I mean, Redpill is very right about how you actually build attraction in a woman.
If you literally just approach a girl in your friend group and express interest then yeah you can expect to be rebuffed.
For reference my first GF was a girl I'd known since freshman year of high school. We finally became a thing Senior year when we were both at an out-of-town academic competition thing. It just so happened that I ended up DOMINATING the competition (in my category) and I was riding that high.
So as things went I ended up making out with her in the hot tub of the hotel, then headed up to her hotel room. Didn't bang her at that point alas.
Wasn't clear until later that it was my performance at the competition and the thrill of being in a new town that finally piqued her interest in me.
I still have extreme fond regard for that girl. Sadly she is dead now.
More to the point, most of my best friends from college, and several of my current buddies, all have relationships (up to and including marriages with kids) with girls they had known for a while, either in college, from work, or through mutual friends.
Its the safest filtering mechanism I can imagine.
The apps, by comparison, are just an ongoing humiliation ritual.
faceh
1d ago
Could have been me that linked it, its a fun one.
Watch Hardcore Henry for a full length movie experience by the same director.
I think I'm done with dating apps, forever.
SAME. I've gotten genuinely offended by the choices the algorithm gods have seen fit to provide me. They will receive no patronage from me any longer.
For the new year I'm going ALL IN on maximizing my IRL social 'surface area' and being enthusiastic towards any woman who seems single and available and otherwise doesn't have a disqualifying red flag (which, sadly, is a lot of them).
Do I think this is likely to work out for me? Well, not quite. Do I think it'll be more fun? Yeah.
I'm well aware that I'm still competing with the apps in a real sense, but there also seems to be a general vibe shift where even the women are realizing these apps are wasting their time and ruining their emotional state.
I was flirting with a bartender at a local cigar bar (normally populated by Boomers, so I stood out) earlier this month, got her number, it was a fun little back-and-forth, finally felt kind of alive and in the game. She seemed enthused to have me around.
THEN she turned up with a boyfriend on Valentine's day (not sure how long he was in the picture).
It beats being ghosted.
faceh
1d ago
My preferred mode of forming relationships, particularly romantic ones, involves knowing the person in some personal level (at least 'acquaintance,' possibly 'friendship') before actually initiating romantic intent.
It is possible that the ACTUAL version of modern dating everyone is forced into is innately distasteful to you.
I want to be 100% clear that the current paradigm for finding a partner WAS NOT NORMAL until just over 10 years ago. And it SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED to be the best way to go about it.
But it occurs to me that anyone under 30 lacks knowledge of the before times, so apps is just how it is done.
The apps have an unfortunate effect where every time you invest emotions early on and get burned, it teaches you to withhold your enthusiasm. But this means you intrinsically don't approach a new date as an exciting new opportunity. And so you don't bring that enthusiasm to the date, and its less likely to result in 'chemistry.' (assume that this same thing happens on the other side!). And so it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
- No willingness to invest emotions due to past rejection.
- Neither party is particularly excited about any given date with any given person regardless of how they look 'on paper.'
- No individual person seems interesting enough to justify investing in.
Both sexes end up withdrawn and reluctant to invest... so even if one side gets interested after the first or second date, the other might not reciprocate.
I suspect that if you met someone more 'naturally' you'd end up getting a sense for your compatibility before you had to enter the romantic arena with them... and that's a foundation you can build some enthusiasm on!
So your distaste for dating might literally just be how the apps have 'trained' you through repeated operant conditioning, and isn't really just because you're too comfortable in your routine to let somebody else in.
You'd let somebody in, but they have to get past your filters first. And too many people are failing at the first 'filter' because of how you're meeting them. Whereas knowing someone for a bit BEFORE expressing interest means they're PRE-FILTERED to a certain extent.
Anyway, my two cents, as I have been in the trenches for a long enough time to see this problem arise in many men.
faceh
1d ago
I immediately open up my Polymarket account and max out buying shares of "will the bank robbers escape" (no) and "will the money be recovered" (yes) and any other related markets that I currently possess insider info on.
faceh
1d ago
Oof, I also know that feeling.
Learning to to 'gracefully' (but rapidly) extricate yourself from unhealthy situations once you realize where you're at is an important skill, rather than letting sunk costs dictate your actions.
faceh
1d ago
Its somewhat of a Catch-22 because if it were simple to police 'Elite' males' behavior, they wouldn't really be 'elite.'
But yes.
faceh
3d ago
I do think there's quite a bit to critique Kash on, but if he was on the scene, I'm not gonna bregrudge him a personal chance to bro it up with some hockey players, even if it makes him look (more) unprofessional.
He can't really make my respect for the FBI get any lower.
But then you know, get back to fakkin work.
The nasty thing is once someone decides they want a divorce, they can go about trying to create the conditions to justify it (to others) and to make the other party feel it is the only option.
With my own breakup, I realized the meta issue: its not just that someone doesn't want to be with you, but they no longer want to want to be with you. Like, some people have a full switch flip and not only don't desire the other person, but have no residual memory of desiring them? Feelings just gone without a trace.
Whereas me, if I was feeling like I was falling out of love or feeling disgust for a partner, that triggers an alarm for me. "I want to make this work, so what can I do to address my own feelings."
Quitting easily is not in my personality makeup, for better or worse.
faceh
3d ago
Yeah, I've actually got a decent amount of IT experience despite no formal college training in it, funny enough.
It was my 'fallback' career option if Law didn't work out (which was a close thing for a bit).
I think that's still one of the few places where if you're bright and you grew up working with computers and networks and troubleshooting people's electronic devices (a rarer thing among young kids) you can probably get picked up by a small outfit and put to work.
It looks like Geek Squad will still accept applicants sans a college degree, so that's something.
Yeah, I'm just pointing out that there were a LOT of jobs that Boomers could walk into with merely a high school diploma and learn as they go, that NOW are very clearly gated by the degree requirement, OR knowing a guy.
Here's a REALLY interesting bit from Mr. Carl Bernstein's wiki page:
He began his journalism career at the age of 16 when he became a copyboy for The Washington Star and moved "quickly through the ranks". The Star, however, unofficially required a college degree to write for the paper.
At the University of Maryland, College Park, he was a reporter for the school's independent daily, The Diamondback. However, Bernstein was dismissed from the university after the fall 1964 semester for bad grades.
Guy FAILED OUT of college, but had already acquired Journalism experience at the ripe age of 16, so just kept hopping into Journo jobs until he became one of the best known Journos ever.
This sort of story is profoundly radicalizing for a certain class of Millennial and, likely, Gen Zer, who considers failing out of college to be economic doom.
faceh
3d ago
The FBI director being a fanboy is cringe, but that's all.
I actually forgive him, because he's been a player and a coach, so this wasn't him just throwing himself in for the photo op itself.
faceh
3d ago
In what field would you be able to go in as a newbie either with or without a degree?
Fields that don't require a degree and where universities purport to teach you how to perform those jobs at a competent level through lengthy instruction.
(Catch-22 in that once college degrees became more common, more fields started 'requiring' them.)
Journalism, Political Science, Marketing, HR, Education, International Relations (LOL), certain art major/Graphic Design areas, arguably Accounting, Criminal Justice (as prep for law enforcement), even Information Technology.
A lot of stuff outside of the STEM/Law fields, basically. Jobs you are absolutely allowed to learn as you go, that aren't blue collar, but still have a long 'grind' period where you're paid poorly and worked doggedly, and most people would LOVE to just hop into the more lucrative, prestigious positions as soon as possible.
It was 'go to college or you'll be flipping burgers'. The "detour" doesn't so much jump you ahead as put you on a different ladder.
I'm saying it was both. The "burger flipping" was the stick, but the carrot, the actual reason you could justify taking on five or six figures in debt is to shortcut the miserable process and prove competence for roles you'd be unable to access otherwise.
I'm NOT claiming that this promise was ever made explicit by the colleges themselves, although their advertising certainly nodded suggestively in that direction.
This one seems to represent a nexus of like a dozen different CW issues at once.
-
U.S. vs. Canada (its a repeat of the rivalry from last year, but the stakes still felt higher).
-
Men vs. Women.
-
Making Trump look good as President/on the world stage.
-
Racial issues since its an all white team. Diversity isn't quite our strength.
-
Most of the team are basically Chuds, ranging from open support of Trump to at least tacit approval of his administration.
-
The above is bursting the fantasy bubble created by that popular book/TV series.
-
This leading to some angry screeching from women who became hockey fans recently because they they thought they'd found some heckin' wholesome queer ally pro athletes to lust over.
-
Pride in America as a country vis a vis superior athletic performance (seeing the same issue popping up with Alysa Liu).
-
An extremely photogenic depiction of non-toxic masculinity. Guy takes a stick to the face, breaks a tooth, is bleeding profusely, but swallows the pain (or some vicodin, not sure), gets back out there to support his team, and wins the whole thing for them.
-
From the pure sports perspective, this display has also drawn some favorable comparisons versus the rather abysmal Super Bowl this year, and the ongoing problem with 'tanking' in the NBA. Compare the all-out pell mell effort personified above to current NBA stars lazily collecting million dollar paychecks.
-
And of course the wonderful timing, putting this right around the SOTU.
I bet I could spot a few more with some thought.
But the thing I'm loving is that the scolds who are upset about ANY of this are clearly losing completely and utterly.
And let me say again. I don't want to share a country with these people.
If you can't even drop the political labels for a day or two to celebrate along with your countrymen when they succeed in an 'underdog' victory (not quite the Miracle on Ice, but still, this was a GREAT game), then I question whether you're really part of this nation in any real sense. If you remained silent on the matter I can understand. Not everyone has to get swept up in celebration.
If you take a 5 second snippet of video that may or may not even depict an 'offensive' joke to women (that was based on some very biased, inaccurate reporting) and use that to ATTACK AND DEMAND APOLOGIES from your victorious countrymen I think you are genuinely mentally unwell and I would prefer you not have a say in how my nation is governed, insofar as you're clearly not really hoping for the best outcomes for said country.
I'm old enough to remember when Michael Phelps was a megaceleb for his performance in the '08 Olympics. The biggest controversy to erupt there was him caught on camera smoking weed.
Patriotic jingoism was perfectly allowed. There was no gender issues to speak of, and it was only natural for Phelps to accept Obama's invite to the White House. Nobody scored political 'points' off of it (well, it was used in pro-weed propaganda).
If the point of the Olympics is to give countries a way to engage in friendly non-military rivalry and to secure bragging rights while showcasing the highest levels of Athletic performance, then you HAVE to minimize the imposition of your home country's political divisions on the events, and let victorious countries celebrate and even gloat (a bit) and the defeated ones mourn and vow to come back stronger next time.
I'm sick of having to tiptoe around eggshell sensibilities about when you can and can't be 'proud' of your country, especially by the same people who celebrate displays of pride by every country but their own.
I'm sick of hearing a chorus of female screeching that arises whenever there's a story that is mildly upsetting to women even if it is wildly empowering for men. I'm sick of their complaints being taken as facially valid and used to extract concessions from people who have done nothing wrong. And the apparent inability of our political class to tell them to just shut up.
Just. LEAVE.
This could be the result of any of dozens of factors.
I mean, yes.
But all of those factors can also be boiled down to "women have acquired all the independence and concurrent responsibility they ever wanted, and this has caused them immense psychological distress."
Part of that independence is "now you have free rein to choose any mate you want... provided you can attract them."
And on top of the "paradox of choice" problem, now they realize that every other woman has this option... and is now competing for the same mates. This problem intensifies given that women are already primed to want the things they see other woman wanting.
My impression was that UMC women were rather bothered about this.
The rule that I've realized explains 90% of it: a woman will amplify any signal or story or selective pressure that raises her own status/desirability as a mate.
She will attack any signal or story or selective pressure that raises other womens' status, thereby compromising her own.
See the "body positivity" movement. Even though NO HIGH-STATUS MALE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET has married an obese woman, they unionized around the idea that they're perfect and beautiful as they are and men selecting based on size/weight had the problem.
But Ozempic has hit and now they're all happily losing weight.
And the outrage over Sydney Sweeney is likewise explained by this. Women who aren't pleasant-looking blondes with massive honkers are threatened when men seemingly declare this the ideal for female appearance.
faceh
3d ago
I agree with the thrust here, but speaking as a Millennial that also bought into the whole 'go to college or you'll be flipping burgers' shtick, I think the real implication was just a bit more than about having money and a 'cushy' job, but also:
A) Having 'proved' yourself by obtaining a degree (especially if your job was related to your major) was 'supposed' to entitle you to some extra dignity and respect right off the bat.
B) Likewise it was supposed to 'open up doors' to areas you'd otherwise either never be allowed into, or that you'd have to grind for years and years to open otherwise. Not quite a 'VIP access' ticket, but definitely a 'priority boarding' pass, if you will.
In my case, B) was literally true because I had to bypass the "undergrad degree" gate to access the "law degree" gate and then the "bar license" gate.
But what 'we' found was that no, you're basically treated as a lowly intern to start, your pay might be a little better than if you lacked the degree, but it afforded you almost no actual respect and, in all probability, you'd have more respect if you'd been working that job 4 years rather than studying in that time.
(Yes, it makes perfect sense that a 4 year veteran should outrank the new recruit, but that was emphatically not how things were sold)
We also found that the 'doors' were actually opened by knowing the right people, which was a function of going to the right school for meeting those people, and almost completely orthogonal to the degree itself. We tried waving around impressive GPAs and extracurriculars and finding that we were still locked out unless we knew the secret handshakes, or had a ton of money to grease palms with.
So in this sense, think of how college was sold as an almost pure status boost. "You're a smart guy, you could jump into the workplace and eventually find yourself in a prestigious position, well-compensated and respected. But hey, if your SATs are high enough you can take a small detour to acquire a piece of paper that certifies you're a smart guy, and jump ahead to having some extra clout without the long climb from the bottom."
Shades of Elite Overproduction, but more about trying to skip the perceived 'minimum wage, maximum stress' grind that most young people have to overcome.
Its a very tempting deal on its face.
faceh
4d ago
On the one side, the immense increase in anxiety disorders and antidepressant prescriptions among women over 35.
On the other, the fact that married women are, by most reliable recent data, happier than single women across the board.
I'd have to dig deep to find data that pinpointed this exact effect, though.
faceh
5d ago
Just... the reason they see them as threats is that an increasing proportion of older women are unattached.
A married woman might worry about a young floozy stealing her man, but that's simpler to police. Realizing that she has to compete with that same floozy for EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE MAN'S attention probably feels like an existential threat by comparison.
faceh
5d ago
Agreed. But to keep that limit there has to be some actual friction in place. We now know exactly where the slippery slope will take us.
This is arguably why dating apps blew up the market in short order. Took away ALL the friction for high value guys looking for one night stands AND removed it all from public view.
faceh
5d ago
I'd echo this, especially 3, 5, and 9, as great advice. However I'm speaking as a guy who got pretty damn close to marriage before things imploded.
4 is where guys will stumble b/c pursuing that wealth can become all-consuming, and at the very least will interfere with actually looking for a woman. Although I gather that once you hit a certain level of success women are more likely to just show up in your life. You've time to make a decent number of dice rolls in your mid-twenties, but you also have to be smart.
So I'd say there's no shame in somewhat lowering your expectations and while you should walk around with dick-swinging swagger being modest enough not to promise the sun, moon, and stars to a woman avoids some problems.
faceh
5d ago
Sam Hyde's advice on this is very good to keep in mind.
faceh
5d ago
I mean, that's ultimately the funny thing.
This implies that a Billionaire male will have a power imbalance with regard to ANY woman he pursues, unless its other Billionaires or particularly prominent female politicians.
But if you thought Billionaires were 'in bed with' the government and cooperating together before, then imagine if they were literally only marrying each other and further isolating their genes from the common man. (I've heard this is approximately how the "gay mafia" of San Francisco came to be).
I guess a good progressive would suggest that the billionaire should intentionally dispossess himself of almost all of his wealth and power and then pursue a partner on a more equitable basis.
Meanwhile One of the best selling books of the current century is about a kinky Billionaire pursuing a lower-middle class female... obsessively. The movie adaptation of said book grossed half a billion dollars.
Women LOVE the power imbalance (where, discreetly, the other party's obsession means she actually holds power over him).
faceh
5d ago
Maybe it's the people who should be willing to punish elites, vastly disproportionately. At least for as long as the elites have names and addresses and can't murder us all with drone swarms.
Yes, but that's another doozy of a coordination problem.
I've sometimes thought about actively attempting to rally disaffected young males who are otherwise prone to wasting their lives on video games and porn and helping them acquire training, purpose, and power, to use towards demanding better treatment for males across the board and, ultimately, to punish the worst malefactors who oversaw the current decline.
Which, yes, looks very much like a paramilitary force if you squint, and so I wouldn't be surprised if I got assassinated before it hit any critical mass.
(Gavin McInnes tried this approach with the Proud Boys, and it really got away from him)
I think that is easily disrupted by, e.g. the Andrew Tate grift, where some guy who can convince men that he knows shortcuts to getting wealth and pussy and wrings all the money and enthusiasm out of them by having them chase superficial goals.
I've given up hope that 'the people' will enforce accountability, sans the rise of some Napoleonic (Trumpian? Messianic?) figure who can represent them and guide them strategically to advance a righteous goal on behalf of the whole.
And I won't ever pretend to be that kind of guy.
Yes!
In some cases they were initially ignored or rejected. Usually they were able to do something that marked them as highly skilled or high status within the social context they knew each other.
That's actually helpful. Rather than competing against every other theoretical male out there, you just have to be near the top of the local hierarchy in whichever subculture you identify with.
Unless you're so passively charismatic that people gravitate to you on personality alone.
I've known some guys who were simply 'unimpressive' on paper but have such good 'rizz' off the cuff that for anyone present in that room with them, they manage to read as high status and talented.
So with a few repeated exposures they can be successful with women. Saul Goodman uses this tactic in his spinoff series.
But I notice they also tend to maintain short, superficial relationships with others.
I dunno. You have to account for how certain types of dude (drug dealers, hippie spiritualists, amateur DJs) manage to snag decently attractive women despite overall being social outcasts.
The problem is they try to be both. The people who are interested in hookups are mixed in with the ones who are more serious and there's some incentive to lie and obsfuscate.
Part of the issue is that the apps take no responsibility for (lack of) filtering your matches for people who are truly interested in relationship vs. those who are idly swiping or just want a hookup. They don't even try.
And they don't give YOU the tools to effectively filter. Its a laughable abdication of responsibility.
They want their algo to control who you meet/encounter but accept no blame if those choices are not actually good matches.
More options
Context Copy link