The college hype is unreal, true players get how overrated it is.

[SW15]

college parties sound miserable

It depends. I do think that they don't live up to the hype for the vast majority of men. There's a difference between not living up to the hype and miserable.

Even in Greek Life, there's a reason why the fraternity and sorority members tend to form committed relationships. It's easier for them to get sex that way. If you're a guy in a top tier fraternity at a given school, the parties might be better for getting more frequent, uncommitted sex. Members of the top fraternities are even in the minority among fraternity members and even some of them get into LTRs from top sorority sisters.

The non-Greeks who party tend to go to random off campus apartment complexes or single family houses with parties. Most of those parties don't amount to much but intoxication for the majority.

The better way to play the college game as a non-Greek is to use the far less sexy options of after class approaches, extracurricular clubs, social circle building, and then some on campus daygame to form a committed relationships. Greeks can use Greek Life as their social circle building.

 

[CornbreadFed]

As someone who's never been drunk (and has no desire to get drunk), college parties sound miserable (and I am glad I never went to a college party)

I got laid at pretty much every college party, but you are better off meeting them in class tbh.

 

[SW15]

I got laid at pretty much every college party, but you are better off meeting them in class tbh.

That's impressive that you got laid at the majority of college parties that you attended. I was still in nice guy recovery from my upbringing during at least part of college and I think that impacted my outcomes at college parties, especially in freshman-sophomore years. There were other factors too.

Why do you think meeting women through academic classes is better? What about the on campus clubs?

 

[GoodMan32]

It depends. I do think that they don't live up to the hype for the vast majority of men. There's a difference between not living up to the hype and miserable.

Even in Greek Life, there's a reason why the fraternity and sorority members tend to form committed relationships. It's easier for them to get sex that way. If you're a guy in a top tier fraternity at a given school, the parties might be better for getting more frequent, uncommitted sex. Members of the top fraternities are even in the minority among fraternity members and even some of them get into LTRs from top sorority sisters.

The non-Greeks who party tend to go to random off campus apartment complexes or single family houses with parties. Most of those parties don't amount to much but intoxication for the majority.

The better way to play the college game as a non-Greek is to use the far less sexy options of after class approaches, extracurricular clubs, social circle building, and then some on campus daygame to form a committed relationships. Greeks can use Greek Life as their social circle building.

Since (as I said) I've never been drunk (nor do I have any desire to), that's the main reason I said college parties sound miserable. For me, the purpose of a college party would have been to get action (yet as you pointed out, action is unlikely for non-Greek).

In addition to the story I shared about a girl from class I had to dump after a week, there were a few other approaches on girls from class.

• There was a girl in one of my electives I developed a flirtatious dynamic with. Yet the dynamic failed to go any further.
• There were 2 girls from my major program I expressed interest in. One gave me a hard no; one gave me a maybe which became a no next time I followed up.

I belonged to an extracurricular club. There was a girl in the club freshman year (she was also a freshman) I was into. Yet my fear of rejection stopped me from making a move.

Social circle: The clique I settled into had 2 females and 6 males (including me). The 2 female members of the clique each ended up dating multiple male members at one point or another (yet never me)

I guess I was unlucky in the sense I had to rely on tech methods.

 

[Solomon]

So this was what 2013? I don't think girls back then were as dedicated about fitness and dietary habits as girls today that grew up with tiktok. So the girls I been with thus far have none of the cons you listed above

I do agree that you do have SOME younger women who take her of their shape and work out more. I noticed in my experince with Gen-z women they tend have better bodies if they work out that are more fit. However this generation you have a lot of women who don't hence the landwhales are at an all time high among young women compared to previous generations

 

[CornbreadFed]

That's impressive that you got laid at the majority of college parties that you attended. I was still in nice guy recovery from my upbringing during at least part of college and I think that impacted my outcomes at college parties, especially in freshman-sophomore years. There were other factors too.

Why do you think meeting women through academic classes is better? What about the on campus clubs?

Connection is better and most girls are going to be put off to drunk one night stands to a random guy at a party unless the timing is right.

 

[SW15]

I guess I was unlucky in the sense I had to rely on tech methods.

That is a waste of the college experience. The on campus experience that a college/university can offer should make the tech methods not necessary.

The tech methods were starting to become relevant when I was in college. During the 2001-2005 era, there were dating websites. Plenty of Fish started in 2003, OkCupid started in 2004, and Match.com had been around since the mid-1990s. This was the era in which online dating websites were first becoming de-stigmatized.

In freshman and sophomore years (2001-02 and 2002-03), use of AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) was significant. I remember in freshman year dorm that a lot of us were using AIM to send text-based messages to each other. This was a epre-cursor to cell phone based text messaging.

In 2004, both MySpace and Facebook launched too.

Outside of AIM, almost none of that tech was necessary to actually meet people.

Tech methods are more necessary for post-college working age adults than college students. I've also made the point that tech methods are a bad idea even for the post-college working age adults.

Connection is better and most girls are going to be put off to drunk one night stands to a random guy at a party unless the timing is right.

I agree. It's more difficult to get the drunk one night stands than the media has portrayed over the decades. I was that random guy at random parties in apartment complexes many times. It was easy to find a party at my school when you knew which apartment complexes tended to have parties. Some of these party complexes were walkable from on campus housing and that's a factor that helped freshmen get to parties.

There is an importance in the connection for many reasons. It is good to see another person who thinks that non-party methods are better.

 

[GoodMan32]

That is a waste of the college experience. The on campus experience that a college/university can offer should make the tech methods not necessary.

The tech methods were starting to become relevant when I was in college. During the 2001-2005 era, there were dating websites. Plenty of Fish started in 2003, OkCupid started in 2004, and Match.com had been around since the mid-1990s. This was the era in which online dating websites were first becoming de-stigmatized.

In freshman and sophomore years (2001-02 and 2002-03), use of AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) was significant. I remember in freshman year dorm that a lot of us were using AIM to send text-based messages to each other. This was a epre-cursor to cell phone based text messaging.

In 2004, both MySpace and Facebook launched too.

Outside of AIM, almost none of that tech was necessary to actually meet people.

Tech methods are more necessary for post-college working age adults than college students. I've also made the point that tech methods are a bad idea even for the post-college working age adults.



I agree. It's more difficult to get the drunk one night stands than the media has portrayed over the decades. I was that random guy at random parties in apartment complexes many times. It was easy to find a party at my school when you knew which apartment complexes tended to have parties. Some of these party complexes were walkable from on campus housing and that's a factor that helped freshmen get to parties.

There is an importance in the connection for many reasons. It is good to see another person who thinks that non-party methods are better.

You're right, a total waste of the college experience. But since tech methods were the only way I got laid in college, that'd suggest I couldn't have gotten laid any other way.

Had I been born 20 years sooner (or even 10 years sooner), I likely never would have gotten laid in college (as the internet was nonexistent 20 years prior...and in its infancy 10 years prior)

Between squandering the college experience, combined with the fact I'm not even using my degree (and I've never even made so much as 40k per year), college was pretty much pointless for me. The only real benefit I got from college was getting away from my parents.

 

[Solomon]

The thing is, in the midwest these women do not have as inflated of egos. Meanwhile, go to the Bible Belt where the average woman is fat and usually not white either (mostly black), the egos of these women goes through the roof. It is why Atlanta is one of the worst cities in the country if you like white girls, the white girls there think their $hit don't stink because they are somewhat rare compared to other races.

I talk a lot about

• Logistics
• Access
• Retention

These things have made a huge difference for me personally especially in the last 4-6 years.
Your location (Logistics)) makes a huge difference if a place doesn't work for you dating-wise then you may want to venture out. I have mentioned it to the likes of @SW15 who seems to dislike Dallas. IMO nowadays you can find a decent or great remote job depending on your field of work or college experience. In 2024 a man should not be relegated to one area if it doesn't yield him fruit of success in dating. People will say moving cause of dating or women is simping. That's disingenuous babble, a healthy dating life can do wonders for a man's psyche and self-esteem. Let's be frank there are certain areas of the country or world that don't suck but there are too many opportunities in 2024 to be stuck in an area where the women are stuck up or don't give you any play. I'm not telling men to become a passport bro but I certainly understand why passport bros have exploded in the last 3 years. If I were in that situation(Thank God I'm not) I would find a remote job and depending on my finances save money and get the **** outta doge. For some guys this may take 6 months for others a couple of years but would you rather be miserable in ATL, Dallas or LA or be happy AF in Salt Lake City Madison or Lincoln Nebraska . You are the master of your destiny, choose wisely!

I can't speak for everyone else's experiences but I think most adult men would struggle to match the opportunities afforded to them in college. I lived in a co-ed dorm for two years and there were young, hot, eager to have fun girls everywhere. In the lobby, roaming the floors, in the men's rooms, you name it. Not really an adult equivalent to any of that unless you're a mogul of some sort who can create that environment on your own. Of course that doesn't mean it has to be all downhill as an adult but let's not get carried away about college being overrated compared to the lives most 50 year old men are living, especially with regards to proximity to attractive young women.

Highly underrated post, I was thinking of a reply but nothing else needs to be said. I think that as a man you have to create opportunities for yourself does it become harder as you age? certainly but there are niche pockets that can yield fruit depending on what you are into lifestyle wise etc.

The overwhelming majority of 18-20 year old girls, in 2024, not back in your day type sh1t, are sexually inexperienced. Does that mean every girl that age has only 1-2 partners? No. There are exceptions. There's this chick in my gf's circle that was banging guys left and right her freshman year. Who is now in a sorority and has a boyfriend that she's loyal to. Just because those girls exist, don't mean they represent the majority.

I can believe this and the stats actually back up what up what you say.
A lot of people especially these RP youtubers are using outdated talking points once you do your own research and more importantly, hit the field you will realize a lot of people tend to repeat themselves or regurate RP nonsense that isn't based on personal experience.

 

[Jesse Pinkman]

@Solomon

I would not be so hopeful about remote jobs. Companies had em during the pandemic but are now shifting more to hybrid and as you saw with Amazon, straight back to the office.

I get you though man. I could be living cheaply in a small city with a 2 bedroom or have even bought a house by now. Unfortunately, I know that I will have to be in a place where people get married at 25 and church rules life.

 

[Jesse Pinkman]

I got laid at pretty much every college party, but you are better off meeting them in class tbh.

Not sure if it is just me but I noticed that almost every guy I knew that was good with women in college fell off hard after it if he relied on social circles or parties his friends threw. Like something about this means that the guy cannot transition into cold approach in the real world at bars, clubs, and daygame.

 

[CornbreadFed]

Not sure if it is just me but I noticed that almost every guy I knew that was good with women in college fell off hard after it if he relied on social circles or parties his friends threw. Like something about this means that the guy cannot transition into cold approach in the real world at bars, clubs, and daygame.

When the bars started becoming more popular my age and hanging around freshmen became "weird" & "not fun" I definitely took a nose dive in lays because it is much harder to talk to women at bars/clubs then it is at a house party. In addition, I felt like alcohol had to always be present when it came to meeting women/hooking up, so my daygame/dates not involving getting drunk was terrible. It took me some time to recover from this pitfall, so that contributes further to what I said to @SW15.

 

[SW15]

@SW15 who seems to dislike Dallas.

On the first page of the Dallas Scene thread, I wrote...

Dallas is a rather mediocre mating environment. I wouldn't recommend moving here as a means of improving mating outcomes. However, this does not mean that it is not a good place to live when considering all lifestyle variables.

If someone is to move to Dallas, it's best to consider more than the mating environment when moving here. Someone should not move here solely for the mating environment.

I noticed that almost every guy I knew that was good with women in college fell off hard after it if he relied on social circles or parties his friends threw.

This can happen. I think it's less common than you think it is. It depends on what college the man went to and where he ends up after college.

I'll give some Texas examples here.

Example 1: Guy grows up entirely in a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb. He goes to the University of Texas in Austin. After college, he's working either in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, or Houston. He'll probably be able to rely on his social circle beyond college, most notably if goes back to Dallas. He'll be working with a good alumni base from his college years and overall if he goes to Houston or San Antonio, or stays in Austin. This is the type of guy who will get into an LTR and marry faster. If this guy goes to a place like Philadelphia, Nashville, or Orlando where he can't rely on high school or college social circles, he's likely to struggle in those cities where he'll either be a swipe app dater or bar approacher. Odds are he'd move back to Dallas after 2-3 years in those cities.

Example 2: Guy grows up entirely in the affluent Park Cities bubble (University Park or Highland Park -- surrounded by Dallas) or Preston Hollow (affluent Dallas city limits neighborhood). He goes to Texas Christian (TCU) in Fort Worth OR Southern Methodist University (SMU --- in University Park bubble around Dallas). Guy gets job in Dallas after college. He'll have a great social network from TCU or SMU in Dallas. It's only when he would go to another city outside Texas where he'd struggle.

The formula for long term social circle dependency is

1. Spend all your K-12 years in one area
2. Go to a regional college
3. Stay in that region after college

Men who follow that formula rarely end up on forums like SoSuave early in life. It's only after they flounder after a relocation or divorce when they might have a chance to study seduction. A lot of the divorced guys from this formula never need to find seduction community content. They'll simply ask their blue pill social circle for another introduction. Those guys would fall off hard if they lack a social circle and then need to rely on swipe apps or in-person approaches.

 

[Solomon]

On the first page of the Dallas Scene thread, I wrote...

Dallas is a rather mediocre mating environment. I wouldn't recommend moving here as a means of improving mating outcomes. However, this does not mean that it is not a good place to live when considering all lifestyle variables.

If someone is to move to Dallas, it's best to consider more than the mating environment when moving here. Someone should not move here solely for the mating environment.

I don't disagree with you at all, I think you mating definitely should not be the only factor. I know for some people certain states/cities may not be the best dating environment but for others, they do well there. I know people who do well in Dallas, Denver, and San Diego. However, things like socioeconomics, race, lifestyle, personality, looks, game etc. All these play a factor in a person's success.

 

[GoodMan32]

Not sure if it is just me but I noticed that almost every guy I knew that was good with women in college fell off hard after it if he relied on social circles or parties his friends threw. Like something about this means that the guy cannot transition into cold approach in the real world at bars, clubs, and daygame.

Part of it could be the small pond vs big pond thing.

A college, even a big one, is a small pond compared to the real world.

A popular college football player obviously has a lot of social status at college parties. Unless he makes it to the NFL, however, he becomes a nobody after college.

 

[GoodMan32]

On the first page of the Dallas Scene thread, I wrote...

Dallas is a rather mediocre mating environment. I wouldn't recommend moving here as a means of improving mating outcomes. However, this does not mean that it is not a good place to live when considering all lifestyle variables.

If someone is to move to Dallas, it's best to consider more than the mating environment when moving here. Someone should not move here solely for the mating environment.



This can happen. I think it's less common than you think it is. It depends on what college the man went to and where he ends up after college.

I'll give some Texas examples here.

Example 1: Guy grows up entirely in a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb. He goes to the University of Texas in Austin. After college, he's working either in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, or Houston. He'll probably be able to rely on his social circle beyond college, most notably if goes back to Dallas. He'll be working with a good alumni base from his college years and overall if he goes to Houston or San Antonio, or stays in Austin. This is the type of guy who will get into an LTR and marry faster. If this guy goes to a place like Philadelphia, Nashville, or Orlando where he can't rely on high school or college social circles, he's likely to struggle in those cities where he'll either be a swipe app dater or bar approacher. Odds are he'd move back to Dallas after 2-3 years in those cities.

Example 2: Guy grows up entirely in the affluent Park Cities bubble (University Park or Highland Park -- surrounded by Dallas) or Preston Hollow (affluent Dallas city limits neighborhood). He goes to Texas Christian (TCU) in Fort Worth OR Southern Methodist University (SMU --- in University Park bubble around Dallas). Guy gets job in Dallas after college. He'll have a great social network from TCU or SMU in Dallas. It's only when he would go to another city outside Texas where he'd struggle.

The formula for long term social circle dependency is

1. Spend all your K-12 years in one area
2. Go to a regional college
3. Stay in that region after college

Men who follow that formula rarely end up on forums like SoSuave early in life. It's only after they flounder after a relocation or divorce when they might have a chance to study seduction. A lot of the divorced guys from this formula never need to find seduction community content. They'll simply ask their blue pill social circle for another introduction. Those guys would fall off hard if they lack a social circle and then need to rely on swipe apps or in-person approaches.

I was raised in a small town where many stay in the same small town for life. Even for those who leave, they typically stay within a 1 hour (maybe 2 hours tops) drive.

Many people I went to high school with are currently married to each other. You're damn right that staying in the same area makes your chances of ending up on a board like SoSuave plummet.

If my high school classmates were to move long distance (a plane ride away, as opposed to a car ride away), they'd likely struggle immensely (as you indicated).

 

[GoodMan32]

On the first page of the Dallas Scene thread, I wrote...

Dallas is a rather mediocre mating environment. I wouldn't recommend moving here as a means of improving mating outcomes. However, this does not mean that it is not a good place to live when considering all lifestyle variables.

If someone is to move to Dallas, it's best to consider more than the mating environment when moving here. Someone should not move here solely for the mating environment.



This can happen. I think it's less common than you think it is. It depends on what college the man went to and where he ends up after college.

I'll give some Texas examples here.

Example 1: Guy grows up entirely in a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb. He goes to the University of Texas in Austin. After college, he's working either in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, or Houston. He'll probably be able to rely on his social circle beyond college, most notably if goes back to Dallas. He'll be working with a good alumni base from his college years and overall if he goes to Houston or San Antonio, or stays in Austin. This is the type of guy who will get into an LTR and marry faster. If this guy goes to a place like Philadelphia, Nashville, or Orlando where he can't rely on high school or college social circles, he's likely to struggle in those cities where he'll either be a swipe app dater or bar approacher. Odds are he'd move back to Dallas after 2-3 years in those cities.

Example 2: Guy grows up entirely in the affluent Park Cities bubble (University Park or Highland Park -- surrounded by Dallas) or Preston Hollow (affluent Dallas city limits neighborhood). He goes to Texas Christian (TCU) in Fort Worth OR Southern Methodist University (SMU --- in University Park bubble around Dallas). Guy gets job in Dallas after college. He'll have a great social network from TCU or SMU in Dallas. It's only when he would go to another city outside Texas where he'd struggle.

The formula for long term social circle dependency is

1. Spend all your K-12 years in one area
2. Go to a regional college
3. Stay in that region after college

Men who follow that formula rarely end up on forums like SoSuave early in life. It's only after they flounder after a relocation or divorce when they might have a chance to study seduction. A lot of the divorced guys from this formula never need to find seduction community content. They'll simply ask their blue pill social circle for another introduction. Those guys would fall off hard if they lack a social circle and then need to rely on swipe apps or in-person approaches.

Ok, even though I indicated on my last post that I generally agree it's easier to get a woman if you stay in the same place you were raised, I just thought of something:

What about a guy like me who was known as the strange kid by the vast majority of my peers in my small town high school? Would a guy like me have even worse luck had I stayed in the place I was raised?

At least when I'm far away from my childhood location (like I have been for years, including college years), even if certain *individuals* think I'm strange, that's not quite the same as the stigma of being universally known as the freak of your childhood small town.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Looking back at it, I am amazed at how big the hype around college truly was. Maybe my boy @CornbreadFed and @SW15 could speak on this but I speak with so many guys who seem to have peaked in college and don't realize how beautiful life can get after it. FWIW, I was in a fraternity in college, a decent one at that, and I got to see it all. Despite the hype, I find that when done right, life after college just has a far higher ceiling than college life ever did.

Quality of women.

I will come out and say it, unless your type are exclusively blonde sorority girls, college girls in the US aren't the best. You can find a far hotter blonde abroad in Europe. Even if your type are these kinds of women, I found that most of the hot ones congregate to world class cities. Like I went to an SEC party school and the hottest girls all moved to Manhattan where they were nobodies. I have no idea why people can say you will meet the hottest girls in college, this is nonsense. Big cities completely lap college in this regard.

Most of all, you get more variety in women in a big city than you ever would at a college campus. I get bored of the same blonde sorority princesses and want some variety.

Female attitudes are so much better because they are young.

I once again disagree here. When I was in college, I found that the hottest girls had massive egos and were often untouchable. What I actually found was that once these girls get to a massive city where there are tons of attractive women (Manhattan for example), they get humbled fast and start acting nicer because they have to. To anyone who says that college girls have nice personalities, go game sorority girls (who are usually the hottest girls on campus) and then come talk to me.

"But it is so easy to hookup and date"

I was lucky to date in college but so many college dudes are incels because it is just a continuation of high school. Status means everything and if you are not in the right cliques (frats), it sucks. Even the best looking guys become incel because they do not want to deal with the petty drama that comes with being in a clique. In big city life, this is not the case at all. You don't have to join dumb cliques in order to get laid.

"But the party bro!"

Drinking beer out of plastic cups gets old. I prefer a nice ****tail or a Vodka-Soda at least. College parties are good for your age when you are experiencing parties but looking back at it now, I would not want to be caught dead in one.

More importantly, I noticed that so many of the hottest girls preferred to go to bars ASAP. They did not want to waste too much time at frat parties. In fact, most of them preferred to stay away from them, even the hottest sorority girls. Even now in Miami, I notice how the hottest girls at The U are going to nightclubs like LIV and not wasting time at house parties.

Depends upon where a fella goes to uni, and also his mindset and behaviors while there. Just as the prison inmate who says to himself "This is an opportunity to hone my survivor reflexes" will bear up more hardily during his incarceration, the uni freshman who's eager to learn what his more successful peers are doing will be enhanced