We all know what’s happening in the West right now, but what’s going to happen in the next decade or so in regard to the sexual marketplace? More importantly, how can a man plan for the changes that are coming? Fear not, my readers, for I am here to bring you in from the freezing cold of ignorance and fear into the fire-lit cabin of knowledge. Here are my prognostications for the coming years, based on current trends.
1) Increasing prevalence of polyamory, with moves to legalize polygamy. Not only has the “mancession” thrown a LOT of guys out of work, but with women making up the majority of college undergrads and graduates, the number of men being shut out from the middle class is increasing at a rapid clip. With women genetically hardwired to seek men that are higher in status, the depopulation of dudes from the professional classes is shrinking the number of men they are capable of being attracted to. As a result, the number of men who cut the mustard status-wise will be able to form their own harems. The West’s hypergamous purgatory is already coming into existence – for instance, John Edwards (hat tip: Roissy) is openly keeping his mistress in his house:
John Edwards will move the mother of his love child into his North Carolina neighborhood so he can help raise their 18-month-old baby, the National Enquirer reported Wednesday.
The Enquirer also reported that Elizabeth Edwards, who is stricken with cancer, was furious when her husband told her of his parenting plans.
I fully expect the nattering nabobs of negativism feminism to make a push for legalized polygamy. They’re already clamoring for polyamory, as shown (hat tip: Mark Richardson) in this Feministing post:
I’m currently in a relationship with a man I love dearly, and I have been for nearly 3 years. It’s going well, he’s marvelous, we get on great. There’s just one thing – this is a polyamorous relationship. He also has another girlfriend, who he’s been with for a long time. That in itself isn’t a problem. I knew about her before I entered into the relationship and I’ve never had a problem with polyamory, it suits me fine, we take suitable precautions in our sex lives and we’re always open and honest with each other about everything. The problem is in explaining this to my parents. My mother noticed that my boyfriend was listed as in a relationship with the other lady on a social networking site, and has the notion that she must be his ex and he just hasn’t changed his status. She keeps asking me why he’s still listed as being with her, I keep changing the subject but I want to be honest with her. I’m not sure if she’s ever come across the concept of polyamory and I really don’t know what her reaction will be at all. I want to convey that this relationship is every bit as committed as a monogamous one and just as loving. How do you go about explaining this kind of thing with no knowledge of the response you’ll get? What if the response is negative? Please help.
Answer their questions with patience. I also caution that words like polyamory may not work for the first conversation. Keep it simple. “Mom, I know you keep asking me about the woman who says she is in a relationship with Jack. They are in a relationship. I’ve always known about it. Jack and I are serious and committed and we see other people. We are open and honest with each other and this works really well for both of us.”
If she denigrates the relationship, I would point out ways that he has been great in the past. When he has been at family functions, when he has helped your family, how happy you are together.
And then, and this may be the most difficult part, let it go. It will take time for your mother to understand and accept this (just ask the majority of queer folks who eventually have accepting parents). Keep answering their questions, but also set boundaries. If either of them are rude to your boyfriend or questions his love for you, you can call a stop to that. Your relationship and partner deserves respect.
This is the last and most important part – prove them wrong by actions. Show them that for all of their preconceived notions of what a “real” relationship is, you and your man are happy and love each other. It takes time, but this will be the greatest convincer of all.
From Mr. Richardson’s post:
It also hints at the real preferences of the more serious feminists. The sexuality of men and women operates at different levels. At one level, male sexuality is naturally promiscuous and female sexuality is hypergamous (meaning that women have an instinct to be with the most dominant male). If human nature only operated at this level then monogamy would be exceptionally rare.
I wonder if there are serious feminists who have rejected the traditional family as patriarchal (or as an impediment to female autonomy) and who therefore seek to “liberate” female sexuality – which really means liberating the female instinct to hypergamy.
The family form which corresponds best to hypergamy is, of course, polygamy – as this gives the most women access to the small number of socially dominant men.
When the first high court declares polygamy legal, we can officially pound that last nail into civilization’s coffin.
2) The collapse of marriage. As a general rule, people don’t get married unless they can afford to. For example, marriage rates and birthrates tumbled during the Great Depression but exploded after the economy recovered following World War II. Men, already being dissuaded from marriage due to the feminist legal system, will definitely not bite once they’ve been economically devastated. Expect the rate of marriage to take a HUGE drop. Divorce will also fall, as marriage will be confined almost exclusively to the genteel upper classes.
3) Sex-motivated rage killings will continue unabated, at the rate of one every other year at the least. Young women will continued to be killed by their sociopathic lovers at the same rate.
4) The death of nightlife. It’s a given, in both mainstream culture and PUA circles, that bars and nightclubs are the primary venues in which men meet women and (hopefully) make sweet reproductive music. The problem is two-fold. One, bar-hopping and clubbing are money-intensive activities. If you’ve unemployed or have otherwise seen your income collapse, the nightlife budget is the first to go. As Roosh wrote a year ago:
I predict that in the next two years meeting girls in the cities hardest hit by the economy will be even more difficult for the average guy. With less disposable income girls are going to stay home more instead of going out. Empty bars and clubs mean guys will be more reliant on meeting girls through friends, family, Myspace, and work. There will be less pump and dumps as guys will want to keep what they managed to get, as they themselves are strapped for cash and meeting girls does cost money. The only guys immune will be those in college, who will graduate to a barren landscape—in more ways than one.
Swap “guys” with “girls” and you have, in a peanutshell, what’s happening.
The other point pertains to clubs only – namely, seducing a club girl is nearly impossible if you aren’t an apex alpha or close to it. The atmosphere of nightclubs, depending on flash and looks, is something most guys can’t play to. You need to have a certain look, style, and attitude to pull consistently or even occasionally in clubs, and even if they have good game elsewhere, the club is a gigantic stumbling block that most dudes can’t overcome.
Combine this with the priciness of nightclubs and the recession, and you have a recipe for total market collapse. I predict that the number of nightclubs in cities will fall by half at the least, as the long lines of betas standing in line for an hour and plunking down their dollars for cover charges all so they can dance to shitty music, drink obscenely overpriced liquor, and hit on girls who do not wanted to be fucked by them vanish. Bars will also be hit, but not as severely, as they cost less and appeal to a wider market.
5)Â An explosion of interest in day game. The advantages of day game are so obvious it’s a surprise no one’s pounced on it. When you pick up girls during the daytime, you don’t have to deal with their bitch shields on at full blast, their cockblocking friends (as many girls are alone), gameless idiots hitting on them and giving them unwarranted boosts to their self-esteem, and the general jackassery of nightlife. Not only that, but approaching girls during the day is way cheaper then going to a bar or club. And yet, googling “day game” turns up no worthwhile information from seduction community websites – they are exclusively oriented around nightlife.
Going hand in hand with the coming collapse of the nightlife industry, I predict that guys interested in getting their knobs polished will focus their efforts on swooping girls while the sun is shining. The guru who writes a complete handbook on day game will be laughing all the way to the bank, laughing so hard he’ll shit himself, as his recalcitrant competitors recede into the darkness of irrelevance.
So knowing all of this, how can you, the humble reader, put yourself in a position of power? I have but one tip: LEARN GAME. If you are interested in having a sex life at all, you MUST have game. If you want to get married and possibly make babies, you MUST have game. If you want to do anything aside from have a five-fingered pants party, you MUST have game. Game is more important than getting a promotion at your job, your college education, or ANYTHING else in this regard. As The Fifth Horseman says here:
Moderate competence in Game is easily worth about the same SMV as having a net worth of $2 million. This is a rough estimate. Furthermore, no one can tax your Game, swindle you out of Game, or steal your Game in divorce court (as long as you don’t let this sap your confidence as a human being).
I define moderate competence in Game as the following 5 steps :
***1) Regular, consistent, and somewhat effortless ability to do approaches to women who are 8s or higher. This is the most important point of all, as without approaches, you will not create the opportunities to practice ANY other part of Game. This is also the filter that blocks most novices from ever progressing.
2) Ability to qualify the woman, as well as identify and pass her own tests easily. Be the first to end the phonecall, always be leaving, other time constraints, etc. The ability to use the occasional well-placed neg is valuable too.
3) Ability to run comfort and rapport for the requisite 6-8 hours. Have a lot of interesting stories, games, and other things to run on her.
***4) Ability to bridge from Day 1 to Day 2, and minimize flakes. This is important as flakes are frustrating, demoralizing, and discouraging. A lot of guys are very close to the brass ring, but this derails them in their quest for Game.
5) Ability to run competent seduction Game, after you get her alone. This is where Ross Jeffries NLP can be extremely useful (but not mandatory by any means).
1) and 4) cause the biggest frustration, paralysis, and ‘giving up’, hence the asterisks. But a man who becomes pretty good at these 5 points is ahead of 98% of all men, and is on par with a Beta who has $2 million in net worth (and is ahead of such a Beta if that Beta has no game and is suckered easily by feminine manipulation).
The copulation arms race is at DEFCON 2, my friends. Learn game or be wiped out in the ensuing nuclear fires.
{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }
Good post. Some thoughts.
1. The concept of an ” open relationship” is, indeed, a joke. It’s either (a) a fuck-buddy arrangement, or (b) a case where one party wants to be “open” and the other doesn’t, and the open partner has the other one by the balls.
2. As horrible as “adult Columbines” like the Sodini attack are, they don’t mean much of anything from a demographic perspective. They’re extremely upsetting and visible, but they don’t have a major effect on the direction of society. What’s more worrisome is what the much larger number of sane, average men choose to do. If men shy away from marriage en masse, that’s a cause for concern.
3. Feminism is going to split, soon enough. The rising wave of feminists is socially conservative, and these women (mostly under 25, currently) are going to oppose the hypergamous shitfest that followed “sexual liberation”.
4. I like your prediction about the “crash” of nightlife, but I disagree. Dive bars will become more affordable, with PBRs dropping to $2 from $5. The highly exclusive venues (e.g. 1Oak) will remain exclusive/expensive and come to be seen as even more glamorous. This is because the constraint on entry into exclusive clubs (without bottle service) is not money but time– time to make social connections to promoters and owners, figure out patterns of who gets in. Well? These days, people have a lot more time for trifling pursuits.
5. “Day game” is a lot more subtle than nightlife game, because there’s a wider variety of women and the challenges are very different. For example: boyfriends. If a woman’s in a nightclub and says “I have a boyfriend”, that’s a shit test. Even if she does have one– or five– she’s still “gameable”, if you’re unscrupulous. She’s courting male attention, which means she’s open to a sufficiently charismatic fuck. When a girl in a coffeeshop says she has a boyfriend, it means that she’s probably in a serious love relationship, and you’re probably not going to get anywhere by “gaming” her. You’re just going to look like an idiot in front of all the other coffee patrons.
Nightlife game also has quick turnaround. If you don’t “close” within minutes, you’ve failed. So it’s easy for even the most unsubtle to figure out the patterns. You can condense most of “bar game” into a book that fits in a large pocket. On the other hand, “day game” is so much more complicated and long-term that it probably requires an encyclopedia. This is why mainstream– “day game” focused– dating advice is so general as to be useless.
M. Dowd on miserable modern womyn —> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20dowd.html
Ferdi,
As per usual, excellent post, and I most definitely agree with all you said. This will be the Age of the OTB, as TFH calls them-if you’re a guy who can see the Matrix and adapt accordingly, you’ll be alright.
On the other hand, if you’re a guy who is fundamentally slow on the uptake, you’re toast.
It’s really as simple as that.
A little over a week ago, it was officially announced that more Women than Men are in the American workforce. And just a minute ago on CNN, it was announced by the talking heads that it will take 70 months-about 6 YEARS-before the American economy can recover. That’s the keyword here-*recover*-meaning, getting back to where it was in 2008 or so. Not even talking about gaining ground.
So, the Mancession is not only profound, but for the most part, will be permanent. If the guys hit hardest by this can adapt and find other opportunities for themselves, they’ll do fine. If not…
I just have one thing to add to your list above, in fact, I would argue that it’s even stronger than Day Game…
…And that’s strong Inner Game, which is in my view, directly linked to Peacocking. As the Mancession wears on and the things you note above begin to become quite apparent to anyone with eyes to see, more and more Women will be fairly desperate due to prolonged bouts of Cock Deprivation. I predict that the best looking guys will have no problem at all getting attention from Women, because merely showing up will be enough to get snatched up.
The trick here, in order to standout from the pack, is strong Inner Game, and strong Peacocking. Let the Game come to you.
Works for me.
Holla back
The Obsidian
Uh huh. Learn ‘game’ or die? We’re in the same period as when a certain emperor uttered the fateful phrase “let them come”? Or is it more the rantings of Betas who want to date hotties but it seems like a Sisyphen task when watching Alphas clean up?
It’s strange how a great many everyday people seem to get married and have kids. Most people seem to get somewhere in life. So is this nothing more than eschatological rantings by lesser-Betas who are having mid-life crises knowing their dating days are numbered and get called “pops” by young women?
After all, biology demands that only those genetically gifted get to reproduce at all. In many parts of the animals it’s probably only 1 – 10% of critters which get a chance at sex. The human species is kinder as the more in the region of 80 – 90% but there remains the Om3ga Factor in which a minority will not get laid because their genes really suck. Not to mentino lesser-Beta genes are a bit of the whiffy side too.
Besides if society is to thrive it needs reproduction by less of the population not more. A strong society has passive eugenics built into it. In other words, society ought to not place any barriers on success thus allowing people to reproduce in step with their ability to be successful. This is opposed to a ‘pro-active’ eugenics in which some people try to guess the winners and the losers and tries to subsidise the ‘winners’.
I think you underestimate the amount of violence coming. Women are going to engage in more of it too.
Only 40% of men who have ever lived to adulthood have passed on any genetic material. The others have no living descendants. For women, this number is 80%. Thus, 2/3 of our ancestors are women.
It’s a demographic issue. Nothing says it’s impossible for an individual high-quality man to find a woman of comparable desirability. The fact remains that not all of us will, because the numbers don’t match up. This problem is exaggerated under a regime of hypergamy and polygamy, wherein one alpha cock, flying in with the destructive force of a 9/11 airplane, can take out several women.
Women don’t need to commit violence. The evil ones can always find equally evil, but stupider, men to do their dirty work.
On the contrary.
Poverty and insecurity will make people realize the economic advantages of marriage/family and the safety net it provides.
Get ready for bloodshed and killing on a scale never seen here. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable and violent, with dominant males being prime targets. Why? A small number of men who monopolize not only the women, but everything else can only hold onto power by starting wars to kill off hordes of low-status men lest they join forces and kill the dominant males. These rootless men are the basis for religious and political extremism, and they have little or nothing to lose. They are ghost armies that foment and often win bloody and brutal revolutions. In other words, civil war will be the norm and everyone loses. The birth rate will drop, the death rate will skyrocket and our society will be wiped out. Poverty and insecurity are often imposed from the outside, not being being unmarried. When a few monopolize everything, the rest are trapped in poverty, Marriage is only a benefit when it benefits both men and women, unfortunately feminism has made marriage beneficial to women and oppression for men. It is a contract that is now broken.
“It’s strange how a great many everyday people seem to get married and have kids.”
Married people are in the minority and have been for a couple of years. I have yet to see this trend abate.
“A strong society has passive eugenics built into it.”
If the West was a strong society, neither I nor my blog would exist.
“Poverty and insecurity will make people realize the economic advantages of marriage/family and the safety net it provides.”
If you were correct, J, the Great Depression should have seen an explosion of marriages and births. In fact, during that time, both dropped to lower rates than the hedonistic era that preceded it. People don’t marry because they want to become wealthy, they marry because they ARE wealthy – see Sailer’s Affordable Family Formation theorem.
I think it’s pretty hard to predict the future based on extrapolating current trends. I do agree that we are going to see more polyamory coming along, as at least some women will see an advantage in this for them. I don’t think it will be a huge group, though.
Marriage may continue to collapse as well, but that doesn’t immediately lead to social chaos and mass violence. Marriage has collapsed in continental europe, for the most part, already, and this has not led to widespread social violence. It’s led to very low birth rates, generally, which are creating huge problems for Europe’s future, but it hasn’t led to an angry beta uprising or widespread violence against women or the men who are the sexual “haves” by the sexual “have nots”. Instead, men have sated themselves with porn, video games, alcohol and soccer. In the UK, things are going much less well, probably because of the impact of chivalry (*much stronger in Anglo countries than in the rest of the West) — but still not really close to a general collapse.
I think when we look to the future there are wildcards — some of which we know and some we don’t. VR sex sheaths, and eventually sexbots, are one wildcard. When these come along, they will be very useful tools to keep the masses of male sexual “have nots” sated. Quite well enough, I would think, to stave off any widespread violence or revolt.
The main problem in the years ahead will be “what to do with men?”. It won’t be couched in the way we think of it, in terms of sexual have nots and so on. But it will be couched in terms of what to do to increase male productivity, in a social context where sexual socialism will not be resurrected.
In the past, the “excess” men were either bled off as warriors, or made into eunuchs, who often gained a privileged social position in exchange for giving up their sex. At some future stage, we may see the successor states to the current western regimes advocating voluntary castration in exchange for social benefits as a way to increase male productivity in a non-socialist sexual system, for example. Or other solutions that do not involve a beta revolt or widespread violence.
I just don’t see a “Beta Revolution” for the reasons that Nova and others here and elsewhere have already indicated, all basically evo-related. Males are expendable. That’s a fact. And throughout history, Males have always been used and expended in any number of ways. What’s happening right now, as Nova rightly asserts, is that for the first time in human history, a majority of Males are living longer and with a higher quality of life, while at the same time there is less and less NEED for the things Males did, like dying in wars and doing the heavy lifting in life.
So, what’s more likely to happen is that crime rates are going to go up; more general malaise on the part of Males; more homelessness; and more guys becoming de facto Eunuchs. We’ll get more Sodini-Cho stuff, but it won’t be enough to turn the light on in the Powers that Be’s heads, and so it’ll allow them and Women in general to continue to think that it’s the actions of a few yahoos instead of the result of something deeply wrong in the system.
So, since on one wants to go back to the good ole days, I think Whiskey’s right-well simply have to accept that this is the way we’re going to do business from here on in.
Freedom, ain’t Free; somebody’s gotta pay.
The Obsidian
Instead, men have sated themselves with porn, video games, alcohol and soccer. In the UK, things are going much less well, probably because of the impact of chivalry (*much stronger in Anglo countries than in the rest of the West) — but still not really close to a general collapse.
I think when we look to the future there are wildcards — some of which we know and some we don’t. VR sex sheaths, and eventually sexbots, are one wildcard. When these come along, they will be very useful tools to keep the masses of male sexual “have nots†sated. Quite well enough, I would think, to stave off any widespread violence or revolt.
You can bet that if all these safety valves were to disappear, major trouble won’t be long in coming. The idea of robots for sex-starved men sounds utterly revolting too.
Ferds,
Don’t forget my ‘Four Horsemen of Male Vengeance’ that I posted on the long thread, about the changes that will shift the power balance away from women by 2020.
It was, after all, technological and social changes that shifted the power towards them in the first place. New technologies cause new disruptions and new nuances of globalization (Islam, etc.).
Nightlife won’t collapse. All that will happen is that covercharges will shrink.
One does not HAVE to buy a drink at all, in a club. I almost never do, partly due to having to drive, and partly because I don’t want to.
When you have a large group of men, without women, social instability always results. Sometimes it becomes ultra-passive ala Japan’s Herbivore Men and society becomes an easy picking for dangerous neighbors. Sometimes the society becomes hyper-aggressive and seeks to conquer new places (Tibet, Taiwan, Africa) like China. Sometimes society becomes low-level dysfunctional, with exile armies and jihad attacks on the biggest targets (Saudi Arabia). Sometimes society becomes characterized not by peacocking but by “Glock Game” as in the Black community.
It is never however, stable and resistant to shocks, when a lot of men have a built-in incentive to roll the dice on anything and everything to get a woman.
Some of these technologies are already arriving, in prototype form:
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-the-girl-below-is-actually-an-android-sex-doll/
“Feminism is going to split, soon enough. The rising wave of feminists is socially conservative, and these women (mostly under 25, currently) are going to oppose the hypergamous shitfest that followed “sexual liberationâ€.”
Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte are socially conservative? Anecdotal, to be sure, but aside from Ariel Levy, I can’t think of any famous feminists that would fit your description.
“The highly exclusive venues (e.g. 1Oak) will remain exclusive/expensive and come to be seen as even more glamorous. This is because the constraint on entry into exclusive clubs (without bottle service) is not money but time– time to make social connections to promoters and owners, figure out patterns of who gets in. Well? These days, people have a lot more time for trifling pursuits.”
That’s a good point, one I forgot. I don’t predict that nightclubs will vanish entirely, but will become a hobby for the rich and connected. The recession will wipe out a lot of the smaller players.
OTB?
I saw that as well.
Even for men who do not buy one, their effect on the marketplace affects ALL people. Men who do not buy one, and women who do not ever see one, are all affected. Because it shifts the demand curve higher.
8s will be treated like 5s used to be. 6s and below will become invisible. All women over 35 will become invisible, even to 50 year old men..
EXCEPT, for those women who can offer what the robot cannot : LOVE. This lost skill will have to be developed in women, which will become their own version of ‘learning Game’ : Learning to offer what a sexbot cannot, which, as of right now, not many women can do.
You wouldn’t exist if the West was a strong society? I don’t get it.
I think he’s referring to the blog.
“You wouldn’t exist if the West was a strong society? I don’t get it.”
I wouldn’t exist AS I AM. I would be a completely different person. So would most of the people alive today. The blog wouldn’t exist as well.
I don’t buy the whole “sexbots will shift the balance of power” theory.
Getting girls isn’t just about getting laid. It’s also about social status. A guy who has a hot girlfriend is “cool.” Other guys will look up to a guy who hooks up with a bunch of hot women. A guy who can’t get a girl to save his life is a “loser.” And what worse way to signal that you are a loser than to buy a sexbot? You’d have to hide it (but you’d be scared that someone would find it), and you could never tell *anyone* that you had bought it.
If you’ve ever cleared your browser history, you’ve implicitly admitted that there is still a social stigma to porn (even though it’s blatantly obvious in the case of porn that almost every guy looks at it). And if having your parents find porn in your browser cache would be embarrassing, just imagine your parents discovering your sexbot. Or, if that doesn’t bug you, imagine a girl breaking up with you after she found your sexbot and concluded that you were a “creep.”
Adding the cost to the stigma, and considering the many technological challenges, realistically, it is going to be a good while until sexbots have any chance of mattering in the sexual market. I certainly can’t imagine them making any significant difference in the US in the next decade.
On top of all that, the guys who are most likely to buy a sexbot are probably going to be extremely unattractive guys (omegas), so the middle to upper tiers of the dating market will be unaffected.
I’m finding that I’m liking the changes to the culture. I enjoy having multiple attractive high-status women attracted to me. And I feel a primal urge to not merely sleep with them but also to impregnate them and help raise children together if they are good. I guess I’m the “winner” of the polygamist urge. It is a tremendous ego boost like no other to have high-quality women clearly show interest in having your baby and not just fucking.
I really like living in an area with many other cultures that are more open to the idea. But it will result in bad feelings for low status men. I was recently out for drinks with some friends of mine who are losers in the game. There’s nothing really wrong with them as they are only missing just a little bit from the optimal genetic traits and are now mid-30′s and haven’t gotten laid in several years. It is such a shame.
You still take the shaming language of women too seriously.
And what worse way to signal that you are a loser than to buy a sexbot?
That you admit that you can’t learn Game. At any rate, this is no worse than women reading trashy romance novels. You have simply accepted their framework about what is acceptable and what is not.
For those too lazy to learn Game, sexbots evolve as a response to market forces.
I certainly can’t imagine them making any significant difference in the US in the next decade.
I said 2020, which is more than a decade away. You you are in agreement with me.
As I’ve said elsewhere, the violence will escalate in three stages:
Stage 1: Sodinis, Chos, and McVeighs. Random violence, not necessarily, but most likely directed at women. We are at that stage now.
Stage 2: Targeted violence against cunts who ruin their men’s lives through sport divorces, accusations of rape, sexual harrassment, etc. Such men (especially if they’re older and have even less to lose) may decide they are not going to be slaves for the rest of their lives and prefer to spent it in prison with the satisfaction that the bitch is dead.
Stage 3: If things get bad enough, targeted assassination of cunt politicians and their mangina allies. Let’s hope it doesn’t get that far.
Sooner or later, society will take notice.
I agree.
Step 2 will involve Islam, as Islam is very good at recruiting exactly this type of disenfranchised man, having done it efficiently for 1400 years. They will train such men in how to conduct effective violence.
This will also enable the ‘multiculturalism/Islamophobe’ card to counter the ‘misogyny’ card played by feminists.
Watch Britain very closely, as they will see this happen 10 years sooner than the US.
The idea of robots for sex-starved men sounds utterly revolting too.
How is it any worse than prostitution?
At any rate, women will be safer if sexbots are available to a certain portion of men. Women will be more lonely and depressed, but physically safer.
I don’t see any evidence of social conservatism among feminists either. The only way it could happen is if feminists started believing that the best way to extract money and resources from men is through marriage like “socially conservative” so called anti-feminist women do.
I have no idea why the idea of my parents finding my sexbot would matter unless I’m 14 years old. For any adult man with his own place (which is most adult men) that’s irrelevant.
As for the supposed power of shaming language, everyday shaming language is losing its effectiveness. So a guy with a sexbot isn’t “cool”, so fucking what? What are the benefits of being cool? Getting women? It doesn’t matter if you have the sexbot which is the point.
It’s also important to remember that sexbots in many ways are superior to game. No chance of getting a STD. No chance of having to pay child support for 22 years (including no chance of a woman trying to impregnate herself with one of your used condoms). etc.
I think when we look to the future there are wildcards — some of which we know and some we don’t. VR sex sheaths, and eventually sexbots, are one wildcard. When these come along, they will be very useful tools to keep the masses of male sexual “have nots†sated. Quite well enough, I would think, to stave off any widespread violence or revolt.
Sure those things will do that. It still will piss off women. While women will be physically safer, they still are going to be alone big time.
On top of that there are other wildcards like artificial wombs which will allow men who want kids to have them without women which will increase women’s loneliness even more.
Learning love will be an option for women to beat out the sexbot. It’s going to be interesting to see if women really do that or just go around blaming men for the problems they and their sisters are responsible for. I bet the latter so men will have another reason to go for the sexbots.
You still take the shaming language of women too seriously.
Whether I take it seriously or not, a vast number of guys do and will take it seriously. Also, I don’t think the shaming language would come only from women — guys would make fun of someone who bought a sexbot, too, the same way they’ll make fun of a guy who’s a 30-year-old virgin or a hardcore WoW-playing computer nerd. It may not be fair, it may not be pleasant, but that’s how the world works.
This reminds me of an unrelated thought. One of the key skills that Game teaches guys is that they need to stop giving a flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks — that they need to act (usually, approach) without fear of consequences, e.g., “what will other people think of me?” And, of course, many naturals are completely without shame. I’ve known the type.
Some guys need this advice — some guys are far too meek. But, if we’re analyzing the impact of Game on our society as a whole, we shold also recognize that this is not desirable behavior to be encouraging!
We should shame certain behaviors, namely, those that are unethical. People should feel guilt when they act unethically. A person who does not feel guilt or shame is, ahem, a “psychopath.” (And funny enough, psychopathic personality types can be quite successful with women.)
To the extent that Game is encouraging men to adopt psychopathic/antisocial behaviors, and to the extent that women are rewarding men for these antisocial behaviors in the sexual market, we should be VERY, VERY afraid for our society. Here lie dragons.
Remember, there is no law of nature that says that when each individual acts in his own self-interest, the outcome for society as a whole is optimal (even by a narrow standard such as Pareto optimality). In fact, it may be one of the most surprising results we get out of economics that under certain conditions, such a result can be obtained.
I didn’t say that the “split” within feminism has happened. I predict that it will, as women recognize that the encouragement of female casual sex is a “rider” of feminism, tacked on by the patriarchal alpha-males they so strongly despise.
Bingo.
Bad feelings turn into actions, even if that action is simply turning one’s back to all women and going his own way. But at the opposite extreme, you get a guy who does what Sodini did out of anger towards women. But I think you forget something important. Men display, women choose, and when women reject good men time and time again, they develop bad blood towards women and men they are attracted to. You just happen to be their hot number of the week, and when that is no longer the case, you will be just like the rest of us.
I don’t think the shaming language would come only from women
Sexbots will be like porn: mildly shameful in general society, but with lots of guys actually boasting about using them. Again, just like with porn, alphas will use them too and that will further take any edge off of any criticism.
Here’s a contrary thought: sexbots might, like porn has, increase the male sex-drive levels even further into satyr/addict territory, exacerbating the differential in desire levels and, therefore, further tilting the balance-of-power away from the men.
Instead of satiating the male sex drive, I think they’ll actually increase average mens’ desperate need for “the real thing”. This “sexbot” thing is either all-or-nothing, and the only way out is to create creepy VR technologies that satisfy the bioemotional needs. That’s a scary concept.
(Or maybe lucid dreaming is the way to go? Low-cost, low-tech alternative.)
Except it wasn’t. Have you ever read Germain Greer’s stuff or Naomi Wolf?
The reality is that feminism led directly to the sexual revolution, which then took on a life of its own. Some feminists embraced this (Greer, and later Wolf, among others), while others resisted it (MacKinnon, Dworkin, etc.) but not on traditional grounds, but mostly misandrist ones. The split between “sex positive” feminists and the sex-negative ones occurred long ago, and the sex positive ones *won*. That’s reflected in *all* the young feminists today — Marcotte, Valenti, the girls at Jezebel and so on. All thoroughly in support of sexual libertinism.
There will be no coming split among feminists on this issue. The split, such as it was, has already taken place, and the sex-positive feminists have won. The issue is whether women at large will turn their backs on feminism because they see the harms. I’m skeptical of that, really, because while women today will often admit that feminism has had “excesses” or has caused “some problems”, on *balance* most women perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they have benefitted more from feminism than they have been adversely impacted from it, so they still support it in general, even if they acknowledge some issues. That kind of lukewarmish support is still support, and it still drives money to groups like NOW and Emily’s List, who have much more radical agendas than that of the average woman.
That’s a good point as well, TFH. VR/sexbots will really dampen the prostitution industry. Perhaps another reason why feminism won’t object to them.
But this can’t be helped.
What I mean is that if people are serious about these concerns, viable alternatives need to be presented to those who are not naturals or very high betas (i.e., the vast majority of men). Right now there really aren’t many. Sucks, but that’s the reality we live in. Guys can search for the needles in the haystack or they can get Game.
Hmmm.
Much of the criticism of porn I have read (which I generally agree with) is that it does not *increase* male desire for the real thing, but rather *decreases* desire for the real thing. Men become conditioned to the images of porn and the feeling they give themselves with their hands, the specific touch and rhythm and so on, such that sex with realistic women, and realistic sex in general, becomes much less appealing. There was good book written about this called “Pornified” a few years ago where many heavy users were interviewed and all pretty much said it decreased their actual desire for real sex.
I would expect VR or sex bots would do the same, and even moreso if done particularly well.
To further your point, there is a reason why guys will go to great lengths to seduce a woman rather than save themselves the trouble (and often the $) and simply pay a hooker 200 bucks for the same thing. It’s just not the same. And, if sex with a real, live hooker doesn’t stack up, I’m not sure how sex with a sexbot will either.
Prostitution will definitely become more widespread as more and more men become sex starved.
I haven’t read through the comments yet, but I just wanted to point out that there are a number of guru’s specializing in Day Game. Sinn, for instance, at sinnsofattraction.com, just put out a big day game product in the last few months. Paul Janka specializes in “street game” as he calls it. Lovesystems has a couple of guys, Keychain and Soul, that are big daygame guys – not sure what products they have around it, but I think they teach specialized classes. I believe Art of Charm does some stuff with Day Game. AFC Adam has a Day Game component to his bootcamps – I know a few people that went through one his bootcamps recently.
So what? Guys who act like A-holes who don’t give a damn about anything, will get laid. Those who care, will go home alone.
Marriage will be for rich guys with $10 million in the bank.
Society will soon devolve into the rule of the thug, like Dalyrmple’s Britain, and as Rich Eisen says on NFL Gameday “there’s nuttin they can do about it.” This is in fact, a female paradise. Most women, would chose a life of violence and uncertainty for that thrill (and not up their leg) that violent and brutal men give them.
You can’t expect (and it’s holding back the tide anyway) men to forgo sex to “save society.” You will get the amount of men that the Catholic Priesthood does, which is to say not very many straight men.
Thug City: it’s a female paradise.
Yes. Plus, a man does not have to tell anyone how many sexbots he owns. He could keep it a secret, if he wants.
He will merely be absent from bars and clubs on Saturday night.
Yes, and this affliction is very common in the Internet age. Much more common than many women realize. In fact, it may be the body/mind’s defense mechanism to save an Omega from a life of misery from not having real women.
This condition should be called David Alexander’s disease (like Lou Gehrig’s or Alzheimer’s disease).
I knew someone who did DVD editing for porn videos. His job was just to edit and format the videos. He had ZERO interest in sex. Zip.
Now, if the 15-year span from VHS cassette porn to Internet porn could do this much, what one more decade of Moore’s Law could do is far more.
So the Sex Technologies of 2020 are bad for society in this way, but they are also good due to an expected drop in crime, and the indirect destruction of state-backed feminism that the resultant male disengagement will result in.
You just demonstrated that you do not grasp what Game is (using words like psychopathic and antisocial), and are part of the BetaCon/mangina pool (those two groups being increasingly merged) that would rather condemn Game than hold women accountable for their behavior as adults.
You claim that Game encourages bad behavior (which is false) but can’t seem to see that the anti-male divorce laws and media message is encouraging far worse behavior in women.
You, sir, are a BetaCon, and are extremely dangerous to the well-being of the average man. Thank god no one listens to you.
As many of you know, one of the many hats I wear, is that of an astrologer. The following was my post in response to a British astrologer name Marina, on the state of dating and mating today, and what I view as astrology’s utter ineptitude in addressing it:
“Marina,
Thank you for sharing parts of your personal life. In no way do I mean to make this personal, for you or anyone else. I am simply taking a dispassionate look at the way we human beings, in a postmodern, postfeminist, Western world, date and mate in our time.
Let’s be frank-you’re right. The rich and connected were always able to have their cake and eat it too, both the hubbies and the wives. As you’re a Brit, you may be familiar with the voluminous diary My Secret Life, written by a Victorian Age gentleman. He must’ve knocked off more “ladies” than a little bit, knocked quite a few of them up as well, and he himself had been married for years. France has long been known for its “marital arrangements”. And let’s not even go there w/your country’s Henry VIII.
So, yes, you’re right, the elite always had, and always will, have a set of seperate rules. But I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the rest of us. No, the way things were, were NOT perfect. There was a such thing as bad marriages. And there were real concerns on the part of Women back then as well. Moreover, while a man may have been a good provider, he may also have been a jerk, a drunk, and/or violent-possibly all three. And there wasn’t a lot a woman could do about it.
But what I’m saying to you, and everyone else reading this, is that all that’s changed now. Women have all kinds of real protections, legal, economic, educational and social. You better not ask about a woman’s sexual choices-its purely her private life. There are now more women than men going on to university-that has to have a real effect on mating choices, since for so many women, they don’t want to mate w/a “lesser man”.
And then there’s what has become known as the Mancession here. More American women than men are in the workforce. How will that effect dating and mating? If John Edwards is any indication, it means the relative few charismatic, and successful, men, can pretty much write their ticket, because women down through history have shown and proven, to be willing to get a timeshare on a hot, successful man, than full “ownership” on a loser. Hence one of the dirty little secrets why polygamy never goes away-it benefits women MORE than it benefits men.
As for Sodini, as I’ve said before, having hoardes of horny young men with nowhere to “discharge their guns” is NOT a good thing for a society. As I’ve written about before, this is the chief challenge of the state of China, who has easily, some 100 MILLION such guys-guys like Sodini or Cho, who can’t get laid, not because their skills at seduction or nonexistent, but because there simply aren’t any women to begin with.
There are truly great opportunities for women today, and astrology often will speak of this. But there are also great risks and challenges for women, too, and that’s something astrology, as a whole, DOESN’T do, and note here, I’m not even talking about the male side of the aisle here. W/no guiding force in the form of the older, wiser woman or women in the neighborhood, no societal censure against certain sexual decisions, and with almost all consequences removed from sex for women, such as the pill and abortion, women nowadays have more choice than ever. But all choices aren’t good ones. And despite the best efforts, some choices do have grave and unavoidable consequences. To wit: Jana Mackey and Jasmine Fiore, both of whom I’ve written about on my blog and elsewhere.
Because women now earn their own money, can make use of the pill and abortion, and have other legal and political options opened to them, their choices in mates change accordingly. In its best light, this will mean that more experienced, mature women can make smarter choices that weren’t available to women in the past-where a man can be a true mate and companion to a woman. But for so many women, particularly but not limited to the younger ones, their choices will be predicated purely on “gina tingles”-and those kinds of traits in a man who induces said gina tingles in a woman, ain’t always the best traits a man can or should have. Very often they correlate with very dangerous and disturbing behaviors. Even deadly.
Most women, and this includes most astrologers, simply refuses to face the fact that we are animals, driven by our baser natures when no overarching set of social controls is present. Nor do the vast majority of women have any scintilla of understanding of the human male sexual drive-they don’t understand just how hard it is for a man to get laid. They don’t have to-just about every woman can get some if she wants it. The issue though, isn’t merely getting some-its getting some from the guy she actually wants.
For men, being sexually deprived is in many ways a fate worse than death, and for so many astrologers, they are completely out to lunch on this score. Many fashion themselves as quasi-theologians, and will wax eloquent about “spiritual celibacy” and so on-let me be the first to tell you, hardly ANY guy wants to go that route. But astrologers simpl do not have a vocabulary to meaningfully address so many of today’s men. Heck, they don’t have it to address most of today’s women either.
The sexual marketplace, is real. And often, brutal. And like the economic marketplace, without some baseline controls placed on it, a Lord Of The Flies existence results, where there are few, if any, winners. And a heck of a lot of losers. And ironically enough, the biggest losers will be women.
Do you see what I’m saying here? I don’t desire a return to the good ole days. That’s not gonna happen. What I do want, is a cleareyed discussion, especially for us astrologers, as how to deal with the very changed world in which we live and counsel clients. And to do that effectively, we had better get our heads outta our butts, outta the clouds and get a dose of hardheaded reality.
Game is a response to the change conditions of the sexual marketplace, made possible by the Four Sirens mentioned above. Say what you will about it, the bottomline is, that it works. Absolutely. And men want it, even to the point of paying what amounts to an average astrologer’s fee ten times over. I’ve seen it happen.
Astrologers need to be in on the discussion here. Not talking about “soulmates” or some other new fangled new agey stuff-but real, honest and practical discussions, using the planets as our guide as we all navigate a truly changed landscape. I’m not seeing this happen, Marina, and if I were a betting man, five will get you ten you won’t see it happening either, anywhere on the web. What you will see is more “goddess” boilerplate, ala George or worse, Lucy.
Lastly, I’ll say this about your situation, and that of so many women in our time:
Women, like most other mammals in the animal kingdom, are the selectors in the sexual dance between the sexes. In Nature, males display, and females choose. Barring out and out rape, this is the case.
So, if a woman finds herself in a bad relationship, the FIRST place she should take a good, hard, look at, is HERSELF. Because, in the end, she was the one to signoff on the guy entering her life. But the truth is, that because of the way women are wired, it is extremely tough for any woman to take this kind of responsibility. Hence the reason why we hear about so many women complain about men, no matter what they do, never ever considering the prime role they themselves play in the dance. As in Nature, males either respond to what women want, or go the way of Sodini and Cho. If women thought that men wearing Ronald McDonald shoes were sexy as hell, you can best believe those kind of shoes would be flying off the shelves. Women set the “price” in the sexual marketplace, because when you really break it down, eggs are expensive, and sperm is cheap.
If women want better men, they first have to be better women. Its really as simple as that.
Think about what I just said, and holla back.”
The Obsidian
Obsidian,
on the state of dating and mating today, and what I view as astrology’s utter ineptitude in addressing it:
The utter ineptitude of many astrologers
The utter ineptitude of SocialCons
The utter ineptitude of feminists supposedly concerned with female happiness
The utter ineptitude of the media
The utter ineptitude of the educational system
The utter ineptitude of Beta provider males to see the shifting value systems of society.
Do we see a pattern here?
Obs, I am on pins and needles waiting for your blog to start up.
That’s very true. I’ve noticed that there is a definite hierarchy of ideas within the PC universe, and in that universe multiculturalism trumps EVERYTHING–feminism, environmentalism/global warming, gay pride, etc. If some mullah issued a fatwa claiming that Allah commands the consumption of fossil fuel (especially oil), guess how much faster we’d be burning it.
And guess what – there are Muslim courts in Britain where Muslims can go for their issues.
British divorce laws are even more anti-male than the US. I recently saw an article about how non-Muslim men in Britain are going to the Muslim courts, and I can’t say I blame them.
My Brothers,
I just want to point out that it is very important that WE do not allow ourselves, or each other, to adopt Loser Mentalities-this is what the Matrix-outer society-expects of us. Instead, seek the Light. Focus on it.
Nothing succeeds, like success. And the sweetest revenge, is success.
I was listening to the Steve Harvey Radio Show a few weeks back-for those who don’t know, he’s a prominent Black comedian turned nationally syndicated “morning drive” radio jock-and his show tends to focus on what else, Women. In fact, he has what he claims is NYT bestseller-Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man. He has primarily Black Women cohosts with him on his show, and often devotes segments of the show to their concerns-like what he calls the “Strawberry Letter” where Women will write in and ask questions about their relationships and so on.
Apparently, Harvey and his crew are out promoting a “Hottie of the Month”, which will eventually be compiled into a calendar. Very good looking Black Male Hearthrobs.
A Blark guy called up his show, and asked whether Harvey had any plans to do a Male version of the “Strawberry Letter” and “Hottie Of The Month”, and Harvey, a guy who usually talks a bit slowly, quickly said NO, “we’re not going to do that”.
And he left it, at that.
Of course, he knows what side of the bread the butter is on, and you know what? That’s OK. What Brothas like the guy who called in doesn’t know, is there exists an entire underground network, a true “secret society” of Men, who eagerly await guys like him.
All he needs is to get the word. And trust me, I know the power of word of mouth. That’s how I found out about Roissy, afterall. I damn sure didn’t hear about him on say, Howard Stern.
Fellas, we don’t NEED a “statement” to the world, or a tv show, or a radio show, or whatever. We have, everything, we need, right now: cutting edge, state of the art technology. The Wisdom of the Ages. Scientifically informed research and understanding, both of Women and how they interact with us. And, quiet as its kept, both the ire, and awe, of Millions.
We, stand at the brink of something powerful, Gentlemen-we have our hands, not on the Rosetta Stone, but the *Philosopher’s Stone*. And we should comport ourselves in a manner befitting Masters.
Do wallow in self pity, anger, hatred. Focus on the Light. This is what drives me, everyday. To be the best that ever did the damn thing. To let my Light shine.
As I type this, from a device small enough to fit into my pocket (smartphone)!-I’m watching Larry King Live. Tonight’s guest: Tyra Banks.
You all know who she is. The former Victoria’s Secret model turned media darling has been deemed by some as Oprah’s heiress apparent. Her show has featured aspects of our way of life-the more Man Bites Dog aspects of it, of course. And, she’s just stated that her show, is basically “Oprah Jr.”-focusing on younger Women.
I smiled. Because I know, without any fear of contradiction, that I could have her following me around the room within a very short time of meeting. I know so because I know me, I know Game, and I know Tyra-both the general “her” as a Woman, and the more particular Tyra because I have her horoscope. Please do not underestimate the power of Astrology, my brothers. Your Game can and will go through the roof when you have it in your toolbox.
There are many aspects to Game; as my friend, The Fifth Horseman often says, just having Moderate Game Competence is worth MILLIONS. But what he considers Advanced Game, you know what the secret sauce is there?
It’s all on the inside.
Oh, the Revolution will not be televised, my Brothers. But do not get it twisted-it doesn’t mean that people, like Tyra, aren’t watching. They are.
We should give them something to look at.
The Obsidian
Advanced Game means :
a) It is inner. You are always ‘in character’ without having to think about it. Women approach you wihout you consciously doing anything (as Obsidian describes).
b) Your tone of voice is always effortlessly seductive.
c) Opening the most complex sets is easy. AMOG busting, UG control, all the advanced techniques.
d) Expertise in being able to recover any situation, revive cold leads, easily hook up with a girl you last spoke to a year ago, etc.
A person with Advanced Game should routinely bag 10s and even famous women. It is very rare. Most men who even teach seminars don’t have advanced Game. But to bag 8s and some 9s, only Moderate Game is needed.
Advanced Game is so profound that it is hard to even define (unlike moderate Game).
You just demonstrated that you do not grasp what Game is [...], and are part of the BetaCon/mangina pool
Ummm, excuse you? Would a little politeness hurt?
It’s an odd claim to say that I don’t understand Game, seeing as I picked it up a little over a year ago and in that time I have gone from 1 girl in my entire life to, uhhh, a lot more than that now. I don’t claim to be advanced, but I am certainly doing better than the average guy in my demographic.
Learning Game is necessary for guys like me. Prior to learning Game, I was hopelessly bad with women, and since, I’ve gotten significantly better. That doesn’t mean that lots of guys learning Game is a good thing for our society as a whole. In fact, it strikes me as a bad thing for our society as a whole, because our society would be much better off if smart guys like me were spending our time developing new technologies, making new scientific discoveries, and launching innovative businesses — rather than spending our time figuring out how to outsmart female psychology to get laid.
In fact, it strikes me as a bad thing for our society as a whole, because our society would be much better off if smart guys like me were spending our time developing new technologies, making new scientific discoveries, and launching innovative businesses — rather than spending our time figuring out how to outsmart female psychology to get laid.
That is what America was in the 1950s and 60s. Hell, there was even a resurgence in the 1980s.
But Game is not to blame, that is where you miss the point by a mile. Feminism/misandry, which rigged the divorce laws to the detriment of men and children, which makes false rape charges a risk-free tactic for women, and which has lowered the West’s birth rate, are to blame.
Game, which is merely a specifically targeted improvement in social skills and communication, is certainly not to blame.
Your sentence alone reveals that you don’t grasp how Game can strengthen monogamous relationships such as marriages. Failing to see this invalidates any claim to understanding Game.
TFH makes a powerful point, Zorgon, and I recently put up a post, a conversation btw myself and a British lady astrologer, about the very same thing. Game, in its current, “formalized” form, is only a reaction to changed “marketplace” conditions. To suggest that Game, in and of itself, is to blame or to be held accountable for said marketplace conditions, is to miss the boat, indeed.
Moreover, many of the most groundbreaking technologies have already been discovered, or, they are merely being “reanimated”-for the most part, the major big discoveries have already been made. It’s not likely we’ll see another major space program again, for example, which was responsible for giving us so much that today we take for granted. Ditto with the War Effort of WW2, where the behemoth aerospace and other tech companies really hit their stride-most have all cutback considerably, if they’re still even in existence.
Again: it is clear to me that most Men simply did not get the memo-almost ALL that you were taught to believe, is irrelevant, unnecessary, and obsolete now. It simply doesn’t matter today, as much as it did to our dads and grandads, Zorgon. That’s just a fact. And anyone with any “linear” consciousnes should easily see and understand that-at the end of the day, if you are still playing the game with the old rules, you WILL lose. By your own admission, of going from ONE girlfriend in your entire sexually active life, to “uuuh, many”, as a direct result of NEW technology known as Game, says it all.
O
“In fact, it strikes me as a bad thing for our society as a whole, because our society would be much better off if smart guys like me were spending our time developing new technologies, making new scientific discoveries, and launching innovative businesses — rather than spending our time figuring out how to outsmart female psychology to get laid.”
Then spend your time developing new technologies. I can almost guarantee you that if you do, you will be able convince a smart Asian woman to marry you. Forget the convincing, all you will have to do is present yourself and your invention in East Asian social circles and you’ll be married within a year, if that’s what you want.
Trying to figure out female psychology so that you can “get laid” by white or black American women in da club or in Starbucks is indeed a MAJOR waste of time, energy and resources.
Gives a lot of food for thought to me, step1 for me for now.
I feel like you’ve left out a coming male suicide (to be redundant) epidemic.
But hey, my afflete can beat up your afflete…go team, go!
The pua thing is a result of highly feminised western culture. Its actually laughable that a man ‘needs’ it to bed wimminz in the west or that it gives him an advantage. Similarly alpha/beta is female social ranking tool, whereas men use a simple scale out of 10. That men then determine their own status and worth based on a female social market is more evidence of western feminisation of men.
PUA, whislt useful in its way given the cultural context, has the spin back-to-front. It really is a system of supplication, masquerading as the reverse. l guess that given the entirely farked up nature of sexual relations in the west, coupled with the attend mental manifestations, it become necessary for these men the spin that back-to-front lie so that they can maintain at least an illusion of ‘dignity.’
The direct and indirect time input required of game is too much in my book. Time is money and l can go out for 2 hrs, convert to money and buy a bang. Which is a cheaper option than meeting them, doing 8hrs of rappor and what not. It also keeps my head clearer, not having to do all the thinking and mental gymnastics required. Less time input. l realised a long time ago that its just sex and all the psychological stuff is unnecessary, if not a drag. l figure the mental side of sex, that manifest strongly in pua and game rhetoric, is major indicator of the feminisation of males and is very important for women being able to game men in the way they do. It will be interesting to see how many gaming puas eventually get gamed by women. l suspect the vast majority.
quote:
“Nor do the vast majority of women have any scintilla of understanding of the human male sexual drive-they don’t understand just how hard it is for a man to get laid.”
It’s not that most women don’t understand, it’s that we just don’t care. True story. No, really: “game” is just something some “dudebro” are trying to sell the reproductively inadequates. Also remember that if you disagree with this you’ll get your Karma. kthnkbye
{ 10 trackbacks }