Interesting post by RQ recently along the lines something Nash has been taking me to task for, which I suppose is over-simplifying women re: sluttiness.
As RQ points out, some portion of chicks aren’t slutty, don’t have a huge n-count, and wouldn’t look twice at a player like me–at least not in any serious way. And these chicks are invisible to us because they’re not on Tinder or at clubs or walking downtown in ridiculously short shorts dreaming of a day gamer.
Fair point. And if that’s what Nash was getting at in some of the comments to previous posts, also fair.
But something struck me about RQ’s example and I think it’s an important point here that we’re missing. It doesn’t negate his argument, but we have to consider the age of women we’re talking about.
Before I go down this road, let me state–once again–that I love women, and while I sometimes express frustration with them, there’s nothing to be gained through blind prejudice. Against anyone.
Anyway, the woman RQ is talking about is, I’m assuming, now into her 40’s, and we have to keep in mind just how different the world was then vs. now. The most useful question to ask–not just about women mind you, but everyone–is this: did they come of age before social media and smart phones, or after.
Because let’s be honest: these are two entirely different worlds. Especially with regard to how women express their sexuality.
Women Pre-2010 vs. Post-2010
There’s a great essay that made the rounds just a few weeks ago, written by an anonymous woman, on this exact point.
A few quotes that capture her argument:
Pre-2010, sex positivity was cool because there was a barrier to entry. Sometimes it was how attractive you were, like if you were in a city like New York. Other times, it depended on if you were extroverted enough, if you were willing. But regardless of what the barrier was, it wasn’t for everyone. At the time, the behavior was transgressive. It was punk rock.
Part of the reason I’m fond of repeating Torero’s catchline, pick up is punk, is because for PUAs, day gamers, players–we’re doing something transgressive. In 2020, you’re not supposed to get a girl’s number IRL. You’re not supposed to spin plates and brag about fucking chicks by posting +1 on Twitter.
What we’re doing is an act of rebellion against a society that no longer works the way it used to. As the author points out, that used to be how sluttiness, or if you prefer something more PC–sex positivity–was for women.
Fast forward to today:
The difference Tinder made became clear to me when a younger friend and I spoke about our respective college experiences. I, personally, never went home with someone from a bar or club in New York City. I had two (consecutive) boyfriends, and then, feeling like I wouldn’t be able to attract anyone else, I married my second ever long-term relationship.
My friend was floored by my experience, and in totality. Really, you couldn’t find anyone? All she had to do was swipe. I had few choices, she had myriad choices.
The choice to send pics of her tits; the choice to get lip fillers; the choice to say yes to the man who doesn’t want to be her boyfriend when he asks whether or not he can f— her ass. The choice to find another man who’d occupy that same space, over and over again, and to find him easily.
This is the reality for young women. Probably why Mr. V gets so worked up about giving them free attention: because he’s acutely aware of just how much attention they get.
Women, when you boil it down, basically want two things:
- To fit in with society’s expectations. Some have this urge more than others, but most chicks have at least some desire to be accepted by the people they surround themselves with. This is why their behavior can vary so much. For example, think about a girl who’s raised going to a fundamentalist church in small town America vs. a girl who goes to fancy brunches on Sunday mornings, raised by a single mom in a big metropolitan city. Very different values and expectations, so we’ll see highly divergent behaviors.
- Get male attention/validation as attractive. This is obvious and needs little explanation. But the point I want to make is that for women, this is highly addictive.
Both of these factors are tremendously impactful when you think about the world pre smart phones and social media, vs. the world we live in now.
In the world before, let’s say 2010 (first iPhone was 2007; FB was founded 2004), the best way for women to get male attention/validation was to dress feminine and show skin, but it had to be done IRL for the most part, and they had to stay within whatever social expectations were in place. For most women, the best way to satisfy both needs was to have a boyfriend.
Post 2010, male attention has been commoditized by social media, and the best way to get it is by posting photos or videos–first it was FB, then Twitter, then IG, now Tik-Tok. Forgive me if I’m missing something.
At the same time–and maybe precisely because of apps like Tinder as the author argues–hooking up has evolved to the point where it’s fairly normal. I would stop short of saying it’s encouraged, but it’s OK. And within many female circles, there’s a kind of “you go girl” sexuality about hooking up with HAWT guys in absence of a long term relationship. In a lot of ways, it’s still probably the case that having a boyfriend is the best way for girls to meet both needs, but even then a lot of girls spend a lot of time posting on social media–we’ve all seen the simping boyfriends taking pictures of their girlfriends doing sexy poses in front of some fountain, who can’t wait to post those photos as part of their latest story to adoring comments from their followers, many of whom are men.
Do exceptions exist? Of course they do. And as RQ argues, those chicks are invisible to us, because they mostly practice serial monogamy to the point where they marry and then have kids.
But the norm is what I’ve described, and this has created a very different sort of woman, generally speaking, than what existed before. Women growing up in the era of smart phones and social media, have been given the implicit–if not explicit–message that much of their value is tied up in how many followers they have and how many likes they get. In other words, their level of attractiveness = their worth as people.
And all the while, these same girls have heard the following messages for their entire lives, again, either implicitly or explicitly:
- You don’t need a man–you can do anything a man can do.
- Strength and power is beautiful.
- Men should serve you. You’re a princess/queen.
- Lean in, make decisions, take charge, be a leader.
- He’s not good enough for you.
When you combine all of this with the fact that most men, to most women, have in fact been made literally disposable, both in sheer numbers thanks to social media and dating apps, as well as the ability to provide–women don’t need men for money–what we have, I’d argue, is a pretty toxic dynamic, which is why I wrote this recently:
And yes, of course, women have a burden too–unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for those of us who are players), it’s become extremely reductive in modern society: be attractive (enough) and give sex. That’s basically it, and as many players have noted, this seems to be the only thing most women today are capable of providing. Maybe why I get so excited when I come home after a girl spends the night to find my bed made or my apartment tidied up.
Of players, modalities, and selection bias.
Now, I’ll be honest: this has been my experience. And I’ll own the fact I’m a slut. I’ve fucked a lot of women in the past few years, and for whatever reason–whether I put out the player vibe or that’s just the nature of cold approach pick-up–I often attract women who tend to be more promiscuous.
However, since entering into the community, I’ve heard many players echo my experiences: a lot of chicks are only offering sex in terms of a relationship–and really, can you blame them? I don’t. They’re simply reflecting the changes we’ve seen in society. I suppose this is where I break from some of the more misogynistic leanings of some guys in the red pill community: I don’t think this makes women “bad” or “immoral”–no, it just makes them people responding to social incentives. A woman writing about the changing nature of men would probably note that a similar transformation has occurred for us, with a lot of guys becoming social retards whose only real talent is playing video games and taking bong rips.
Again, to be fair, there is certainly a selection bias going on here: a girl who traipses home with Roy Walker or RPD or any of you motherfuckers on the first date is likely much more “sex positive” than the girl who says “no thanks, I’ve got a bus to catch.”
But then, here’s the question: where would a guy seeking women, find them? In the modern world, he’s got three options:
- Social circle.
- Cold approach.
Is social circle the only place where this “selection bias” doesn’t exist? That seems to be the argument, in which case it only applies to an extremely small number of people, especially once they leave high school or college, because the fact is, once you go out into the world and get a job, the chance you have a large, vibrant social circle is highly unlikely–it’s just not how our society is organized.
So while we might infer that women we meet though online or cold approach are slightly more “slutty” than the average chick, it seems unlikely to me that this is on order of magnitudes all that different from the average level of “sluttiness” of a chick chosen at random. To be more clear, what I’m saying is this: we can’t simply say categorically that every chick who sleeps with a player is a huge slut. No, what we’re seeing, even as players, IS in fact a reflection of what women are like in today’s society, with the caveat that yes, because of selection bias, we skew somewhat more promiscuous.
Generational differences and the destabilization of the SMP.
This brings me to the next point, which is that describing how women today interact in the SMP–especially younger women–is very upsetting for a lot of guys, especially older guys. From what I’ve seen there are two main reasons for this:
- Jealousy. Older guys don’t have as much access to young and hot, so at some point it feels like they’re missing out. And they are–I get it. At just shy of 40, it’s more difficult to hookup with younger chicks, especially under 25. It’s doable: I know because I’ve done it. But I also know it’s only going to get more difficult as I get older, to a point where it’s just not feasible and I’ll have to game older women.
- It’s destructive and destabilizing for society.
Both, but especially the latter, are why most societies have sought to constrain female sexuality. Because having women run around sleeping with randos, treating men as disposable, and using their beauty as a cudgel for attention isn’t good in the long run, for men or women. Why? Because as the author above notes in her piece:
“Women, too, age out of the dating pool because the filters on life are set to under twenty-five. This is when the first point becomes obvious. The worst parts of dating didn’t change, we just gave them the space to grow out of our control. Dating became less regulated.”
In the next 5-10 years and beyond, the consequences of how our society functions with regard to the SMP are going to be pretty dire for huge portions of the population. A lot of women are going to fritter and waste their time when they’re young and hot with the tacit assumption that because getting male attention has always been easy they can just settle down whenever they want, and as we know, that’s not the case, which is why we see more and more woe-is-me articles written by women in their late 30’s bemoaning “where have all the good guys gone?” What they don’t seem to understand is that marriage is a massive risk that just isn’t worth it for most guys, especially for the kind of guys they want (Chad who makes 100K+/year), and especially when all their bringing to the relationship is a strong sense of entitlement, a sex drive that’s waning, and very little in terms of the feminine love, desire, and care that make long term relationships worth it for the guy.
When you combine this with the number of women who get pregnant while young and either leave or divorce the father of their children, assuming they can do better–but can’t because of the nature of being a single mom and the massive amount of time and energy that requires–it’s bad. The end result is a lot of lonely, kinda purposeless older women and a lot of kids who grow up without a father.
For men, unfortunately, it’s not much better.
The Pareto Principle may not apply directly, but the fact is, most guys–let’s say 70-80%–are going to be pretty much left out of the SMP entirely, and only the very top guys, maybe 5% or less of the population, who are blessed with very good looks AND earn very high salaries, are going to be considered desirable by women who are themselves desirable. So similarly, we end up with a lot of purposeless men who have little to offer society aside from their labor.
This is why RP guys say: enjoy the decline. But we can find our silver lining.
If this all sounds depressing, well, it kinda is. But none of us have the ability to wave a magic wand and change the world. Social media and smart phones aren’t going away anytime soon, and while I suspect some things will change as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, I don’t think it’s going to reset the SMP in any major way.
So I guess, unless you want to go incel or MGTOW, guys have a two basic options:
- Find a more conservative girl, wife her up, and maintain the frame of the relationship so that it doesn’t break down. In this case, there’s a lot to be said for a heavy vetting process and having had significant experience with women in order to pass the shit tests and frame battles that are going to be part of any long term female/male relationship.
- Learn cold approach or get very good photos for online game, and play the field. If you can get into the swinger/sex-club scene, that’s another option, although tricky to gain entry into that world.
For me, I got into game because I couldn’t meet women I found attractive who were bringing commensurate value to what I felt I was bringing to the table. Sorry, but I’m not going to wife up a 35-year-old single mom who’s a 5 at best that I matched with on Bumble. And the reality is that online dating has so skewed the expectations women have for men, that most women who are ready to settle down wouldn’t choose me anyway: though I’m solidly middle class, I don’t make next level money, and though I’m a reasonably tall, attractive guy, most women swipe left (yes, I need better pics, but still).
Learning cold approach changed this–I’m able to meet and have flings or short relationships with women (often younger) I find attractive. A fair number have wanted something monogamous, but the truth is, none of them have offered the sort of feminine love, affection, attention, and care I spoke about above that make a long term relationship worth it, especially when I can go out anytime I want (lol, until now) and meet more girls.
Now, maybe that special girl will come along and change my mind. But I’m not holding my breath–not because women are terrible people or because I’m owed something–but because the fact is, society has changed in such a fundamental way that there just aren’t a lot of special girls out there like the one RQ was talking about in his post. What few exist tend to get married young, and those who don’t are waiting for a unicorn, not a middle class single dad.
And you know what? That’s OK. I enjoy my life: I’m free to live as I choose, I have a beautiful son, and I get to spend time with lots of young, beautiful women–and even if we don’t end up long term lovers, we both have an awesome experience.
Hope you guys are making the best of a shitty situation: best thing you can do in mandatory monk mode is work on SMV, whether creating more value as a man, or getting fit.