all 36 comments

[–]pk_atheist8 points9 pointsago

Its wall-to-wall arseholes out there, reports Penny, a 31-year-old lawyer. She is stunned by how hard it is to meet suitable men willing to commit. Im horrified by the number of gorgeous, independent and successful women my age who cant meet a decent man.

Sometimes people call me an asshole. They say what I do is wrong or evil towards women. You know what I always say back? "Well if they stopped rewarding my behavior with sex, I probably wouldnt do it!"

[–]legendofpasta4 points5 pointsago

"Well if they stopped rewarding my behavior with sex, I probably wouldnt do it!"

Not only that, but starving "good" men, ie, beta males of the intimacy they want for 31 years as the example woman has done, doesnt hurt either. Whats more attractive to a man in his highest sexual market value, a hot 20 year old, or an educated frigid woman whos all finished on the cock carousel, unable to properly attach herself, and clearly wasnt capable of attracting and keeping a man in over 30 years?

[–]pk_atheist7 points8 pointsago

Theyve absolutely done this to themselves. I feel zero regret or shame pumping and dumping.

[–]VZPurp2 points3 pointsago

People take offense to this as if men should just put up with womens decisions and accept the strong, independent cock carousel graduate and settle with her. I hope more men decide to say: "No, you cant have it all," and let them complain about a lack of men willing to commit.

Decisions can be bad. Decisions can be unattractive. Behaving like this and passing up 80% of men in their twenties is a recipe for resentment (as well as social disaster).

[–]OlearysCow0 points1 pointago

something the article never really nailed down was exactly how the dating dynamic changed. are these older women settling for NSA, are they still getting more traditional dates but from men they consider betas, or are they getting passed up altogether? And the other, more important part, is whats considered a "win" in the dating game?

for the first question, unless the women are getting passed up altogether, I dont see a clear win or loss. Even if the guys are getting NSA from desperate middle aged women, how is that a win for the guy or a loss for the women? Sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure is an equal exchange in my book. or is our society so wrapped up in the female imperative that a (basically) equal exchange between a man and a woman turns into a win for the man.

As for the second scenario, to me taking women places and buying them shit is still a loss at the end of the day. And the idea that men will feel like theyre "winning" because women are actually letting them do it when they wouldnt before shows a complete lack of perspective, and just how skewed the game is.

As for the third scenario, unless the guy is already a rob lowe, or a tom cruise, and can afford the surgery to stay that way, most men have a shelf life too. Its just shifted forward about 10 years. After that, I hope youre making bank because the only way youre getting pussy is if youre a sugar daddy. And to me, a shifted bell curve isnt a clear win. its a lateral move at best.

And lastly, for the second question; if the male imperative is to play the field, and the female imperative is to get married and make babies, then yes. If men play their cards right they can win at the end of the day. but is that really a win? the older womens looks are fading. thats why their smv is low. If you want the ones that are young and pretty, youre still going to have to compete to get them, and even if you win its still going to be a struggle. (And a struggle thats going to get harder as the population ages and young pussy goes up in value.)

but the biggest thing to remember is that despite all this, as the dude, you still have to do most of the legwork if you want a relationship or to get laid. You still have to approach her, arrange dates, escalate, and risk rejection every step of the way. to me unless youre some guy that sits on his ass while women approach him for sex like prince harry, youre not getting a clear win. For everyone else: if you bust your ass, play your cards right, with the goal of NSA sex, youll be on a roughly equal equal footing with women, IMO.

[–]pk_atheist5 points6 pointsago

Heres how I see it- and I think rationalmale makes this point once or twice, each gender holds a card the other wants.

Men want sexual access. Women hold the sex card.

Women want commitment. Men hold the commitment card.

In history, men typically would give up the commitment card to gain sexual access. Win/win.

The problem is, now, women are abstaining from commitment, almost as if to say they were on strike. They dont need no stinkin man. They do what they want.

The problem is that was predicated on men giving a shit.

Men are getting the sexual access they wanted. Women are realizing they do want the commitment, but are realizing it too late. Women never get what they want, whereas men get sex.

I do see where youre coming from, but I think thats the basic idea.

Its just shifted forward about 10 years. After that, I hope youre making bank because the only way youre getting pussy is if youre a sugar daddy. And to me, a shifted bell curve isnt a clear win. its a lateral move at best.

Its a little different though. Due to statutory rape laws, perfectly viable women under 18 are out of bounds. Fine. Evolutionarily, that was never a problem, but today we have to deal with it. So 18 is the bottom end. And for women, 30 is wall.

So women have a window of 12 years.

Men, at 18, can pretty much start off the gate fucking. Theyre in their physical prime. Theyre not at their peak in game, but theyre not out of the game either. Men hit their peak mid 30s. Maybe their wall is 42. Mens window is 24 years. Much larger.

Thats actually part of the problem we experience, I think... There are twice as many viable men in the market as women at any given time.

For everyone else: if you bust your ass, play your cards right, with the goal of NSA sex, youll be on a roughly equal equal footing with women, IMO.

I agree, in the sense that women arent really facing a real problem. They could settle down any time they want and have everything. They got too greedy and its flying back in their face... but hardly ever an issue we would face as men, seeing as we bust our asses just to get the little we do get.

[–]OlearysCow5 points6 pointsago

Men want sexual access. Women hold the sex card.

Women want commitment. Men hold the commitment card.

Im not saying youre wrong, but I think youre a little left of center. Women want mens resources. The reason women historically wanted commitment in the past was because it meant continued access to mens resources into the womans old age. otherwise he could dump her when she got old and wrinkly and replace her with someone younger and prettier.

the reason women dont want commitment now is that theyve never needed it to get access to mens resources. and reproductively, it can even be counterproductive.

think about it. Women have joined the workforce now. Every time a working woman gets a promotion and moves up the corporate/social ladder, she gains access to a new batch of even more powerful males that she has access to; 8 to 10 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week. So another possibility isnt just that women want to have fun, or arent being farsighted; Its a calculated high risk gambit.

[–]pk_atheist0 points1 pointago

So another possibility isnt just that women want to have fun, or arent being farsighted; Its a calculated high risk gambit.

This is good insight. I wonder how calculated it is though- consider this: even these career driven women believe love exists and can be found. Its possible they know theyre taking a risk, but promises of fairy tale endings screwed their understanding of the consequences.

In other words, its a risk, for sure, but are these women really aware of the stakes? My guess is that they assume their backup plan will always work, because they remember what being 21 in a crowded bar was like, so they assume theyll always have that attractiveness to fall back on.

Certainly commitment was for provisions, and as women have less need of provisions, their bar gets higher. But their emotional desire for commitment doesnt disappear, they just find the type of guy theyre attracted to gets harder to reach.

[–]pickup_sticks0 points1 pointago

In my experience successful women dont want resources. They want attention, safety and bravery.

[–]OlearysCow0 points1 pointago

the general consensus is that the reason successful women remain unmarried in their 30s and 40s (and die childless or get sperm donors and raise children alone) is because they refuse to marry down in social status.

If successful women want brave men, there are plenty of divorced military men that could make use of a woman with a good job and a nice place to shack up.

[–]VZPurp0 points1 pointago

Exactly. Hypergamy is likely only inactive or minimally active in few women (genetic variation still exists, after all). Thus its very likely that successful women would find it harder to marry because there are much, much fewer successful men at the top for them, and those men have more options than they do,

[–]pickup_sticks0 points1 pointago

"Brave" means more than joining the military. Hell, even in the military the tooth-to-tail ratio is 10%. The average dude there has not even come close to combat.

What I mean by "brave" is social bravery. It starts with having the balls to ask her out.

What I mean by "safety" is she feels she can be vulnerable with her man and get attention in return.

[–]TokyoPickup-1 points0 pointsago

If successful women want brave men, there are plenty of divorced military men that could make use of a woman with a good job and a nice place to shack up.

This is the false hope that they actually rely on. When reality hits and they realize that men are more interested in youth and fertility, and even a broke ex-military divorcee doesnt want them (keep in mind these guys might be broke but are likely in better shape and more "alpha" than a big bucks beta male), they get really pissed off and devote their life to feminism, the very thing that led them into their situation.

They believe their corporate success elevates their SMV, but in actuality it degrades it, because it removes more men from the market by taking away their chance to have a career that will allow them to settle down. So they themselves are reducing the supply of successful available men, while artificially inflating their own value, its a recipe for disaster. Also, men who want to settle dont want a woman who cant or wont have kids, but thats where a successful career leads them to.

[–]OlearysCow-1 points0 pointsago

They believe their corporate success elevates their SMV

some of them do. most dont do it for SMV. they do it for access to powerful men.

[–]TokyoPickup-1 points0 pointsago

most dont do it for SMV

They all think it raises their SMV, it doesnt.

they do it for access to powerful m

They can access powerful men without directly working with them. Its an indirect means of accessing "powerful" men by attempting to raise their SMV. Unfortunately, it only works this way for men.

If this were the case a job as a secretary would work better for gaining "access."

[–]pickup_sticks-1 points0 pointsago

How old are you? You speak of women in their thirties and forties not as if you know them intimately, but as if you read something on a blog.

[–]OlearysCow2 points3 pointsago

Im 28, so no I dont know women in their 30s or 40s intimately, and I hope that if I do, its not for a very, very long time.

[–]pk_atheist[M]0 points1 pointago

You speak as though youve found some secret loophole that the rest of us are blind to, as if the women in their 30s and 40s are actually all married and were not speaking of a trend here. Dalrocks blog does a lot of work with these statistics. (thats right, I havent met every women on the planet either).

Were here to formulate why. I am trying to be patient with you, but youre really not grasping the concept here.

[–]pickup_sticks-2 points-1 pointsago

Again, proving my point. Dalrock poses hypotheses about stats. Period. Thats a long way from a "general consensus." Unless by general consensus you mean an amen circle jerk like what happens here.

In the meantime, Ive have dated and spent lots of time with women in this demographic. And Im here to tell you that theres more to their desire than resources. Thats why they dump even millionaires.

The more successful a woman is, the less resources matter and the more she cares about attention. Attention doesnt mean you just look her in the eye while speaking. It means you are 100% there with her and not distracted, and that you tell the truth (vulnerability as well as not responding to shit tests). This is what women mean by chemistry and emotional connection. Presence.

It works with everyone, not just women. Try it sometime. You will notice that people smile at you more and defer to you as a leader.

This has helped me a lot in my business as well as with women. Im not kidding around. Try it.

[–]pk_atheist2 points3 pointsago

Im just going to stop you right here, your solipsism is astounding. Youve had some different experiences, and so youre going head to head with some very well laid out evolutionary theory that we observe in many mammals.. but humans must be different because youve experienced a few outliers?

Every single red pill article has somebody who says "NAWALT" http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/nawalt-and-you.html

Take this as a response to all of your recent posts, because Im not going to debate you on multiple fronts.

Ive met women who marry young and make great wives. Turns out conscious decision can trump evolutionary behavior. But you know what still exists? The drives and instincts that are ingrained in our heads. That can never be turned off, just adhered to or ignored.

We are here to discuss the larger trends. Id say 80% of my approaches are with stereotypical women who do not surpass my expectations. We can either address it, or live in the comfortable world you live in where every single person is a snowflake and societal norms and trends dont exist.

[–]pickup_sticks0 points1 pointago

Everything I described above applies broadly across women, not snowflakes. Thats why I have success.

Dont mistake attention and presence for "putting women on a pedestal."

[–]legendofpasta0 points1 pointago

"but but but women break up with millionaires sometimes, so NAWALT!!" I cant believe the stuff that comes out of this guy sometimes. RES tagged as beta fag and a cumulative -11 downvotes so far. White knighting must be a lot of fun

[–]DespoticNespotism0 points1 pointago

In the majority of states (30 out of 50, specifically), the age of consent is 16. If you havent already, I would recommend checking out the Wiki article on age of consent by state to see what your states laws actually are.

Still, that does only give you a 14-year window.

[–]VZPurp1 point2 pointsago

I think the trick is to make that legwork be for yourself. Be in a position of power in a field you like, making money and being satisfied with your work. The men who are "winning" in this scenario are indeed putting in a tremendous amount of work.

So why would we consider them winning? I think this is more of a case as entry into the supposed 20% of men that get the women. From the tone of the article and others, women will try their hardest not to settle for a "beta" or a man who hasnt established himself in some fashion.

[–]OlearysCow2 points3 pointsago

exactly. the game is competing for the attention of women, and youve won once youve worked on yourself hard enough to make it to that top 20 percent that women notice.

[–]MrZergling3 points4 pointsago

Why this simple knowledge of female desire and sexuality is not talked about in society?. Every grown man should know this, they should even teach this in sex class in school. Im treated like a misogynist when im trying to explain this concept to a blue pill friend.

Our society has been pushing tabula rasa for far too long. We cant acknowledge that maybe -gasp- people have differing innate drives partially due to brain structure and -gasp- that brain structure largely falls along gender lines. Acknowledging that means giving up the feel-good mentality that "you can do anything you set your mind to" which has been pushed down our throats for years.

In addition, people dont like to be associated with traits of a group they see as negative, even if they display those traits.

[–]squarehouse5 points6 pointsago

Agreed. 75% of the red pill is understanding that Nature trumps Nurture. The belief in Nurture or the agnosticism of "its too complicated!" is simply our ideology. For instance, feminism and its belief that virtually everything is a social construct if something is brought up that sounds too reasonable.

Red pill knowledge isnt that uncommon, its just been simplified, vulgarized, and ridiculed. For instance, theres always been this idea that women are interested in money, a vulgarized and falsified form of hypergamy. All the evidence supports this, yet it is one of societys favorite strawmen to knock down. Similarly, that women prefer tall men, that women prefer dominant men (50 Shades of Gray...feminists hate this book, not for what it says but for what it reflects), that women prefer winners in society no matter how "douchebaggy" the guy is.

It would be an interesting project for this subreddit to start compiling the evidence for our assertions. For instance, Im pretty sure that there should be evidence out there that shows that in weddings, the groom makes more than the bride. Sure, this factoid could be interpreted different ways, but by compiling evidence on different things, we can easily dispose of the fem-centric or feminist interpretations of "patriarchy" or "sexism".

[–]VZPurp2 points3 pointsago

Great article, but you should have made that the link instead of having it be a self post.

[–]Kepaso[S]3 points4 pointsago

ok. It was my 1st post ever , im not used at the different options

[–]VZPurp3 points4 pointsago

Its all good, man. Welcome aboard!

[–]Kepaso[S]3 points4 pointsago

thanx!