The manosphere is producing unresponsiblie adult men

[Stagger Lee]

I believe that attraction is a combination of looks, status, wealth, Game and some other factors (e.g. cultural/religious/ethnic background). You seem to think that Game doesn't have much effect on the outcome. I'm curious, Stagger, roughly what percentage of attraction would you say is attributable to looks and what percentage to other factors?

It's hard to put a blanket statment what percentage is looks or other factors because it depends on the situation as sometimes for instance it's all about money and status. Or another instance maybe rarely a guy has good looks but is bipolar and introverted and at times sulks and becomes reclusive. So in that sense, when something is extreme, attraction could seem to be about mostly personality/game. I'd still say it was mostly about facial expressions and body language giving off unattractive visual cues though.

But for the purposes of approaching girls (or being approached) and getting attraction, I look at it this way. It's at least 85-90% visual looks and appearance. What you say is only about 10-15% of it. And unless you're saying things that are extremely bad (eg. Women are all b!tches, I can't ever find a woman, etc) or extremely good (eg. I'm a physican, a producer etc) it makes little difference one way or the other.

I think personality even is mostly appearance, expressiveness and body language. I think it is about 60% fundamental physical looks, 25-30% appearance, the remaining of what you say.

The important thing is that if your appearance isn't good enough to cause attraction then nothing you can say is going to compensate for that. The good news is you can improve on your looks and appearance and often just as easily as you can your so-called personality/game.

 

[user43770]

Where do you suppose this leads? I am not talking about a "meteor strike" type of catastrophe....I am talking about natures self-correcting action, much like an economic marketplace. Consider the following.....

1. States begin favoring women at the expense of men.
2. Men stop participating.
3. States, in order to keep functioning, take more from men.
4. Men stop participating more.
5. Government introduces more controls and rules.
6. Men stop participating more.

On and on and on......in a vicious death spiral. Until either men reset hard in a rebellion, or the Government is no longer able to fund everything the ever increasing Nanny State requires.


When you eliminate the incentives for a nuclear family, you begin the process towards destruction.

Look at the bright side, this scenereo would also lead to childless, feminist "career women" being taxed at a higher rate. The government has to steal from someone, and if the men aren't producing, well, take over ladies.

 

[zekko]

Often beta and responsible ARE the same. Sure they can be different sometimes....but one need only look through the history of their life to see that generally the responsible guys don't get the girls until the late 20's.

Likewise, generally, the irresponsible guys do best with the girls prior to the late 20's.

Meh, I'm not totally convinced of that. There are too many factors involved. Like Stagger says, every time a "bad boy" is depicted by the media, it's always some devastatingly handsome Abercrombe model looking dude in a tank top leaning up against a motorcycle. Looks play a big part. I know plenty of young, tall, good looking guys who are very responsible, and the girls flock around them.

I agree though, that the irresponsible guys tend to peak early (before they become complete losers), and the responsible guys tend to peak later (once they have their value fully built).

On and on and on......in a vicious death spiral. Until either men reset hard in a rebellion, or the Government is no longer able to fund everything the ever increasing Nanny State requires.

When you eliminate the incentives for a nuclear family, you begin the process towards destruction.

You're using words like "death spiral" and "destruction", so that certainly sounds to me like you're talking about a major catastrophe on a huge scale. It's not a meteor strike, but a complete economical collapse. And again, short of such a collapse, I don't see things changing.

I believe that attraction is a combination of looks, status, wealth, Game and some other factors (e.g. cultural/religious/ethnic background). You seem to think that Game doesn't have much effect on the outcome.

Remember though, "Game" is not something that was invented by Mystery. "Game" is not something you have to read PUA material to have. "Game" simply means the skill with which you attract women, and the manner in which you interact with them toward that end.

A guy who talks to a girl over his shoulder and negs her does not necessarily have better game than a guy who is a great conversationalist and walks right up to her and starts talking to her. There are a lot of different ways to charm a woman. Rollo even talks about "beta game" for instance.

Look at the bright side, this scenereo would also lead to childless, feminist "career women" being taxed at a higher rate. The government has to steal from someone, and if the men aren't producing, well, take over ladies.

Good point. I can't see there being different tax rates for men and for women, although there are ways around that to some extent. For instance, the single mothers I know get huge, huge tax breaks. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) if you are poor enough you even get more back on your tax return than you pay in - in other words they are essentially being paid to have children. Every year these women get a huge tax return check and go on a big spending spree.

I think you have to have custody of the children to get these huge tax breaks, yes? Which would indeed, in effect end up putting most of the tax burden on the males.

 

[CollegeLife]

Often beta and responsible ARE the same. Sure they can be different sometimes....but one need only look through the history of their life...

Manosphere blogs posts seem to largely avoid exploring this in favor of the purported thrusts of the posts (IE serial killers posts is an example of dominance or something similar), but if responsible traits goes together that much, then what reason to not view responsible traits itself as beta? If every example always involve a guy having responsible traits and having a job as the loser, you have to start noting that maybe the corporate job is as factor as well as the thrust that every post that is used to discuss some other game thing.

Same goes to the other way around. When the latest Heartiste example is an actor telling his grandfather had an illegitimate child and it runs in the family and the Boston Bomber or the more general examples still involve some kind of irresponsibility, how separable is it?

Is the manosphere trying to cherry pick traits? Why even bother trying to cherry pick when real life or even fictional examples can't be made?

...to see that generally the responsible guys don't get the girls until the late 20's.

Likewise, generally, the irresponsible guys do best with the girls prior to the late 20's.

I need you to clarify of not getting the girls until late 20's. Do you mean late 20's and getting the late 20's girl? Or being able to attract a wider range, in spite of or because of, roughly that age?

For the former, it is a common manosphere train of thought: by the late 20's, then the women gives attention to the beta. Within the manosphere, that is no prize as the logical conclusion is to view the primary, if not the only reason, for the change in behavior is because of the shrinking pool of options and time cause by age. No one wants to be the last man of the carousel, especially if viewing the carousel only ended because she can't keep riding the type of guys before.

This train of thought does make late 20's look more dreadful (and increase pressure for the earlier years). This does explain part of why some manosphere commentators (Rollo noted this within his latest post, though he is exploring a different aspect) talk of marrying young or at least the wife young. It's the only way to make sure she is not motivated by age.

 

[backbreaker]

I agree though, that the irresponsible guys tend to peak early (before they become complete losers), and the responsible guys tend to peak later (once they have their value fully built).

I think you hit on a very good point here, and one that is, at least to me, the biggest fallacy that is out there in regards to the manosphere, and the one core issue that gives guys the most grief.

most guys, don't understand that they peak too.

"Simply put, there is going to be a period of time where you are not very high on the dating /social totem pole. I would venture to say that.. at least 1/3rd of the guys on this forum, their only real problem is that they are trying to swim in ***** when the pool is dry. it's not time yet.


the difference however, and this is the important part, is that it's not the same scale that is used to talk about a womans' SMV. WE can, even the most stunch anti manosphere guys can agree that a womans value is in her looks for the omst part and thus, the younger she is, GENERALLY, the more value she has.

HOwever, a man's value peaks as well, but it depends on a number of factors.

i will use this example, myself and my best friend Brad.

Brad, is 6'2, chizzled, handsome and was a star basketball player in high school. On top of that, Brad was in the same AP classes as I was in high school and made good grades, no dummie at all. Got a full ride. Brad got ***** thrown at him to the point where it was just funny in high school.

Brad, while smart, was not very ambitious, he stuck with sports, it got him a free degree, and now he works in some business administration field for GMAC, he makes decent money but not great money. he drives an infiniti G35, nice car, he has a normal amount of debt.

Brad and I don't really keep in touch all that much longer, but i have my sources, i know what he's up to. he does well for himself but he's not doing what he was in high school. Brad never really had what i would call game, he never needed it. he only gets the girls that throw themselves at him. he's dating a girl from high school that i know and she's pretty damn avg looking.

Brad, is the equvilant to a 21 year old HB 9. he peaked in high school and college hwen playing sports. but once we got into the real world, where he isn't in the gym 3 hours a day anymore, when basketball isn't the most important thing going on, brad is not have the same SMV as he has 10 years ago.


Take myself on the other hand. i never was ugly. some girls liked brad more some like myself more.i have a more handsome face but he has the better body. i got laid, but in high school brad got first pick. i got 2nd choice usually which was still pretty good but still. i had a girl i dated cheat on me with brad.

when we got out of school i started my business. it took off. also because while i'm good looking, i don't stand out like brad does, i had to develop game. the more we gout of school, the more my SMV rose. My wife has met brad, she's told e that she thinks he's "very sexy" but she wouldn't date him, he doesn't have enough going for him. He's not ambitious, he's not as confident as he used to be, and he doesn't really have any hobbies.


my point in all this.. when brad was in his prime, i didn't get laid AT ALL> Whatsoever. Because my true value lied in my ambition and business mind, my value wasn't going to peak until the fruits of my labor started to pay off. It was not fair, nor realistic to expect me to always pull like brad pulled in our late teens and early 20's. it's not fair for brad to think he can pull what i can pull now.

a lot of guys just need to accept that at this time in their life, they aren't first choice. and that it doesn't mean 1. they won't be one day and 2. the girl is wrong for liking what she likes. it also doesn't mean that a girl is settling because she likes me more now than she liked brad 10 years ago. people grow up and what's important at 28 isn't the same as when you were 18. they aren't at thet op. there is nothing wrong with that. it goes in cycles.

 

[backbreaker]

we have had this discussion more than once. here's my point of view on that
. agree with it, disagree, don't' give a damn lol. but this is how i feel

you know what, you aren't going to like what I am about to say, but you seem like a smart dude so you will understand why this needs to be said.


actually, if i am not mistaken solbuster and myself responded to a post that was quite similar to this a while back.

I mean i can tell you that you just aren't meeting the right women an you can keep trying, but that would be all bull**** lol.

Everyone, well not everyone but people ask me like, man how did you do this or how did you do that what can you tell me to help me out.. and i tell people, the same 2 things, and no one ever actually wants to hear the 2 things I tell them, but i mean, **** this isn't even advice, this is just the way life is.. the quicker you can accept this the better off you will be.


1. you can't have everything at once.

to get to the top, of anything, ti's going to take dedication, sacrifice and a game plan. I would love to tell you that you can be in the top of your class in law school while having this kick ass social life but i would be lying to you lol. The people at the top, know that to get there, i have to sacrifice something now.

the problem isn't with the women.. they want what they want. They don't want to date a guy who is ambitious about being a successful lawyer no more than i want to date a girl who is ambitious bout losing 50 pounds lol. the game is the game is the game.

yeah it ****ing sucks, tell me about it. i started a business when i was in my late teens when my best friends were in frats getting ass and going to parties every other night. **** brought me to tears a few times I thought **** never was gonna change. it did.


so in short, suck that **** up lol. don't disregard women, but don't make them more of a priority just beucase you aren't getting any. i know you are in your 20';s and you want to get laid and want to have fun but so the **** what. we all want a lot of things. deal with it.

beucadse if you play your cards right, you will be the guy that all the 22-25 year old HB8.5's fresh out of college are looking to try to bring home to momma.. "look mom he's handsome and he's a real lawyer!".you want to be that guy, you need to put your head down and deal with it. **** you will actually be in a upperhand position.. not a lot of guys have the chances you have in front of you. if you actually do it, you will be prime real estate.

a few guys on this forum think i'm arrogant.. **** i'm not even saying they are wrong lol, but the way i see it, with all the sacrifices i've made in my life, i've earned the right to arrogant.

at the end of the day if you play your cards right, stay in shape, keep your head in the books, learn from here, you will have your pick of the litter. trust me.

2. patience, is the most important virtue that a man can ever have.

it's hard to wait for things. but you can't rush success. In the mean time, make your time useful to be the best person you can be.

The worst thing you can do right now is to go out more to try tog et more women, loose focus and **** up your law school and your future beucase you want more ***** now.


I mean, just suck it up. i went 3 years without a date let alone getting laid. there was a time i thought that i would never have sex again. 2 years later i was fvcking half of the staff at the bar down the street. 2 years after that i moved to SoCal and was going on dates with absoutle knockouts.. even married one.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1963525&highlight=lawyer#post1963525

the way i see it danger, patience, is the most alpha, DJ trait known to man kind. most guys here aren't patient. they want everything right now that's how my wife acts. she she wants to go out to eat she doesn't want to go saturday she wants to go in the next 2 hours. she wants to go shopping NOW. she wants go have friends over NOW. she wants everything now. this is how women act. they lack patience, even the good ones. My son is impatient. when he wants to play he wants to play NOW. he wants mommy NOW. i don't give a **** where she is he wants his mommy.

Men, are patient. Men can work without getting bitter, and without seeing immediate results all the time. that's what makes a man a man. to me.

the most desirable, indestructible trait a man can have is the ability to develop a long term game plan and not deviate from it.

 

[Boilermaker]

as I am growing slowly and rebelliously, I find myself more and more in agreement with stuff you say, Danger.

 

[CollegeLife]

They avoid exploring, I believe, because it is self-evident.

In some sense, at least in their younger years, I think you are right that responsible traits are viewed as Beta-Provider roles. Now corporate jobs are looked well upon for men by women, but certainly not as exciting get her panties wet. More so as the provider "husband" material.

It is almost commonplace and accepted among women now OPENLY that "you don't marry the badboy", which of course implies that you only sleep with him.

I don't think there's nothing to explore. If having responsible traits like having a corporate job, diligent, reliable, etc. in-and-of-itself makes you not be wanted till late 20's then it's anti-game, it's a disincentive. That does raises questions to explore along with talking about building dominance and muscles.

Becoming in-demand late 20's does not compensate, unless taste actually changed, it is just being picked because the first choice is no longer viable. Even if the taste actually changes, it is still a disincentive to having responsible traits by having to wait longer than not being responsible.

I am not sure I follow as I see all sorts of examples on what women are attracted to in my daily life, let alone using the extremes to make the same point.

The manosphere (well the larger voices at least, some blogs with smaller readership like Muscleman's blog rather than Heartiste's blog uses less extreme examples) seem to focus on extreme examples a lot. Keep reading those posts enough times, and one train of thought possible to derive is the desire of women in general rather than the extremes.

I mean late 20's male getting the late 20's female.

I actually differ on Rollo on that last link, and you can see my comment in the link as well, but I will include it below.

I don't think there's a big disagreement here. Just a different approach. I think Rollo is just noting the Manosphere's direction to going for a younger, chaste girl with the understanding they usually can form a stronger bond, but he wants to warn that the keyword is "usually". It is still no guarantee and still need to check if the rest of the flags corroborate. You seem to be saying the example he used had the guy go beta and the young, chaste girl is still the best statistical chance. And of course the best way to not get divorce is to not be married.

a lot of guys just need to accept that at this time in their life, they aren't first choice. and that it doesn't mean 1. they won't be one day and 2. the girl is wrong for liking what she likes. it also doesn't mean that a girl is settling because she likes me more now than she liked brad 10 years ago. people grow up and what's important at 28 isn't the same as when you were 18. they aren't at thet op. there is nothing wrong with that. it goes in cycles.

BB, I agree with what you are saying happens. But you are basically telling men to "Deal with it", but likewise, those men have the same power to tell you, women, and society to also "deal with it" in regards to their decision to "check-out" and not live their live by your value and standards.

In essence, it is the height of hypocrisy to tell men in their late 20's and early 30's that they cannot live life to their desire, when you just allowed women in their 20's to do as they desire.

BB, well what BB seems to be saying... well if the girl rejects you at 18 for Brad, but accepts at 28. Did her taste really change? Or just can't go for the Brads of the world anymore? Did you really become first choice?

 

[backbreaker]

\

BB, well what BB seems to be saying... well if the girl rejects you at 18 for Brad, but accepts at 28. Did her taste really change? Or just can't go for the Brads of the world anymore? Did you really become first choice?

in your example, why would the girl who was able to get brad at 18, not be able to get brad at 28 when his value has declined since he was 18? hers has, she's not 18 anymore but hell he's not the all state shooting guard anymore either. he's a good looking dude that has a normal ass job.
]

it's not that she can't ride the CC with him anymore, what attracted her at 18 is not attracting her at 28. Brad can beat the ever living **** out of me in basketball but i'm driving off the basketball court in a supercharged Jag XJL lol.

if the girl has been able to maintian most of her looks since she was 18, she's naturally jsut going to shift interests.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Let me put it this way......how many responsible bad boys do you know? And when you separate out the two into distinct groups. Which characteristic seems to do better with women in the young years?

It seems fairly obvious to me at least, that when comparing success rates with women between bad boys and responsible boys......a higher percentage of the bad boys are getting the women in the early years. Wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure how we can define "irresponsible" and "bad boy" and "responsible" and "non-bad boy". I've known a lot of irresponsible, bad boys that didn't get women.

Who I think does better with women is first and foremost the good looking guy, who's outgoing and is in HS or College and comes from money, and dare I say it he might even be responsible, on the football team for instance.

It sure wasn't the average/not good looking irresponsible bad boy or bully that comes from a poor home getting the most and best looking women.

I believe the concept of the "irresponsible bad boy" independent of looks getting the women is a false premise. I agree that women will date/hook up with a good looking, irresponsible and aggressive loser, but I think that attests to the power of looks over personality.

 

[zekko]

It seems fairly obvious to me at least, that when comparing success rates with women between bad boys and responsible boys......a higher percentage of the bad boys are getting the women in the early years. Wouldn't you say?

So I keep reading here. But to be honest, I don't see irresponsible men attracting women at any sort of unusual rate out in the real world.

Even in high school, the guys who had good part time jobs did well with women. They were being responsible, weren't they?

Becoming in-demand late 20's does not compensate, unless taste actually changed, it is just being picked because the first choice is no longer viable. Even if the taste actually changes, it is still a disincentive to having responsible traits by having to wait longer than not being responsible.

It's only a disincentive if the irresponsible male remains at his peak later in life. Which I say he doesn't, he becomes more and more exposed as a loser the longer life goes on. People have a hard time putting off satisfaction, but you're better off having a peak value at around 30, and keeping high value until you start to need diapers again.

Guys who buy into the "bad boy" idea do not like to admit that their value will plummet when they get older, so instead they come up with this idea that women start to embrace responsible, successful men only when their own value starts to drop - like they are "settling" for the successful man because they can't have the dirtbag loser anymore. The whole thing smells of BS to me.

I don't deny that many low class, sleazy girls grab the first eligible schlub that's stupid enough to marry them when the time comes that they want to be supported. But I don't agree that high value, successful men = beta providers, not necessarily. These guys are, rather, the new alphas. They are in demand. As long as they realize their own value. Which, to me, is one of the main positive points of the manosphere: Realize your own value.

BB, well what BB seems to be saying... well if the girl rejects you at 18 for Brad, but accepts at 28. Did her taste really change? Or just can't go for the Brads of the world anymore? Did you really become first choice?

Of course you've become first choice. Life isn't high school. Nobody cares about what mattered in high school when they're 28. Furthermore, the potential benefits at 28 are a lot better than they were in high school, if you've become successful. You can afford better toys and go on better vacations, for one thing.

I believe the concept of the "irresponsible bad boy" independent of looks getting the women is a false premise. I agree that women will date/hook up with a good looking, irresponsible and aggressive loser, but I think that attests to the power of looks over personality.

That concept was dreamed up by PUA gurus looking to sell their product to guys who have nothing else going for them. No money? Be a bad boy. No status? Be a bad boy. No looks? Be a bad boy. Anybody can do it.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Guys who buy into the "bad boy" idea do not like to admit that their value will plummet when they get older, so instead they come up with this idea that women start to embrace responsible, successful men only when their own value starts to drop - like they are "settling" for the successful man because they can't have the dirtbag loser anymore. The whole thing smells of BS to me.

This is a good point. There's a self-serving explanation for everything. When you're young, but broke and not the good looking guy, you can get women with a bad boy personality/game, being broke and not good looking doesn't matter. And when you are older and financially successful all the dirtbags won't want the now older women and the women will want a financially successful guy anyway. Again it won't matter that you're not the good looking guy. See? There's always an easy attainable solution for not being good looking enough because looks never mattered.

I've got another theory. A young good looking guy will get women, and when he's older the good looking guy will get women. The not so good looking guy still won't get much women when he's older and has a good job.

And something else you said about HS guys who had a part time job and being "responsible" got the girls, I have to agree. Back in the days when I was 16-19, having a car and a part time job was an attracter. Back then girls primarily dated and hooked up a lot with guys they worked with at the part time job. Had I had my own phone line when I was 16, and my own apartment when 18 or was in college at the time, I probably would've gotten laid and a lot more.

 

[Zarky]

It's at least 85-90% visual looks and appearance.

That sh*t is just silly.

 

[zekko]

Let's face it, women don't reach age 28 being single if they like stable men. But as their options diminish and they face the fertility gods, they come to a crossroads. Their goals change and they adjust, but nature still does not change what physically turns them on, and it isn't the stable accountant.

Now we are getting somewhere. Women don't reach age 28 being single if they like stable men. So we're talking about a certain kind of woman here. But half the women ARE married by age 28. Does that mean half the women do like stable men?

Admittedly, bad boys have a certain charm, and appeal to certain types of women. But where is the line drawn? Do PUAs claim that ALL women want jerks? A good 90% of them? 75%? Half? What? To me, the bad boy is a one of many possible types that a woman might find appealing. But for some reason, PUAs crown this guy as the end all, be all.

Zekko, don't take this as a stab at your age......but at 52, do you encounter and deal with many girls and hookups in the 18-22 range?

I know and deal with many girls in their early 20s. 18, 19, not so much, and I know only a few girls that are in high school - relatives of my girlfriend mostly. I don't see girls being repelled if a guy has a steady job. And why would they be? Why should they be?

And perhaps we have a different definition of responsible. By responsible, I mean the children who respect and obey their parents. The one's who actively look for college to go to and do well in school. The one's who play by society's rules and are respectful to adults and to peers.

See, this is my problem with the whole thing. Everything is black and white. But the vast, vast majority of people I know are various shades of gray. They may be successful, but they have a bit of rebelliousness in them. They may hate the boss, or resent having to pay taxes. They may be respectful during the day but cut loose on Friday nights. They may get good grades but smoke some weed on the weekends.

Pretty much nearly every person I know went through some sort of rebellious stage when they were young. Then when they get older they put that into perspective. Some people never went through that stage when they were growing up, and they end up going through it when they're older. And these people seem to end up being hard core alchoholics or whatnot.

It's alway the bad boy this, the nice guy that. But honestly, I don't know any of those people. Everybody I know is a mix of different things. And that's why I hate all these stereotypes.

it's not that she can't ride the CC with him anymore, what attracted her at 18 is not attracting her at 28. Brad can beat the ever living **** out of me in basketball but i'm driving off the basketball court in a supercharged Jag XJL lol.

if the girl has been able to maintian most of her looks since she was 18, she's naturally jsut going to shift interests.

This is another thing that bugs me. Why is it that the manosphere never considers the possibility that maybe a woman might learn something as she gets older? That she may actually change? I know I changed as I grew older. A lot.

To the manosphere, a 28 year old woman is a downtrodden, defeated beast who has failed in her lifelong objective of landing the prize catch known as the loser dirtbag. Now she must suffer the indignity of choosing a successful man who takes care of himself, owns property, and has friends, passions, and hobbies. And the reason this poor woman does this is because she HAS to, she has been forced into it by the vagaries of her age.

Not because she is attracted to him - no, she still wishes she was with that jobless moron she was dating when she was 22. And all the other males, to make themselves feel better, label this guy "beta provider", so they can look down on him with contempt.

 

[MatureDJ]

To the manosphere, a 28 year old woman is a downtrodden, defeated beast who has failed in her lifelong objective of landing the prize catch known as the loser dirtbag. Now she must suffer the indignity of choosing a successful man who takes care of himself, owns property, and has friends, passions, and hobbies. And the reason this poor woman does this is because she HAS to, she has been forced into it by the vagaries of her age.

Not because she is attracted to him - no, she still wishes she was with that jobless moron she was dating when she was 22. And all the other males, to make themselves feel better, label this guy "beta provider", so they can look down on him with contempt.

I remember when I was around 30, I met this single mommy (2 toddlers!) I go over to her house for our "date", and I see her wedding pictures all over the place (I thought when a woman gets divorced, she takes all that sh!t down.) This was right around when the internet was starting, and before I had any deep knowledge of sexual psychology (the freshmen course in human sexual behavior that I had taken didn't go into this much), but even then I could feel myself being the beta supporter. And although she was quite friendly with me the night we had met, she was not in an amorous mood when I got there.

 

[Kailex]

Don't mistake necessity for virtue. These women who at the cusp of 30 start chasing nice, stable accountants, when they were screwing bad boys at 18 are doing so because they have to.

How about us nice, stable accountants that are Bruce Wayne by day and Batman by night?

We're not all boring with pocket protectors and glasses with tape holding them together.

 

[backbreaker]

this is the best thread i've read in a very long time. even if we disagree props to everyone for having an intelligent discussion without starting a flame war

Now we are getting somewhere. Women don't reach age 28 being single if they like stable men. So we're talking about a certain kind of woman here. But half the women ARE married by age 28. Does that mean half the women do like stable men?

that's the thing. and this is an excellent point.

someone asked me.. a few times actually, why i am married. we get into this debate, and i have what i call my megan kelly rule. i will paste the response here

I have what i call the megyn kelly rule. What is the megyn kelly rule you might ask? well i will tell you.

A woman, who is truely a catch, and knows she is a catch, and not only knows she is a catch, and has no real baggage, they dictate terms. it's really that simple.

once i finally started getting ass on a regular basis I never saw a day where i would be married. yet here i am, married a year and a half with a 4 year old. and honestly quite happy.

Here's the problem. regardless of what you want, or what you think is fair, women that everyone want to date, and that can attract the best, they are not going to pay any you any serious attention why would tehy? that would be like some smoking hot gir you know telling you that she's a nun and that any guy that wants to get with you has to become a monk. i'm sure she can find some dope that woudl agree to those terms, but i'm not beucase i don't have to.

simply put, if you honestly want a catch, you are going to have to give up something. Would I prefer not having the goverment in my life, the ability to up and leave when i damn well please, or have to dish out 10s of thoundsands of dollars just so i can put a ring on her finger and come right back home where we were lol? of course. but, my wife is a catch. she knows she's a catch. she loves me very much. I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. however I also know that eventually, regardless of what she might say, had i not put a ring on her finger, the gig was going to be up once someone else came along that was suitable that would. and that to me was not acceptable. at least in regards to her it wasn't.


i will say this, the mindset that you have is much better than the mindst most guys have, that they are looking to marry the first girl that looks at them. But eventually if you meet a woman worth settling down with, and that you know will be a benefit to your life, you will change your opinion ust like i did. and if you don't so what.


the reason I call it the megyn kelly rule is that megyn kelly has just about all the traits that most men want.. sexy as hell, in shape, smart as hell, and on top of that, doesan't need a dime from you. now, do you honestly think that if you were dating megyn kelly and you told her that, do you not think there would be a block of guys around the time square watiing to put a ring on her finger, all of which are just as if not more qualified than you are lol?

catches, both male and female dictate terms. in the beginning of my wife and i's relationship i dictated the terms. all of them. but if i was going to keep her around, the only way we were going to stay together is if i put a ring on her finger. ;she won't ad mit it to this day but that's all there is to it because i know her. damn near every fight we ever had was because she was scared of me leaving her. we have had all of one fight in the last 18 months since i put a ring on her finger. she's content and happy now.
__________________

so. my point and your point being, that any dude that is over the age of 25.. you know what, here is a perfect analogy

dating is like the NFL draft lol. by the time you are 25 you are in the 3rd round of the draft. All of the first round talents, the can't miss girls, who are hot, seet, loyal, with no baggage, with good families, are taken. they are first day / first round picks. these girls are socked up the second they hit the market.


then you got the 2nd round of the draft. the girls who are hot, not as can't miss, but are still loyal and all that good stuff. these girls founds someone in college and are happily married.


so, the bottom freaking line, is that if you are 25 years old, give or take, in the dating game you are dealing with 3rd round.. or worse prospects.

does that mean, you can't find a good woman in the third round? they found tom brady in the 6th. it means that the women aren't can't miss. you are dealing with women who have an issue or some knocks for whatever the reason. doesn't mean they can't work out, but more times than not, it's a reason they slipped to the third round lol.

what zekko is saying is that all the good first round talents are marrying the first round talent guys. sometimes literally and figuratively.these girls arne't marryign bad boys wiith no jobs / careers they are marrying stable men who have bright futures. of course to YOU it may seem that all girls are riding the cc and have issues and like bad boys because you are dealing with 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th round talents lol. they feel this far for a reason. but not all women are like this.

this is the sole reason i decided to get married. my wife is a late bloomer, who traveled too much to get in a really serious relationship and was a work first girl for her 20's. she slipped to the third round because as a 21 year old she would have made a horrible wife. ****, a horrible GF really. but once she quite her job she turned out to be quite the lady and i said you know what, i'm done trying to find sleepers in the 7th round.

that's why to me the end game has always been to weed through women and use plate spinning as a process, not as a lifestyle.

 

[Stagger Lee]

That sh*t is just silly.

Prove it. Prove that it's word choice that's primarily causing attraction. Where's all the evidence of guys with appearance shortcomings having sex with attraction girls ? There's little evidence, just guys seeing a guy and girl and thinking "he aint' all that", that the girl's hot when she's really borderline average, and assuming that they are in a sexual relationship.

What I see primarily is young attractive girls with young attractive guys, handsome to average guys with average to fat, ugly girls, and average to below average guys with no girls.

Anyway, about women not wanting a stable guy or they'd be in a relationship is a good point but "stable" semanatics. True, women are choosing to not be in a stable/monogamous relationship to ride the c0ck carousel and/or because their too picky about a guy's looks/personality etc for a relationship. But that doesn't mean they have sex with guys who are not "stable" per se. They'll have a ONS with a stable guy with a good job. This is just hypergamy and the result of promiscuity and women prefering to have ONS/short term with guys above her league tht are not vailable to her for a LTR rather than to settle for a guy within her league who is available for LTR.

 

[Lexington]

Remember though, "Game" is not something that was invented by Mystery.

I never claimed it was.

"Game" is not something you have to read PUA material to have.

I agree, this is why the Almighty "Natural" is worshiped so much. I do think that a lot of PUA material is quite useful for picking up girls in bars and clubs via cold approach which is exactly what it is intended to do.

Just to be clear "PUA material" doesn't only involve these so-called "PUA gurus." There are plenty of free online PUA forums. In fact, these forums largely discuss pickup tactics (e.g. DJ tips, DJ discussion).

"Game" simply means the skill with which you attract women, and the manner in which you interact with them toward that end.

Yup.

A guy who talks to a girl over his shoulder and negs her does not necessarily have better game than a guy who is a great conversationalist and walks right up to her and starts talking to her. There are a lot of different ways to charm a woman. Rollo even talks about "beta game" for instance.

Yup. No one is denying this. There are some instances where using negs and talking to a girl over your shoulder can be quite effective. Other times, they get you a flat out rejected. Likewise, walking up to a girl and just starting a conversation works well sometimes. But there are other times when she'll think you're a "weirdo" or "creeper."

 

[Lexington]

Prove it. Prove that it's word choice that's primarily causing attraction.

First off, no one is saying "word choice" matters. In fact it's often emphasized that how you say your words is more important.

That being said, the majority of people here aren't claiming that a broke, balding, obese lardball is going to be fvcking Kate Upton any time soon.

But there a billion other things that can eliminate your chances with a girl other than your looks.

How many of us have "oneitis" stories to tell? What are some common newbie themes on these forums? Some guy gets some initial interest from a girl but he fvcks it up. Or some guy just can't figure out the games a girl is playing. These guys passed the initial looks test....other factors (e.g. attitude, neediness, not leading) are fvcking up their chances.

I agree that if you're a straight up ugly dude, you're not going to be scoring a lot of tail. But there are also lots of average and above average guys that aren't actualizing their sexual market potential due to factors other than looks.

Where's all the evidence of guys with appearance shortcomings having sex with attraction girls ?

It depends on what you mean by "appearance shortcoming." I suppose being short can be a shortcoming Bu this can be overcome. I see short guys with hot girls. Being morbidly obese is quite a difficult shortcoming to overcome. Some guys were just born with faces that only a mother could love.

But for the vast majority of guys, appearance shortcomings can be overcome through working out, grooming oneself well, eating right etc.

What I see primarily is young attractive girls with young attractive guys

You don't see young attractive girls with older attractive guys, or older rich guys? Or older guys who are a combination of the two?

handsome to average guys with average to fat, ugly girls

This doesn't fit with my observations. I see handsome guys with attractive young girls. I even see average guys with attractive young girls. I do agree that most perfect 10s also happen to date either perfect 10s or rich guys. My definition of a 10 is model/actress/cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition hot.

But there's plenty of 6 dudes dating HB7s or HB8s. Or a 7 dude dating an HB8 or HB9. After all, these ratings are largely subjective and we don't walk around with a number floating above our head.