Every Woman Left On The Market Is Fvcked Up

[Tenacity]

Here is what most men are either too weak or stupid to understand:

"The market" is basically giving men the middle finger. Instead of sport f*cking "the market" and moving on with their day.. men are choosing instead to whine, b!tch, cry and moan over it. Why? Because Disney movies promised them a secure co-dependent relationship with some fantasy woman that doesn't exist in 2017.

You think the market will improve if you whine enough about it?

Guess what gentlemen? There is more to life than women and settling into some gay co-dependent relationship. The market is trying to tell you this by giving you the middle finger EVERY DAY you try to make one of these dumb LTR's "work out".

When will you get it? WHEN?

What I'm trying to figure out is if my analysis is correct and it's indeed a MARKET ISSUE.....or is there some major flaw that I have that I don't know about......that's causing the chicks to have personality/attitude related problems?

Which one is it? This is the $1 million question because if it is indeed a MARKET ISSUE, that does change everything for me in terms of my ultimate goals for dating/women. I guess I would have to spin plates forever, because shyt, what else could I do?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Tenacity, after review of your online profile, here is my assessment.

Online game is more difficult than open approach, because hot women are approached 10x more online, as approaching by email is far easier than open approach on the street/in a venue. Accordingly, you have really to differentiate yourself from and supersede the competition.

You give yourself a 7 in the looks department. This is a fair assessment. However, I feel that your pics do injustice to your SMV, and even knocks you down a point or two. Here’s why:

You have a good physique. How many shirtless pics do you have up? Five? This demonstrates low value. You appear as a guy who derives his value strictly from his physique and possesses no other strong values, and thus overcompensating. This image you portray is the diametric opposite of who you are.

You are educated.

You are financially successful.

You have intelligence.

Actions Needed:

1) Limit the profile to one shirtless photo, maximum. Your come across as a gym rat. Yes, I understand you get attention, but you are getting attention from the girls that you don’t want.

2) How much were those sweat pants in all your shirtless photos? They appear as $2 sweatpants from K-Mart. What does this demonstrate to the naked eye? That you have no style, no couth, no debonair.

3) Lose the hat; it doesn’t exemplify you as a high-value man.

You have two other pics: one with your car, one with an oversized black suit.

4) Lose the pic of your car. It’s a demonstration of low value. Even, if the car were a six-figure Benz, still lose the car pic.

5) Your suit is oversized and tawdry. Yes, I get that how some brothers wear it, but you want to get into a fitted Italian suit, like this.

This suit is a magnet toward all women. Ask BeExcellent or other women in this forum if my recommendations are correct. You can have the pick of the litter, if you elect.

Summary

If your primary source of dating is OLD, I can see why you are not meeting the type of women you desire. If you elect to make the changes I highlighted, you will have a tremendous turn around in the type of women that you attract. Instead of lowering your perceived value from a 7 to a 5, you will increase your perceived value from a 7 to a 9.

 

[Poon King]

What I'm trying to figure out is if my analysis is correct and it's indeed a MARKET ISSUE.....or is there some major flaw that I have that I don't know about......that's causing the chicks to have personality/attitude related problems?

Which one is it? This is the $1 million question because if it is indeed a MARKET ISSUE, that does change everything for me in terms of my ultimate goals for dating/women. I guess I would have to spin plates forever, because shyt, what else could I do?

Its BOTH.

The market is garbage (by Disney standards) and you are a person with deep issues (based on your posts).

Not saying I don't have my own issues.. but at least I don't blame others. I don't expect everyone on earth to cry with me and give me therapy over my stupid problems that are easy to fix AND often self-inflicted by my own ignorance.

 

[zekko]

This "piece of 99% trash" gets treated better, and provides less.

Your's is not a philosophy that holds up to any real world experience. It's fiction writing.

I've never had a girl put me on the back burner for a bad boy type. I've had girls put bad boys on the back burner for me, however. Point is: In the dating world, all kinds of things happen, it's not just one size formula fits all.

The market is bad, because of feminism and the lack of morality in society today. It's not impossible though, decent women are out there if you look hard enough.

The manosphere complains about the quality of women, but they also ridicule the idea of morality as a social construct to be ignored. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[C00lAF]

Your job is to get laid,not provide therapy sessions,her issues her problems,even if i dont find a quality girl i do not give a damn cause i dont need one,she will put more pressure on me anyways and the so called "quality" will turn into a psych reck sooner or later.

 

[C00lAF]

Or just f*ck 'em and dip.

6 words summed up the whole solution lol

 

[BeExcellent]

The conclusion @l_e_g_e_n_d reaches about @Tenacity and his OLD profile is very similar to the one I reached. The pictures are not congruent to the profile itself.

I gave very similar advice regarding the pictures although @l_e_g_e_n_d was more specific in a couple of areas and therefore both consistent with and better than mine in some ways.

As to the quality question. Quality runs on a spectrum. Any reasonably intelligent person ought to be able to observe this first hand in life. For a man whose stated objective is procreation and possibly marriage your dam straight a man better vet for quality. Recognize market conditions and vet accordingly. This is not news. Nor is it some Disney frame push either.

For the 105th time @deesade what you are doing is working for YOUR objective. Fabulous! I think as far as much of the advice you give is spot on for men with similar objectives. Your error is rabid advocacy that your perspective is the ONLY perspective. It ain't. You are too young to be utterly bored with new pvssy and the time investment required to keep filling the rotation. Some men want more depth and their time freed up to do "man stuff". You don't recognize that others have different objectives and goals than you do.

@Desdinova has a different perspective that spring from his goals and his High Score a Theory. @Tenacity has goals of procreation and maybe marriage (and so do other men here). @daddymonsterpoodle and @Howiestern are older men enjoying depth in relationships with "quality" women according to their own definition.

If your frame was 100% correct there would be no successful marriage in the West where women are independent relative to the developing world. Look at David Bowie and Iman, look at George & Laura Bush, look at Rodger Staubach, there are countless couples who are actually *Egads!!* happy!!

The best women do get like locked down early. So that's the whole point of discussing what to look for amongst what's left (or comes available from time to time).

And no. I don't date men like you, much as I'm sure you're actually a cool bloke. I've known plenty of men like you, many of whom wanted to go out. Men like you do not make the cut for me. Never have, never will.

You are too cynical to recognize anything beyond your own view. With all due respect sir.

 

[BeExcellent]

I do think @deesade is correct that more IRL approaches might help. That can't hurt and may help a great deal in the right environment.

Or anywhere @Tenacity sees a woman he finds attractive.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Hey man look. I'm gonna be real with you here. Your idea of a quality woman who doesn't have ANY of these issues to any degree whatsoever, just doesn't exist. That image of a beautiful woman who just does what you ask without asking questions or giving you a hard time? She doesn't exist. That woman who is naturally a sweet and lovng person because that's just who she is? She doesn't exist. That woman who does stuff for you without expecting anything in return? She doesn't exist.

This type of woman doesn't exist. Not in the way you think anyway. The only way she would exist like this is if she REALLY adores you. And emotions that strong cannot last forever. Why can't they? The same reason why druggies need to take a higher dosage each time to achieve that same high. It's an evolutionary mechanism that developed so that we do not get complacent (example: if you eat a piece of candy, your brain lets you know that you like it and that it tastes good. If you keep on eating it though, it begins to taste more bland and doesnt taste as good as your first bite. Or say a little boy playing soccer scores the winning point in a shootout. He feels ecstatic, but not for the rest of his life. Just in the moment or perhaps several days or weeks or whatever).

These women don't really exist and you won't really find them until you stop looking for them.

 

[The Duke]

Just incase you missed it @deesade
For the 106th time @deesade what you are doing is working for YOUR objective. Fabulous! I think as far as much of the advice you give is spot on for men with similar objectives. Your error is rabid advocacy that your perspective is the ONLY perspective.

Deesade: A woman's quality is her looks - period.

No doubt this should be "a" quality. But the only quality you require? What if you wanted a deeper relationship? Do you really believe you can have a successful long term relationship based solely on looks? I know it can be successful short term, but those are also very "surface".

When all I required was "hot and fun", I got a lot of low quality women. It definitely effected my attitude and caused me to have a cynical outlook towards all women.

 

[C00lAF]

A civilized spicy FOOking thread,just how i like it

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

BeExcellent & Deesade,

Again, the sparks fly between you two!

Please, let us all know when the engagement is announced.

Everyone is dying to know: Will Deesade get down on one knee when he proposes? .... Will BeExcellent wear white?

-Augustus-

 

[AttackFormation]

I think "quality" is one part static one part fluid. Her own "quality" status (looks, amount of previous kids, etc. Whatever you want to include here) = static, while her "quality" behavior with each man in each situation is fluid. You guys are just arguing about that simple idea.

 

[bigneil]

Men want 3 things from women (according to Stefan Molyneux):

1) Quality
2) Fertility
3) Loyalty

A big part of a woman's quality is her attitude (see Doc Love for more on this). This cannot be changed and is one of the most important intangibles. To some degree her attitude is a function of her interest level in you, but about half of it is hard-wired. Some women have a naturally sweet disposition while others do not. It can't be distilled down to just looks.

BeExcellent for example has a sweet disposition (part of that is her interest in deesade) . Other female SS members take a much nastier approach to debates, such as TrainWreck.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

Deesade ,

I have to admit, you got a laugh out of me with that last post.

And: "We're all fvcked up in our own particular manner." Simultaneously funny as fvck and true.

-Augustus-

 

[sazc]

BeExcellent & Deesade,

Again, the sparks fly between you two!

Please, let us all know when the engagement is announced.

Everyone is dying to know: Will Deesade get down on one knee when he proposes? .... Will BeExcellent wear white?

-Augustus-

Wait! I thought @dessade and I were going to get hitched!?!
I smell THREE WAYYYYYY!

I repeat....
Just in case you missed it @deesade
For the 172nd time @deesade what you are doing is working for YOUR objective. Fabulous! I think as far as much of the advice you give is spot on for men with similar objectives. Your error is rabid advocacy that your perspective is the ONLY perspective.

It's toats true babe & you know it.
You gotta do you, but I still contend that both you and @Poon King have some real wisdom to bestow in terms of LTRs on the men who are looking for LTRs. I know you both think LTRs are crap, and that is righteous for your game, but it's frustrating for a man who does want an LTR to constantly be put down and judged because that's not what you want.
I'm just sayin....

 

[BeExcellent]

Actually no @deesade not everyone would consider me a quality catch here. Depends on filters. Why is that?

Let's use @Tenacity criteria. According to that criteria I have the following issue:

1. I already have kids (3) and I've been to the vet anyway so no more babies for me. That alone disqualifies me from his list.

Never mind that as far as he's concerned I am too old, too white, and too far away.

Now on looks, weight, personality and financial status I assure you I am doing just fine.

But I am still a quality person. As in the characteristics listed earlier in the thread by @l_e_g_e_n_d.

I think @AttackFormation sums it up nicely. Part of "quality" is interest level and part is intrinsic to the person's character.

When I post about quality I am posting about intrinsic character traits.

Without interest level being a given who cares about quality?

Even you note that you have dated marriageable women. Ok so this actually gives credence to what I am saying.

The things that make woman marriageable are intrinsic character traits as discussed in this thread.

As a woman the only means to filter players such as yourself (I have many male friends who are or were incorrigible rakes, they make delightful pals and would fvck me in an instant given the opportunity) is to choose wisely and pace the relationship slowly.

This requires character and restraint. It accomplishes three important things from the woman's viewpoint.

1. It weeds out men who want a sex only or close to sex only liaison very quickly.

2. It allows time for two people to get acquainted and observe personality & compatibility.

3. It builds sexual tension.

This requires patience. On both the part of the man & woman and restraint on the part of the woman (if we assume she has high IL). High IL to me means she finds the man sexually desirable and then begins to apply filters according to her preferences. My first filter is whether or not a man wants more than just sex. It is a filter that works it's magic quickly and saves me lots of unnecessary trouble and worry.

Men are crafty too as we all know. Men will say and do whatever it takes to get into a woman's knickers. A wise woman knows this and handles herself accordingly.

 

[Dingo]

Holy crap !

Reading this almost makes me feel good about being married..... Almost....

 

[Roober]

Quality is relative! Some may view lower quality in looks, others in reciprocated love, and others in different acts. The problem is that most men who are in LTR or marriage CHANGE their definition of quality to fit the relationship, hence why women have so many options. Once hypnotized by the sweet spot between her legs, his will accept A, B, C, and D instead of only accepting A from a woman

Women know they have this power and exploit it to the max. A quality woman will test the waters, but if a man retains his frame (which most do not), they will come to a compromise that works for both parties. If the man loses frame, this "quality" woman will be gradually shaped by her weak man into a low quality woman.

So, essentially, it is the weak men which are shaping the behaviors of women, allowing for bad behavior in hopes for constant access to the valuable resource between her legs. She keeps taking as long as he keeps giving...

It is not about women, it is human nature....

 

[skinnyguy]

The title of this thread has a lot of truth to it. Especially if you main avenue is online dating. If you talk about all of these problems - too fat, no money, no education, kid from previous relationship, gold digger, BPD, bad relationship with their family, narcissistic, flakey, etc, the OP is absolutely right that even if you "next" low quality women you'll just run into another one.

Nexting can be a good strategy, but the guys on here who are serial daters are frustrated that they can't find a quality woman.

Now I have none of those issues that I stated above, but a woman might view me as low quality. I'm 34 and single, I am not a "Bad boy", I'm not muscular, etc.

So I understand that people perceive things differently.