faceh
2hr ago
Not what I've observed from those particular pairings, but maybe just select for one with taller siblings.
You need to go somewhere where you can be in the top ten percent of men in the room.
COOL. Now which of these rooms are likely to have higher quality single women in then?
My problem is not being that guy, its finding a place where its worth the effort of being that guy.
My repeated experience is that the women are just not up to snuff. I'm not looking for hookups so I'd rather not burn effort in places where the options aren't great.
But they all THINK they deserve to get "that guy."
faceh
3hr ago
Don't marry a fillipina or cambodian.
Funny enough I have met a good number of white male-filipina female pairings that seem pretty happy! The women can apparently be fiercely loyal too.
Unfortunately it'll also produce kids that are shorter than average, which might be bad for any future sons.
I might consider Singapore.
I've got an AI agent set up that is specifically designated with helping me both identify good places to go and try and meet women, AND vetting the ones I do find at least a bit.
I am at the point where I am willing to 'cheat' like crazy and pull every string to just get this process over with, but I also have to be realistic about the general odds.
faceh
4hr ago
Oh yes, if they're going to an event they'll wear the outfit! But wearing it out day to day where they might meet a random guy? Much rarer in my experience.
I am glad to know that New England is still observing tradition.
faceh
4hr ago
I've become a bit more strict about body count because the girl I almost married I met her during her 'hoe phase' (which she was open about) and thus I knew she had some history but was willing to take the shot anyway. She did end up cheating and leaving and to this day remains unmarried, 5 years later. She turns 31 shortly.
Its a signal that one cannot ignore, especially with how women will seek to hide it.
But you have to be flexible on that point. However, society becoming flexible on that point (thanks, sexual revolution!) is a large part of the underlying issue.
I wouldn't mail order but I would go abroad if you're in the anglosphere.
I sort of reject this solution because it exports the problem to that country. where are THEIR males supposed to go?
I mean, if I take a trip for other reasons and happen to find a wife, whatever.
Men need to sample from as many places as possible through pure online dating but other than that you especially need to sample from wherever has the women the most like you politically and intellectually.
Yes, and the political gap between young men and women is the largest its ever been. The women have flown off into la la land and nobody is correcting this trajectory.
Hence, the pool is too small.
Hopefully you will find something soon.
I have no reason to think I will.
However, that is also not a reason to quit.
But understand that I AM OTHERWISE WELL SITUATED. I own a house. I make six figures in a decently high-status job. I am extremely physically fit. I am a martial arts instructor (i.e. I can physically dominate 90% of the male population), I am well liked, I can repair stuff, I'm not bad looking. And I'm six foot two.
There is zero reason I should be struggling.
And if I'm struggling, I can only imagine how bad it is for guys not so well situated. And I think its best to help out their plight too.
What age bracket are you dating by the way? Marriage rates are down but young marriage is especially down so if you are dating under 25 it's clearly a systemic issue.
Basically anything above 21 and still in decent child-bearing shape. If I got my pick I'd aim for 25-27 (I'm most comfortable dealing with women in that bracket) but I have DIRECT EVIDENCE that I can pull 24-year-olds too.
But as to the filtering issue, finding a woman who is GENUINELY serious about getting married and is marriageable is the big one. There's no pressure on women to actually get married, and serious pressure on her to delay until she has her fun/her career is established. I don't think any individual guy can defeat this social pressure with a lot of assistance.
Dating apps, on and off (because they are psychologically corrosive).
Dance classes (going to one tonight, actually), referrals from friends, bars (of various types), hosted gatherings at my house, gone to speed dating events, gone to car meets, church, social media, the gym. I'm currently pursuing a random DM I got from an (apparently) real woman on twitter that I already know isn't going to work out.
I am able to get dates. But the quality of woman I find is generally lacking, and they will ghost you without any warning even if you're 3 or so dates in. The norms around appropriate behavior are in shambles. Because women will accept zero correction of their behavior.
It is very expensive to keep paying for all these whilst seeing such poor results.
I've done everything except a Matchmaker or going abroad/mail order bride, basically. And I actually DID do a consult with an AI matchmaking startup, Keeper.AI and one of the founders himself told me "check back in 3-6 months" because they had no truly viable matches (as per their system) out of the 1.25 million women in their database.
The nearest/best one was a bit overweight for me, I was told. Ozempic to the rescue?
faceh
6hr ago
But if someone criticized a smoker because its bad for them, sets a bad example for kids, or its corrosive to the public good, without threatening legal consequences...
Would you feel the need to jump to their defense? Or to participate in solidarity events demanding smokers be left alone?
Quoth me:
there was a point in time where women were fighting to be able to (in theory) bare their breasts online and in public.
And yet, the vast, vast majority of women aren't pulling out their boobs on instagram. They just don't like being told they can't or shouldn't do it. And that was literally just Instagram setting their user policy! Not a legal restriction!
Women do that when anyone tries to police female behavior, anywhere.
We JUST CAME OFF THE LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL, where tons of women, including jurors expressed solidarity with a woman who killed her own children.
Are you THAT libertarian? I assume no. So if we can't bring legal consequences down on a woman who kills children, what CAN we do?
faceh
6hr ago
I more broadly wonder who one can consent to gambling if they can't even understand what the odds mean in true numerical terms.
Should one have to pass a statistics class to legally place bets? MAYBE!
Not all women's interests consistently align.
This is almost irrelevant. What is relevant is if they BELIEVE that they do.
For example a workers union does not help all employees. It generally only helps current employees. It often actively hurts prospective employees to make these gains.
Yes. My point. Do workers BELIEVE that forcing the boss to give them more pay for fewer hours is in their interests? Usually yes.
They are less likely to notice that this means more of them are fired, they get fewer breaks, the benefits get worse, etc. etc.
Status is a zero sum game, and the main competition in status for most women is other women. A couple boss ladys hoarding all the status and rewards is a fully consistent story here.
Nah, the real likely explanation is that women disregard the bottom 50% of men and see the top 10-20% of men as the actual competition. As long as they're lower status than THOSE men (read: they can't secure commitment from such men) they can easily BELIEVE they are decreasing in status, even if they continue to make more and more gains on the other 80%.
That's a consistent explanation I've yet to see refuted.
That I think there is a trad wife out there for you dear reader. Not that there is one out there for everyone
Great.
But the dear reader is still competing with everyone.
I'd suggest changing your social setting. You've no doubt already done this, at least in minor ways.
Be more specific. More actionable. What social settings are you talking about? I've tried bars (of various types), dance classes, hosted gatherings at my house, gone to speed dating events, gone to car meets, church, social media, the gym... the women are OUT there, but they aren't interested in being approached, or they are zeroing in on the top guys in the room, or they're already taken. You can automatically assume that they've got 50 matches in a dating app at any given time.
The problems I mention infest everything. And the fact is, no matter where you are, you're still competing against the options a woman thinks she has on the dating apps.
I am the true feminist, equal treatment under the law. I'd be happy to take an axe, or a can of gasoline and a lighter to a lot of the privileges women enjoy from the government. I'm not willing to go handmaidens tale or something that extreme. But many things short of that seem reasonable to me.
So what are you willing to do if we tell women "we're making it harder for you to get loans and go to college" and they all break down in tears and call you a misogynist pig and/or threaten to vote you out of office? How much of a hardass can you be when female tears are involved.
(Funny enough, the Trump admin may have found an end run around the problem)
Yep.
There's a undercurrent of "literally any rule that might restrict or punish any given behavior is bad, even if I don't actually intend to break that rule" in everything now.
I noticed this year that almost ZERO women worse Sundresses for the summer.
They're sporting jeans and often baggier t-shirts. So not dressing traditionally feminine OR dressing in a way that appeals to the male gaze. Okay occasionally you see cutoff jeans that showed off the legs.
Its like they coordinated specifically to not show much or any feminine appeal this year, outside of their pilates classes or their staged instagram photos. Someone claimed to me that women decided that sundresses were porn-coded or something, possible downstream effect of e-girls exploiting various 'sexy' identities (including goth girls) to draw in customers so the only option to avoid the implication that you sell yourself online is to not be too sexy at all. I don't know if that's the right explanation, I'm just annoyed that "Sundress season" never manifested.
If you were the one 'defector' girl wearing a cute dress and actually entertaining the male gaze in some way you would have it SO EASY if your goal was to get dudes to approach with interest.
But if you told one of these women they're not "ALLOWED" to wear sundresses or that they shouldn't wear Goth girl outfits, they would throw an absolute shitfit at your attempts to restrict a behavior that she herself was choosing to refrain from.
I no-joke think that the current rape culture cases du jour, Clavicular, The Tate Bros. and The Cornell 7 are going to probably dissolve the last illusions around the female sexual selection process and will probably finally nuke intergender relations, or force some kind of reckoning. We're basically re-litigating "MeToo" but with a very different social environment.
They're mostly very noncentral examples of 'coerced' or nonconsensual sex.
In the first, she went out to the budding celebrity guy's house, stayed there and never asked to leave, drank alcohol willingly (she claims he said it was water, but that claim doesn't hold any), and the 'worst' he is accused of doing is penetrating her while she was asleep, already in his bed. And apparently continued to try and engage with him (in hopes of boosting her streamer career) for up to a YEAR after the interactions.
In the second, its more standardized human trafficking allegations, among which is the threat to withhold a passport in exchange for sexual favors, but again, very little evidence that these women were not understanding the nature of the other party.
And in the final one, it was again a case of someone agreeing to sex, including threesomes (being clear, SHE alleges this! She's saying she just lacked capacity to consent!) after AGREEING to take various psychoactive drugs, and otherwise being very open to the activities but then coming back and deciding that no maybe that was not what she wanted after all. So most of these circumstances lack any element of physical coercion or incapacitation, and some have clear indicators of consent present!
Every single one of these situations required the young ladies in question to actively put themselves in the situation for the ultimate allegations to result, and yet to disclaim any agreement to the act at the time.
Any young guy watching these matters unfolding is going to be left in a complete quandry as to when exactly you can legally have sex with a young woman. They're learning:
-
Don't invite a woman to your house alone and offer her alcohol ever. (i.e. how every successful date ever normally ends)
-
Don't take a woman's agreement to sex as actual legally enforceable consent if she's the tiniest bit inebriated.
-
Don't fly a woman out of a different country and then try to seduce her.
-
The accusations can come flying in months or years later even if you've gotten more confirmations of their consent in the interim.
The risk of engaging in sexual relations is thus extremely high, even if these actual outcomes are rareish.
The rough conclusion they might draw is that a guy can't bang a young woman ever unless she openly initiates it and he just lies there passively, which is the opposite of how women want sexual encounters to go!
Basically, we're kind of hitting the apotheosis of whether women can ever be held accountable for their own decisions or not. If young women can't be trusted to control their intake of alcohol or drugs, and will continue to hang around frat houses, around famous streamers, or around known abusive pimps and 'agree' to sex with them despite not actually wanting it... OR if they're going to agree to such and then utterly lie about it later,
Then why exactly are we giving such creatures any autonomy around their mate-selection at all? The outcomes speak for themselves.
And this is all on the tail of the Lindsay Clancy affair.
The Clavicular case is taking place in Massachussets, same place as the Clancy Trial. How would the media react if he raises the insanity defense, that he was just overpowered by his hormones and wasn't in control of his actions at the time? The cojones it would take to make that argument.
Hey, if its a viable defense for allegedly murdering children I don't see why it couldn't apply to sexual assault.
(also, look at the female support for Clancy, including from the jurors themselves to back up my assertion that women are more monolithic)
The simplest rejoinder:
"Women" as a collective are more monolithic than men. That is, they are more likely to cluster around certain values or ideas or, similarly people on pure instinct than men are.
A side effect is that women are better at organizing around their collective interests. If there's a cause that would benefit womens' material wealth or status, they tend to naturally group around and advocate that interest. In the worst cases this causes mass social hysteria and we get bad policy changes in response.
And technology over the past 30 years has vastly increased the ability for loose social organization to emerge and coordinate around group interests across large distances.
So I would posit thus:
-
Judging women as a collective/monolithic group will be more accurate as to the ground truth about them as individuals than would judging men. One still has to account for individual characteristics.
-
There's been a positive feedback loop where women instinctively use their social organization to advocate their own interest, more status and power accrues to women, this increases their leverage, which allows them to make bigger changes in their favor, and lock in old ones. As a result, policy changes are a one-way ratchet.
And women are very unlikely to admit to being so powerful even if you point out how every single policy change in the past 30 years (in the West) has massively favored them.
For some reason, fewer of them believe that women are respected in society
I want to reiterate, an increasing amount of women believe their status is decreasing, despite this being objectively incorrect by almost any metric you choose.
A huge portion (again, more monolithic!) of women harbor a belief that is the direct opposite of the truth.
So the third implication:
- It is all but impossible to reason with or bargain with the female collective to make changes they think might harm their interests.
Which leaves us precious few options to try to work towards a better equilibrium.
In general I'd suggest not viewing women as a thing to conquer/trick/subdue. There are intelligent women out there that would make a great partner in your life goals. Especially if those life goals involve family, happiness, well-being.
This is encouraging but an incorrect statement of the problem.
The problem is there are not enough intelligent women who would make good partners to go around.
Run any kind of estimate you want to narrow in how many "appealing" women there are, vs. the number of men you're competing with to locate, attract, and lock down that woman. Any LLM can give you a fermi estimate and range of likely single women based on whatever criteria you can supply.
THAT Is the nature of the struggle. And you can't solve this by addressing men, the only answer to a supply crunch is to increase supply.
Guess what, this means addressing women.
There is definitely a trad wife out there for you. I believe that sincerely. You may need to compromise on how trad you want to go (amish anyone?), or how trad she needs to go (maybe she can have a job).
If you can turn this into an actionable statement of how to go about finding them that actually accounts for the aforementioned difficulties, that will be more persuasive.
I've been doing active spouse hunt for about 4 years now. I have tried literally every tactic that has been suggested, and seen precisely why each one fails. And the failure mode is fundamentally due to the above stated issues. Women are more coordinated around their own interests, even when those interests run counter to the general social interest in people getting romantically paired up and families formed. And the general pool of single women is less appealing, by and large, as partners.
So the pool is smaller, while the demand for a good female partner is still extremely high, and females remain the bottleneck through which reproduction flows. Which means fewer women are being born, so the supply crisis gets worse. Men's behavior can't overcome an utter lack of marriageable women. Full stop.
If you are not willing to consider solutions that involve removing a few privileges that women currently enjoy I do not think you are serious about solving the problem.
As for my take, I think we're getting a technological solution before we get a social or political one.
faceh
8hr ago
My point is that being able to walk to a live theatre is a bad criterion.
No I'll happily stand by it, since it still very effectively delineates those areas where there's cultural/entertainment options easily accessible to residents and those that do not.
As an area urbanizes there's a period where such options are proliferating, and so its never going to be a 'bright line' distinction.
faceh
7d ago
Rural – no traffic jams ever anywhere
Unless you're stuck behind a tractor moving between fields.
Then you have found some suburban Amish.
Although I'd go ahead and say that "neighbors with Amish farmers" is a ruraldom indicator.
faceh
8d ago
Even if the roads are winding?
Florida has a feature where it is very flat so almost every road is straight as an arrow, so one can speed 'safely' if there is light traffic and no cops.
Driving in Northern Georgia was a different matter, especially at night.
faceh
8d ago
You're just making me push it more towards urban.
"Access to forms of nature resembling 'wilderness'" is a strong 'rural' indicator but some suburbs butt up right against extensive national or state preservation parks, so if you're telling me this spot just has regular parks then it reads as even more 'city-like' than I thought.
I said 20 minutes, not 20 miles for a reason though.
20 miles CAN be a 30-45 minute drive depending on the type of roads you got out there.
If you can drive 20 miles in 20 minutes reliably (i.e. average speed of 60 mph) that strongly implies enough development to be suburban. In urban areas... the traffic is the factor that makes that almost impossible.
One feature of rural living (that can be shared with decaying urban areas) is roads in generally bad condition forcing you to drive more carefully and slowly.
This is hitting on my point. "accessibility of true amenities" plays into my perception of the area's qualities.
"Rural living" implies you have to do things to keep yourself amused because there isn't some major entertainment venue available within easy distance.
If you can hop a train after work and manage to hit up a Major Sports team's game with a bunch of other fans, you're at least Suburban.
If your only and preferred option for sports spectating is the local high school football teams... most likely rural to ruralish suburban.
faceh
8d ago
Look, I may be a simple Suburban Lawyer, but when I type "Live Theater" into Google Maps over Manhattan, and I get OVER 100 RESULTS I question your assertion. Obviously mostly centered on Broadway.
faceh
8d ago
Was going to say. There's no denying that the U.S. as a whole is not very 'urbanized' compared to a lot of nations.
Its really just "pockets" of high urbanism, TONS AND TONS of rural, buffered by the suburban zones. Although in Florida there's a whole lot of pockets of suburbs rather disconnected from anything else.
They're full of cars but what do the majority of people actually do for transport day to day?
I'm reliably told that Majority of NYC residents do not own a car.
Millburn, NJ is clearly suburban, despite a live theatre being right there. Density 900/km^2.
Almost my point, though. Looking at photos of Millburn, to me it reads just barely towards the 'urban' side of the divide, and then I look at its proximity to NYC, and I am reinforced in this. I can also see, however, that it has close proximity to large swathes of nature which pulls it back towards 'rural'. Finally, Google tells me that the majority of the residents live in unincorporated "Short Hills", which appears pretty sparsely populated for its area.
So really its a ruralish area attached to an urbanized one? So my guess is the majority of residents can't walk to the theater.
Yes, its a suburb compared to New York, but if my suburban ass were to visit I think I'd feel like I was in 'the city' to some degree.
(my mental model of New Jersey, incidentally, is a lot of urban sprawl attached to a lot of deciduous forests. I have never been to New Jersey.)
Hmm,there is an impact of Zoning on all this.
For reference, I live in a single-family house that is in an area that is zoned agricultural, and is situated just outside the local town's limits in unincorporated territory. If you squint and fudge you could say I'm living rural, but I can drive to several theaters easily, clearly I'm living suburban. There's some rural territory if I drive about 20 minutes east/Inland. Lehigh Acres, Florida is just wall to wall single-family homes, but there ain't nothing to do out there in terms of amenities, so I consider that a 'developing' rural area, myself. Lehigh Acres does not (yet) have a Live Theater.
The current crop of Gen Z males is the least feminist of any currently-living generation.
Clavicular, in particular (hey that rhymes!) is a MAJOR public figure in their world. And he has the ability, if he wants, to publicize any particular detail of his case he wants.
More options
Context Copy link