trivial (therefore the woman couldn't next me), I'm confident we'd both end up happy with the results in the end. This was a woman who showed sky high interest levels in me at first. Had we been "forced" to work out our minor "problem," that would have been for the best.

Some say marriage is a way of "forcing" couples to overcome petty squabbles (as getting a divorce is a lot harder than a girlfriend/boyfriend breaking up). My idea is the same type concept.

 

[SW15]

The current status quo (where a woman will next a man for reasons that wouldn't have gotten a man nexted 30 years ago, when a woman couldn't pull out her iPhone and get 20 men begging her for sex within minutes) isn't sustainable.

This status quo has not been good for the majority of men. It favors women but even women aren't pleased with their abundance of options.

the woman I had my date with in 2023 nexted me for 2 main reasons:

• Failure to get a joke
• Unfamiliarity with the social norm that the man is supposed to pick the venue for dates

You probably would have gotten nexted in 1990 too in that situation. In 1990, you might have been able to get away with the joke thing (people tended not to next for petty reasons then) but you certainly would have gotten nexted over not picking a venue.

Also, dates were arranged in person in 1990, so your approach would have stalled out in 1990 and the date likely would not have even happened.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

The current status quo (where a woman will next a man for reasons that wouldn't have gotten a man nexted 30 years ago, when a woman couldn't pull out her iPhone and get 20 men begging her for sex within minutes) isn't sustainable.

This status quo has not been good for the majority of men. It favors women but even women aren't pleased with their abundance of options.

Those 'orbiters' are unattractive to the women they orbit. Even before the internet, I dated women who had orbiters, and none of them would ever end up in her bed. The 'abundance' is imaginary. They wouldn't have sex with any of them, especially the ones begging for sex. I know men can be thirsty enough to have sex with some unattractive women, but women rarely stoop to sex with unattractive men.

This is why I say, don't look at other men as your competitors. The only competition you should have is with your Past Self and only to improve your Future Self. Men following women on social media are rarely in a position to have real interactions with their crushes.

I dated women who had social media presence through their modelling agencies (it's more or less mandatory now as a fashion/runway model to have an IG account) and none of them pay any attention to the simpletons who follow their accounts. They do not factor in their lives. They don't date followers, they don't find dates on social media and/or dating apps.

 

[GoodMan32]

Any of the solutions that you propose are too far fetched to be realistic.

The sexual marketplace is evolving in response to new technologies and other cultural changes. Some cultural changes can be made on laws made and others are based on social movements that become a part of study of various social science disciplines.

As I see it, in post World War II USA, there are have two big era of changes.

The first significant era of change took place between the 1960s-1980s, but more of the big events took place in the 1960s-1970s.The big changes of the 1960s-1970s that impacted the USA's sexual marketplace were:

• The birth control pill, growth in use of all contraception methods, and promiscuity
• No fault divorce
• Women entering the workplace in less traditionally female roles

The next era of change took place between the 1990s-2010s. The 1990s-2010s built upon the 1960s-1980s changes in the marketplace, but it was computer chip based technology that changed it all. The internet started to gain adoption in the 1990s, but the changes to the dating marketplace didn't take effect until the mid-2000s. Match.com launched in 1995, but it sort of lingered around until the early to mid 2000s, waiting for internet based initial matching to get de-stigmatized. Social media and smartphones also changed all too. Both emerged in the mid to late 2000s and quickly changed dating. The computer chip and computer networking based technology advancements of the 1990s-2000s really came together in the 2010s. App-based initial matching started for heterosexuals in 2012 with the launch of Tinder.

There were other social changes from the 1990s-present. Promiscuity was even more promoted in the media. People continued to delay marriage while not delaying sex and even marriage was considered more optional.

While this isn't everything that changed in the marketplace, I think I covered a lot of the things that have led to the 2010s-2020s market.

Things might change in the future if women see bad consequences for too much abundance. That has yet to happen. It might happen more in the 2030s, as the first half of the Millennial generation gets to perimenopause/menopause with almost nothing to show for 20-30 years of penis carousel riding.

1982 babies (the first Millennials) will turn 45 (peri-menopause) in 2027. It's possible changes will happen even sooner than the 2030s.

One can only hope changes happen. Something's got to give. Allowing the current status quo to exist forever will have disastrous consequences.

 

[GoodMan32]

This status quo has not been good for the majority of men. It favors women but even women aren't pleased with their abundance of options.



You probably would have gotten nexted in 1990 too in that situation. In 1990, you might have been able to get away with the joke thing (people tended not to next for petty reasons then) but you certainly would have gotten nexted over not picking a venue.

Also, dates were arranged in person in 1990, so your approach would have stalled out in 1990 and the date likely would not have even happened.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that even a lot of broads aren't pleased with their abundance. Too much of anything can be a bad thing.

Having too much abundance leads to a woman not appreciating any given man. 30 years ago, a woman would appreciate any given man more (because replacing him wasn't as easy as it is in 2024)

You illustrated a brilliant point I hadn't even thought of: In 1990, we wouldn't have spent 4 days texting incessantly after our first date (as texting didn't exist yet). In a way, that's a good thing, as it would eliminate a lot of potential scenarios for me to slip up.

With how different 1990 was, here's another thing that could have gone differently: In 1990, once the 1st date was over, we likely would have set up a 2nd date right then and there for the following weekend.

I'd also venture to guess it's more likely that broad would have offered sex on the 1st date in 1990 (since the 1st date went well...and since there wasn't as much abundance for broads in 1990)

 

[BaronOfHair]

One can only hope changes happen

We can all keep waiting for an Apocalypse which never quite occurs. When the world after

wasn't a Utopia free of all difficulties and disappointments, woe betide anyone who believes they're going to enjoy The Kingdom Of Heaven anytime soon

 

[SW15]

Having too much abundance leads to a woman not appreciating any given man. 30 years ago, a woman would appreciate any given man more (because replacing him wasn't as easy as it is in 2024)

It was more difficult to replace a man in the 1990-1994 era as compared to 2020-2024.

Women appreciate any given interaction at any stage less now than they would have in the 1980s-early 1990s. As a result, one slight slip up now can end an interaction.

You illustrated a brilliant point I hadn't even thought of: In 1990, we wouldn't have spent 4 days texting incessantly after our first date (as texting didn't exist yet). In a way, that's a good thing, as it would eliminate a lot of potential scenarios for me to slip up.

With how different 1990 was, here's another thing that could have gone differently: In 1990, once the 1st date was over, we likely would have set up a 2nd date right then and there for the following weekend.

In 1990, text-based messages on cellular telephones and text-based email on laptop/desktop computers were not a part of the dating scene yet in a meaningful way.

In 1990, if you wanted to contact someone using a telephone, it would usually be from a landline telephone in your home to a landline telephone in her home. It might take a few days playing phone tag leaving messages on answering machines to connect. You would be incentivized to make plans in person as playing phone tag on landlines was unpleasant.

There were challenges with communication in the landline era that were difficult for men to navigate.

Below is my personal connection to this era in the context of mating. I do remember landline communications more from my pre-mating environment life in elementary school, junior high, and the earliest part of high school.

I caught the tail end of the landline era when I first started dating as a 16 year old in 1999. From 1999-2001, I was still in high school, which was a bit of a bubble dating environment compared to the real world. 2001-2004 was the era of changeover from landlines to pre-smartphone cellular phones. This is when flip phones and candy bar phones were a thing and the convenience of making telephone calls while not sitting at home became a big change. In this era, I was still in a bubble dating environment and it was the bubble of a "Hot Girl U" college campus. After I got my first cell phone in college, I thought it was so awesome that I could call women on the telephone while walking on campus between classes or after classes. I could take a study break from the library, go outside, and talk to a prospect on the phone. In that era, AOL Instant Messenger also came in on computers and was a pre-cursor to texting. I did use that with some women, but usually not in the earliest stages.

I'd also venture to guess it's more likely that broad would have offered sex on the 1st date in 1990 (since the 1st date went well...and since there wasn't as much abundance for broads in 1990)

I don't agree with this.

I doubt you would have been offered sex on a first date in 1990.

Here's the difference between 1990 and 2024 for middle tier men. Women were a little bit more patient with middle tier men then and gave them longer, more thorough evaluations. You might have gotten a 2nd date in 1990 instead of a post-first date flaking/ghosting but women weren't spreading legs that fast for mid-tier men in 1990.

1982 babies (the first Millennials) will turn 45 (peri-menopause) in 2027. It's possible changes will happen even sooner than the 2030s.

Millennials are rapidly turning 40 right now. There's another thread on forthcoming changes in the sexual marketplace. I will address that topic there.