Friendships in the Real World

A lot of men who end up typing "how to get laid" into a search engine seem to have a pretty strange understanding of how social interactions work, which gets readily exploited by shady PUA marketers. In recent years PUAs have moved from claiming to teach you how to get laid to some kind of all-encompassing lifestyle advice. Now they tell you how to make friends and become popular. Sadly, their approach seems to be about as flawed as their pickup advice was. PUAs tell you to go out and hit on chicks indiscriminately, and unsurprisingly this is also how they tell you to build your social circle. However, you normally don't make friends just by talking to someone. So, let's step back and look at how "friendships" in the real world work.


I think there are just two main factors: Randomness and common interests. The latter is pretty much irrelevant for the majority of people who have no real interest in anything, so I won't focus on it. Instead, the "friends" your average Joe or Jane have come primarily from the first category. This means that they draw almost all their friends from those people they interact most with, be it high school, university, or the workplace. This is pretty much all there is to it. They don't necessarily have much in common with those guys, apart from an accident of fate that put them in the same building. The implications are obvious: If you're an average bore and you want to go out, then you probably pick some of the guys that just so happened to attend the same school, and go out with them.

Some of you may now think, "Wait a minute! There are so many morons in my school, and I was just a fortunate accident that I met Jim in my Calculus for Beginners and Artists class." Sure, but it just so happened that some admissions officer drew a few random numbers, or looked up your dad's net worth, if we're talking about the Ivy League, and sent you an offer to attend their esteemed seat of learning. You would have found a new best friend at any university you had chosen to attend, or any company you joined. Some places are toxic, so you will avoid spending time with your colleagues, but those are statistical outliers.

In fact, whenever you meet a big group at a bar or club, they're mostly from the same school or workplace. It could be that the entire office trotted down to the bar at the corner to start the weekend with a nice pint of beer. Or maybe the younger guys are all new in town and want to get laid, so they team up and go out as a group to ogle chicks so that they've got something to jerk off to before falling asleep. People in general are terribly afraid to be on their own because they have so little to occupy themselves with, and therefore the prospect of getting drunk with people they vaguely know is pretty appealing.

I'm making some huge generalizations here, but for "normal" people this is pretty much how it is. Only a small minority actively seeks out their peer group through common interests. Heck, plenty of people will be afraid to try this or that hobby because they're afraid it'll make them look weird. Allegedly, this is one of the reasons why there are so few women in computer science and engineering. If you're a guy studying such a field, you are quite likely to fall somewhere on the Asperger spectrum, and therefore you may not always take the feedback of your "well-adjusted" peers into account. Or maybe you just gave a fuck what they thought because you realized that there are more interesting things to spent your time with than gossiping about celebrities, some "slut" from 12th grade, or obsessing about what kind of sneakers one was supposed to wear this season.

So, if you are concerned about your number of friends, then just be visible to enough people, and make sure it's a setting that allows you to meet the same people over and over and over again. However, instead of taking a course in Modern Set Theory with five other nerds, pick an Intro to Communications course, and attend all their social get-togethers. In general, people need the feeling of belonging to some kind of group, no matter how artificial it is, so if you're feeling alone at university and value quantity of social contacts over quality, then just follow the herd and practice your beer pong skills. On the other hand, if college is behind you, and working 40 hour weeks still doesn't make you value the time you could spend all by yourself, then join your colleagues for a drink. Don't worry, they don't really want to be around you either, but after a few drinks this won't matter so much anymore. Alcohol is often described as a "social lubricant", but, really, any kind of excuse that allows you to get together will do. Alcohol is just cheap, and easy to get, so you getting a bunch of guys together to play FIFA Soccer on the PlayStation while getting wasted is much easier to do than, say, getting enough coke for 12 people.

People generally aren't that smart, and they aren't particularly selective with regards to anything. You're a "friend" once they've seen your face a couple of times and made a bit of smalltalk, and if you think you don't have any chance to get laid, then just being around enough single women --- as long as you're borderline attractive --- will lead to enough opportunities. Sure, it's tough if you have to "cold approach", but if she has seen your face before it's absurdly easy. It just depends on your standards. My "lay count" could be three or four times higher had I gone home with any chick that hit on me at work or university. However, don't discount just being around many people either, since it will put you in a better position to meet at least a few interesting people like, say, some guy you genuinely like because he's got a similar world view and interests, or the very rare girl that is smart and good-looking. So, there is some value in "knowing" a relatively large number of people. It's just a question of whether you want to pay the price.

Read More

The Slut Fallacy

Some days a guy on my forum posted about a recent one-night stand he had. To make it short, he met a girl at a bar and ended up at her place with relatively little effort. His story was quite interesting to read because he didn't view it as a warning signal that the girl let him raw dog her:

I ate her out (risky) and then had unprotected sex with her, she let me do it without a condom. Wow!!!

We thought that this was indeed risky, but when questioned, he offered his assessment of the situation:

Usually I would not even think about unprotected sex but I figured since she was a grad and not some common bar slut I was at less of a risk.

Does something about this strike you as somewhat questionable?


Frankly, I think this is all just wishful thinking. If she acts like a "common bar slut" then it doesn't really matter that she is also a graduate students. Besides, just look at the situation of higher education today, which for many is just an excuse to have one four-year long party. I would not at all make the conclusion that a woman is more responsible because she happened to attend university while going out, drinking and trying to hook up with random guys as opposed to a girl who does that without being enrolled as a student somewhere.

More generally speaking, you can deduce very little about people if you don't know them. If everybody was so fantastic at reading cues, figuring out motives, or deducing one's background, then there wouldn't be so many crooks, liars and scam artists around. Just looking at guys like Tony Robbins or Tim Ferriss should be all the proof you need that people are out there to deceive, and that plenty of people are incredibly gullible. It's your choice to be honest. However, you should not easily make the assumption that anybody else is, and particularly not if you've known her for only half an hour or so.

It doesn't matter if she says, "Don't worry, I'm on the pill!" or, infinitely worse, "I've been with a lot of guys and nobody managed to knock me up yet." (True story, btw. I was so turned off by that that I got up and left.) Or let's say she's got some nasty STD. She also happens to be horny. So, what's more likely, that she asks you what you're waiting for or that she'll tell you about her most recent trip to the STD clinic, and that she was told to refrain from sex for a while?

In general, people are very poor at reading other people. Sure, tell yourself that she's some kind of Virgin Mary, but a much more realistic assessment is that you're probably not the first guy she's ever met. For all you know, she might go out every weekend and try to get laid.

The only plausible advice I can give is to not assume anything about a girl. Just think of yourself first, and forget about how sure you are that she doesn't have an STD or won't get pregnant. This won't help you at all if she hunts you down nine months later. "You Honor, I swear, she said she wouldn't get pregnant!", or if you have to pay a visit to your local STD clinic. "Doctor, I swear, nobody would have suspected that she has anything. She looked so sweet and innocent." (Those may be the worst, actually.) In the end you should be aware that you are making a choice. If you think sex without a condom is so much better than with that if outweighs all risks, then go ahead. However, you should be aware of what you might be getting into.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Read More

Wreck-It Ralph and Randomness in Dating

I recently watched Wreck-It Ralph. That movie is an attempt by Disney to cash in on the recent craze about all things "retro", and of course it has to conform to mainstream media gender stereotypes. There was one rather surprising scene in it that highlights realities in dating, which I will expand upon further down.

Let me briefly introduce the main characters:

• Wreck-It Ralph: A humanoid version of the gorilla in the original Donkey Kong video game. Fat, slow, and dimwitted.
• Fix-It Felix: A rough analogue to Mario in Donkey Kong. He's very short, thin, and has a slavish sense of duty.
• Vanellope von Schweetz: Female support cast: creative, witty, and resourceful.
• Tamora Jean Calhoun: The lead character in the Call of Duty parody Hero's Duty. She's the typical "strong female character". Of course, without her, the male leads would achieve nothing. I mean, just look at this:

If this isn't a complete reversal of gender roles, then I wouldn't know what is.


The most interesting part of the movie, for me, was the following scene, which depicts a facet of female behavior that doesn't seem to be widely acknowledged.  Here's the clip:

To summarize, the doofus hero Fix-It Felix says to the tough yet hyperfeminine Tamora that she is "one dynamite gal". This reminds her of her adonis-like ex-husband who used to say those very words to her. She then gets pissed and tells Fix-It Felix to get out of the space ship. Expressed more abstractly, the pattern is as follows:

1. Guy says something random
2. ???
--------------
3. Girl does something completely unexpected

The missing step in 2) isn't just a reference to an Internet meme based on South Park. Instead, it refers to the underlying logical structure. View 3) as the conclusion and 1) as the premise. However, to a sane person, there must be something missing because otherwise you can't really explain the reaction. Let's now talk about the missing part. First, you have to keep in mind that the view girls have of guys is often nothing more than an amalgamation of previous relationships and idealized notions taken from movies, magazines or, in rare cases, books. This is highly irrational, but what's more irrational is that those phantasies then guide their behavior. It can be good or bad for you, which I'll illustrate via a couple of examples.

Here's a relatively common one: The girl asks you about your zodiac sign. You only want to get laid so this sign of stupidity doesn't make you walk off right away, and you say it's X. It's just so happens that it's your lucky day and X is also the zodiac sign of the guy with the biggest cock she's ever had in her. Suddenly she thinks of that and she likes you a little bit better. For her, the following logical inference might be entirely plausible, even if you spelled it out for her:

1. That guy's zodiac sign was X and he had a huge cock.
2. Your zodiac sign is X.
-----------------
3. You've got to have a huge cock.

However, it could have gone a lot worse. You may not just have the wrong zodiac sign. Imagine you happened to have the same first name as the most recent guy who pumped and dumped her. She will invariably be reminded of that and may associate all her negative emotions with you. I once had a woman ask me, coyly, whether I intend to just fuck and leave her. I laughed and asked what she meant, and then she said I had a name quite similar to some guy she recently met and that some of my antics reminded her of yet another guy. Please note that I had spent at most 15 minutes with her at that point. Really, the stupidity of some people is without bounds. (In her case, the problem, though, was that she was the kind of girl no sane guy would consider for anything serious.)

Being compared to some random guy who fucked her years ago, good or bad, is bad enough. Even worse is when women dream up an image of how men are supposed to be. This is more of an issue with younger, inexperienced women. I'll tell you another of my war stories: I met that 17 or 18 year old girl in London. She lived further off, and one fine day her parents weren't home, so she asked me to drop by. She met me at the station, and on the way back to her place she said that the fridge was empty and wondered whether I'd like to grab a bite to eat somewhere. She seemed oblivious to the fact that it's possible to buy food at the supermarket and prepare it herself, so we went to some pub instead.

Eventually it was time to pay, and I pulled out my wallet. The food wasn't particularly expensive, even on a student budget, so I asked her whether I should pay for her. She declined, so I said, "Sure." and put some money on the table, and so did she. My share was slightly larger. The waiter came, I tipped him. I got 2 pounds in return, flipped one coin over to her, and kept the other for myself. So far this was completely unremarkable, and something I would normally have forgotten. However, without knowing it, I saw myself at the receiving end of a shitstorm, and this little girl tried to educate me on how this interaction should have gone, and how a "real gentleman" should have behaved.

This was the script she had expected:
- I should either have paid for all of it myself without saying anything (This doesn't agree with my perception of social customs since it wasn't me who suggested eating there) or I should have engaged in the following ritual:
a) Asking whether I should pay for her
b) Let her decline
c) Insist on paying anyway, "because that's what men do"

Do you know what the "absolute worst thing" was? That I tipped the waiter with her money. Apparently the very least a gentleman could do is covering her share of the tip. (This reminded me ever so slightly of one time when I was brunching with a friend and two girl from school. They ordered one item after another, and at the end they wanted the four of us to all "share the bill equally".) Eventually it emerged that she had seen a scene like that in some TV show or movie, and her fantasy was that some "real gentleman" would treat her "like a lady" and "like on TV".

You think this is crazy? Wait, because I've got another one for you, this time not featuring a teenager but a woman in her late 20s. I was the same age in both scenarios. Well, what had happened in that case was that she reacted offended when I wanted to pay my share of the bill. The dynamics were quite different because she had a pretty decent job and I was basically constantly broke.  She said that my actions were "demeaning", and that it said a lot about me that I wanted to pay for my part even though I had no money. It seemed no matter what I do, I'll always be a sexist pig.

Please don't view this post as an incoherent rant, though. The point of those examples is simply that you have no idea about her history with guys or her values, and the often irrational conclusions about life and men she has drawn for herself. It's impossible to plan for those contingencies. Some girls are a bit more rational than others, but if you spend enough time with a girl, you are almost guaranteed to end up in a situation where you'll ask herself what the fuck just happened. Instead of planning for all kinds of contingencies, just present a side of yourself you're comfortable with. However, if you meet enough women you're almost guaranteed to end up in a situation that may remind you of "Fix-It Felix".

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Read More

Reader Comment: How an Engineer became Sexy

I'm not having much spare time these days, but today I managed to go through some of my notes. There was one comment, made almost a month ago, that stuck out. I thought it deserved greater visibility so I'm posting it on the front page. Take some time to let it sink in since there are a lot of unpopular truths in it, and many of you can probably relate to it in one way or another.

But without further ado, here's "anonymous" on how he managed to become a sexy engineer:

I'm 30 and like most average guys I didn't really have a lot of luck when it came to women between 18-26. However, the average woman in my peer group has plenty of men chasing her till she get's to 30. There are many women who knew at the time that I wanted a relationship with them, however I was always passed over "for better men" I'm sure every guy has a story to tell.

Eventually things improve for men with age as a result of genuine achievement such as getting status,handling real responsibility, and genuine competence. Also the "sex haze" tend to calm down a little after 28 and you can evaluate things more clearly. 

Now, the problem appears to be as Alek Novy has pointed out in his articles, men are apparently not allowed to be selfish. So, now that I have better options, I get called an "asshole" for politely declining a "wanting to catch up over coffee" with some of the women who are now 30 and looking for a "serious relationships" only. I get called an "asshole" for dating women who are 25. You see the issue goes far deeper than dating, it is more to do with "male sacrifice/disposability"

When women have power, they should use it for themselves. When men have power they should use it for the benefit of everyone. Men are not allowed to be selfish. 

I'm constantly struck by the ARROGANCE of some women, even some of female my friends who at 30 go up men they've been rejecting for the last 5 years and say "I'm looking for something serious" , "We should get together some time" "How come we didn't date? were have a lot in common"

In the dating world, apparently every woman over 30 thinks an Engineer is "amazing, smart, even sexy" when at 25 if the words "Engineer" came out of your mouth you would be treated as if you had leprosy. 

Men get pissed off because an average woman has had PLENTY of chances at meeting men by the time she is 30- PLENTY unless she lived as a nun, however when men get to 29 you become "a player" if you DARE to be selective or have a criteria. 

Got a story to tell? Please let me know in the comment below! 

Read More

Female Fertility and Age: Feminist Propaganda vs Biology

There was an anonymous comment on my article Why should it be "creepy" if an older guy takes a young woman?, and since it's an important issue, I thought it's better to reply to the following extensively in a separate blog post in order to not clutter up the conversation on this site too much:

I can't help but feel like this sounds a bit like Roosh and the manosphere's "cock carousel" obsession, and the idea that women are "used-up" by 25. Correct me on the difference if I'm wrong.

I don't quite see the connection to the cock carousel hypothesis of the manosphere, which I have previously covered anyway. However, that older single women are desperate is hard to deny. Well, maybe that's not the case if you take their immature chest-puffing like "and man should be happy to get me" and "mature women are more attractive than younger ones" seriously. But let's forget about political correctness and all that stuff for a while and look at reality.

Fact is that a woman's fertility declines rapidly throughout her 20s. This has nothing to do with the "patriarchy", alleged societal oppression or misogyny. It is simply a fact of life. I'm not too fond of explanations from evolutionary psychology, but I see good reasons why men would prefer, given the choice, to have a younger partner. You're just more likely to have children with her than with a 35 year-old. Therefore, I tempted to think that this explains why men are attracted to young women.

However, feminism happened and with it the systematic indoctrination of women, leading to questionable beliefs such as that she'll be as fertile in her 30s as in her 20s, that she'll be attractive to men basically all her life long, or that it's easy even for 40 year olds to have kids. I've even heard that it was a "lie" that a woman's fertility peaks in her early 20s. But let's just assume you're a feminist who is more interested in facts than ideology, however unlikely that combination may be. Maybe you figure out that typing "age and female fertility" into your favorite search engine is a good starting point.

Shall we have a look at what I found?

There is a good summary on Wikipedia, but I also checked out Babycentre.co.uk. They have a few dozen medical advisors, so they probably don't make stuff up. For starters, their "Your Age and Fertility" page lists some heavy-hitting questions such as, "Does my age affect my fertility?".

Yes, Virginia, it really does. Seriously, what does it say about our educational system when women doubt that. Well, in some corners of this planet "intelligent design" is taught as some kind of alternative to evolution, so you can't just blame the kids. The answer to that question from that site is:

Yes. Fertility starts to decline for women from about the age of 30, dropping down more steeply from the age of 35. As women grow older the likelihood of getting pregnant falls while the likelihood of infertility rises.  

(...) 

The average age at which women have in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment in the UK is rising. This reflects the increase in infertility due to age. However, the success rates of IVF treatment for women over 40 using their own eggs are low, and have not increased much over the past decade.  

From a purely biological perspective, it's best to try to start a family before you're 35 years old.

They even provide a nice chart:

It was adorned by the sad comment, "How do you get your wife to stop blaming you for why she can't get pregnant when none of us has seen a doctor?"


The next question seems superfluous to me, but maybe you have to spell things out for people who don't believe in all that science-stuff:

Will it take longer to conceive as I get older?

Your chance of conceiving quickly does depend on your age. Women are most fertile between the ages of 20 and 24. It can take much longer to get pregnant when you hit your late 30s or early 40s. You may have problems conceiving at all. 

This kind of hand-wringing makes me sick. No, it's not the case that it "can take much longer", but that she can expect that it will take much longer, and that her chances of getting pregnant are dramatically lowered. No, that one of your friends managed to get pregnant at her alleged first try when she was 35 does not prove the contrary.

Then we move on to, "Why does fertility decline so rapidly?":

The two most common causes of female infertility are ovulation problems and blockages to the fallopian tubes as a result of infection.  

Ovulation problems can happen as you get older because: 

You have fewer good quality eggs left, making it more difficult to conceive. Your number of eggs (ovarian reserve) declines with age. You can buy a kit to test for ovarian reserve. These tests can only tell you about the quantity of eggs, not the quality. 

A few women (one per cent) go through the menopause earlier than usual, and stop ovulating before they reach the age of 40. 

Your periods may become irregular. As you approach menopause your periods may become fewer and further between, making ovulation increasingly irregular too.

There is also a note that, for instance, untreated chlamydia may make pregnancy impossible. Well, thankfully all women only have sex in committed relationships, and take good care of their health, so this is nothing anybody would have to worry about, isn't it, girls?

However, let's contrast this healthy does of realism with what you find in the mainstream media. Here's a quote from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

It's a touchy topic: broaching the issue of having children. But OB-GYNs say they are increasingly making it as routine as asking about contraception during annual visits. They are educating patients about fertility rates, which gradually begin to decline around age 32 and then rapidly decline after age 37. And they are discussing the risks of miscarriage and chromosomal abnormalities, which increase at age 35 and above.

Maybe it's irrelevant, but the author of the article happened to be a woman. This might explain the factual inaccuracy that female fertility will "gradually begin to decline at 32". Is it too much to look up some scientific facts instead of repeating feminist disinformation? It's not quite clear what in the article is supposed to be an indirect quote from the doctors, and what she has added herself. However, the subordinate clause implies that she has added that part herself instead of merely reporting.

What's quite sad is that this quote is from an an article with the promising headline "More Doctors Broach Delicate Topic of Women's Age and Fertility Rate". As it turned out, the goal was to write about a different kind of stupid:

I've had, like, a 42-year-old say, 'Why aren't I getting pregnant?,' " Dr. Auguste says. "I say, 'I'm sorry, it's the science. At 42 you have fewer eggs and older eggs than a 28-year-old. At this point you really need to speak with an infertility specialist.' " Dr. Auguste says some patients get hostile and don't believe her; she usually doesn't see those patients again.

I guess that women lose control and throw a tantrum is just another one of those myths spread by the patriarchy. As a contrast to the harmful information in the article, I was glad to see that at least some of the commenters things as they were. The top comment was by a poster with a female name:

If the hand-wringing feminists on here really want to help women, they should spread the word about fertility and age. I know hard facts are a bit foreign and scary to your ears, but what could be more useful to a woman who thinks she has forever to have a baby?

Some guy chimed in:

There is no woman who at 30 years of age has not had multiple men attempt to court them for marriage. In generations past, women respected such advances and married before they reached 30. Now in urban centers women of our upper classes are deluded -- often through their own sexual escapades with men that would not commit to them -- into thinking that they deserve better. 

The problem is not the absence of worthy men or "career." The problem is that our women are spending too much time partying, taking pole-dancing lessons (yes, really), taking exotic vacations and overall focusing on themselves. 

When most of our mothers were changing our diapers and driving us to elementary school, our finest young women are out drinking and fornicating with men than use them for short-term gratification. It is really shameful. 

Career? Education? Hogwash. For the vast majority of women, it's emulating Sarah Parker and her girlfriends on TV and searching for their own personal George Clooney.

When I hear a 30 year old woman complain about a lack of a partner or read stories about some 35 year old that can't get pregnant, I can't help but think that this is just a variation of the common "I screwed up, now you go fix it" mindset of a generation that has a strong sense of entitlement and no idea of the concept of personal responsibility. Seriously, Virginia, if you're 35 and without a man, it's not society's duty to fix that. You surely had men in your league approaching you, yet none was ever good enough. So, deal with the consequences --- or pray that you'll get some manginas who bought into the "marry a woman your age" propaganda.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Read More

Why should it be "creepy" if an older guy takes a young woman?

Alek Novy occasionally speaks of the "pussy cartel", i.e. a set of loosely enforced behavioral rules for women to make sure that the price of sex remains high through artificially limiting supply. Don't let the economics jargon scare you off. It'll all become clear in a moment. One example is "slut shaming". If women were generally less discriminating about whom to have sex with, a lot of men would not even bother getting into a relationships. From this you shouldn't deduce that I think that relationships are just about having sex. However, there are plenty of guys for whom sex only happens in relationships. Some are so pussy-whipped that they become the girl's boyfriend without getting much sex at all. They are happy if she's putting out once every three months. It's great for the girl's ego, but the guy should feel like a loser.

In a world where all girls are promiscuous you would see a much smaller number of couples. Women have to look out after another, though, and if they manage to convince a large enough number among them to only have sex in committed relationships, which used to mean "marriage", while being supported by mainstream media bullshit such as the myth that sex is the most incredible thing on earth, then they surely manage to reel in enough suckers. However, to keep things in order, they may also want to ensure that men and women who pair up have roughly the same age. Otherwise, women around 30 would have to compete with women who are ten years younger, and it doesn't take much imagination to picture how that would end. So, what better way than to "creep shame" guys and telling them that they have to take a woman their own age, and that they should also consider women who are older than them? To make women who realize that their looks are waning feel less secure just spread articles like "7 Reasons Why You Should Want to Date an Older Woman":

Dating an older woman is quite the rage these days. As a woman over 35, I’ve never felt more desired by men in their late 20s and early 30s than I do now—moreso even than when I was that age. So if you’re only seeking women in the 21-29 age range, let me tell you, you’re missing out. Big time. 

Why are men so keen on dating more mature ladies? Pay no attention to the ol’ elbow-jabbing, wink-wink idea that cougars are “more likely to put out and pay for everything.” Meh, that may be a reason a naïve man attempts to score with an older lady, but it’s hardly the reason a smart man enters a relationship with one.

I don't think I need to add a comment to that.

Women don't like strong competition much. They are fully aware of the fact that they're aging, which is why they panic if they are still single at 30, or why they decide that they shall turn 27 five years in a row. Actually, I know guys who thought they were dating a woman that was roughly their age. In one case, it took the dude a year to find out that his girlfriend was actually seven years older than him. He said he had some doubt but didn't want to be too obtrusive. In good old mangina fashion he called me an asshole for pointing out that, if anything, this should teach him that his girlfriend is deceitful, has a seriously flawed character, and that he should have dumped her the moment he found out about her lie.

Imagine you lived in a world in which the more attractive men wanted to keep their options open and eventually settled for a much younger woman. They would go through a lot of women in their 20s. The women in their late 20s they meet may push for a relationship, but the guys just aren't interested. Eventually, they may take a much younger girlfriend or wife. However, in the big picture this means that the young woman has gotten a guy that should, according to feminists, have been paired up with a woman his own age. With one more guy her age gone, that woman may now have to settle for a cat instead. Thus, there are cries that "there are no good men left".

In an attempt to manipulate male behavior and shame them into marrying women their age, they get told that it is "creepy" if they lust after young girls. There are also plenty of young girls who like more mature guys, so you've got to tell them too that this is "creepy", too. Sorry, horny young coed, you can't fuck your tutor because it's bad for the pussy cartel!

This leads me to a comment an anonymous reader made on my last article:

There is so much pro-feminist indoctrination in the West that even men will choose more "age-appropriate" women because they've been told, over and over again until they start to believe it, that it's "creepy/weird/gross" to date younger women. Most guys think their biology is wrong.

That's the big problem with feminists: they seem to think that biology is just some kind of construct and if they just try hard enough, they'll be able to change it. I once heard some whacko, an alleged "superstar professor" in the humanities, refer to physics as "the story of matter", biology as "the story of life", and history as "the story of humanity". Of course, if everything is just a fucking "story" to you and you believe it, then you might also believe that you can just tell a different story. To some extent this works in history, but good luck with that in physics. You can't argue with nature. It's probably easier to create an artificial womb than to fix the genetic disposition of men to prefer young, attractive women over older ones who are close to being infertile.

On a related note, think of all the "man up" bullshit! No, you don't have to marry some older woman in order to fulfill your male duty, or show some kind of gender solidarity, or to do penance for all the "male privilege" you've been enjoying all your life. I certainly never heard of any "women up" appeals according to which hot coeds were encouraged to suck off the unattractive "nerds", so why should the former nerds, now with stable finances, take a 35 year-old gold digger as a partner when they can have a 25 year-old gold digger instead?

If you think I'm paranoid and only dream up some kind of feminist conspiracy, I'll direct you to Hugo Schwyzer --- the mentally ill gender studies professor who faked his way into a teaching position for which he had no credentials, who attempted to murder a former partner, and who recently had a breakdown on Twitter telling the whole world what a fraud he is. In the Atlantic, he wrote that "everybody, of all ages and gender" would benefit if men would date women their age. Here is an excerpt:

A man in his 40s who wants to date women in their 20s is making the same calculation as the man who pursues a "mail-order bride" from a country with less egalitarian values. It's about the mistaken assumption that younger women will be more malleable. Men who chase younger women aren't eroticizing firmer flesh as much as they are a pre-feminist fantasy of a partner who is endlessly starry-eyed and appreciative. The dead giveaway comes when you ask middle-aged men why they prefer to date younger; almost invariably, you'll hear complaints that their female peers are too entitled, too embittered, too feminist. 

One of the basic rules of tennis applies here: If you want to improve your skills, you need to play someone who is (at a minimum) at your own level. As sophisticated as a 20-something may be, she will be more so—with a more exquisite bullshit detector—in her 40s. When older men date much younger women, they cheat themselves out of an opportunity to be matched with a partner with the maturity to see them as they really are. Depression, the research shows, peaks for men in their mid-to-late 40s. In the face of statistics like those, middle-aged men can't afford to choose partners who lack the life experience to provide the right kind of challenge.

Does anyone care to pick out the faulty logic and hasty conclusions? I had a few, less than a handful, of experiences with women who were roughly my age or older, and I got rid of them as quickly as possible, and those encounters also taught me to just avoid them altogether. The only benefit is that they are desperate to get laid, but that's about it.

I realized that I wasn't cheating myself out of an opportunity to be matched with a partner with the maturity to see them as they really are, as Hugo Schwyzer put it. Instead, I realized that older single women all seemed to have a few screws lose, and not just because of their panic that they won't find a husband. They are not only older and less attractive. No, even worse is that they bring a staggering amount of emotional baggage with her. In addition they are neither more stable nor more mature than many women who are significantly younger. However, the icing on the cake is that they all had constructed the most absurd theories about men and dating, and about how things are supposed to go. You guessed it, move in as soon as possible, don't use protection, and please, please, please marry her. Just run, ideally into the arms of a woman who is much younger than you are, because that's what biology tells you (and her) to do anyway. It's not creepy just because feminists say so. It's nature.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Read More

The Biggest Dating Mistake Women Make

I've written a lot about dating from a male perspective, but there are a few phenomena in female behavior that deserve some attention, too. Let's start with what might be the biggest dating mistake women make. No, this is not some kind of hyperbole, this stuff really wrecks women's lives. So, what might that be? Well, read on!


Especially better-looking women are used to having many suitors. There is always some "creep" who wants to help them with this and that, and sometimes it's quite convenient to have a couple of losers on call. For an anecdote, I'd like to tell you about some chick I used to hang out with in Berlin (one of those who pretended that they were interested in my personality but only pined after my cock). She told me she was about to move the following weekend, so I immediately told her that I'm busy --- because I'm not going to waste an afternoon carrying boxes full of trinkets around for some chick I barely know. She then said that she wasn't even going to ask whether I would help her but just wanted to let me know that she won't be free then. As it turned out, she had two or three guys who where all too eager to help her.

To some of you this strategy surely sounds familiar: being the little errand boy for some woman you're interested in and hoping that this will somehow lead to some kind of tangible reward like, I don't know, blow jobs for helping them move. Not even porn has plots that stupid, though. This is the loser strategy of dating. Those guys unintentionally make the girl feel oh-so desired and believe that they are plenty of men out there to chose from.

Life isn't always fair, though, so the guys she really fancies always seem to avoid her. Maybe that's because they'd rather bang some hotter chick. You can already see that this leads to a big problem. Not wanting to settle for any of the losers that are interested in her she hopes that by divine intervention some prince will show up and sweep her off her feet. A variation of this theme are easy girls who fuck around when they are younger and think that there is no end to this. I guess it's easy to feel like that if you're 20 and all you have to do is wait until a guy that meets your criteria hits on you.

Fast forward a few years, and those girls will realize that they suddenly are "like totally" close to 30. Either they didn't have much experience with guys, or too much but neglected their personality. What happens then is a state of panic. Knowing that their eggs will soon dry up, they try to cling on to any guy they meet. If you're an inexperienced 20 year-old and wonder what it takes to get a girlfriend or for a girl to move in with you, here's your answer: either fall in love head over heels with a girl your age, or meet a woman who is around 30. She may be crazy enough to want you move in after one night, or trick you into impregnating her.

If you think I'm making this up, I suggest you open your eyes. It's quite common for girls to "accidentally" get pregnant because they conveniently forgot to take the pill, or simply lie to you and say that they are on the pill when they aren't. The laws are designed to protect the woman, so it doesn't matter that she deceived you. You're on the hook for two decades of child support, and helping her to fulfill her dream of being a mother and finally having a purpose in life. The socially more acceptable variant of this is that the girl is seeing some guy and in order to solidify the relationship she happens gets pregnant. I've seen this happen with people I know quite a bit.

But let's pay some attention to the girls that don't manage to get a guy through whatever means. Let's say she is now 27 and has either been single or "single" and seen a few guys here and there. She's now older and realizes that there aren't so many guys coming on to her anymore, and that she's starting to feel out of place when she's going out. The hot guys who don't want to settle down just moved on to younger versions of her, and there isn't much she can do about it --- and many of her friends are starting to get married and/or having kids. This is reason enough for her to panic.

What is she supposed to do then? Not having thought ahead when she was younger, she never realized that guys probably won't marry her after just a week or two. It may take a good two to three years, at least according to eHarmony:

Currently I co-run a longitudinal study of marriage and family development, started in 2008 and ongoing, and the answers couples gave me about their engagement ranged from several months to several years.  On average, the couples in my study decided to marry 2.8 years after they first showed romantic interest (many couples knew each other before they dated, but that isn’t counted).  

Well, it takes about three years in the case that the guy actually wants to settle down and marry. Say, Jane is 29 and desperate to find a guy. It's her lucky day, and she meets Prince Charming the very next day. She can now expect to be married when she's 32. However, let's be a bit more realistic and assume that the guy she met has options. Maybe he met Jane who is 29, but he also knows Jill who is 22. Just based on her age alone, Jane will have a hard time to compete with Jill. Consequently, the guy dumps her, and might end up marrying Jill three years later.

Jane is single again and will have to learn that her time will just tick away. The older she gets the harder it will be for her to get a decent guy. In the end she may just have to settle for some dude she barely feels attracted to. Her biological clock it ticking, after all. This happens all the time, but it's probably not what she had in mind. She'll also find it difficult to have children, just like Western women in general who were indoctrinated by feminist ideologies instead of paying attention in biology. This might deserve another post, but many women seem to be oblivious of the fact that female fertility peaks in the early 20s.

The upshot is that time is a precious commodity for women. She will need a few years to just find a guy she likes enough to contemplate marriage, and finding someone to settle down with isn't all that easy either. It takes time to figure out whether you want to live with someone. If a girl is smart about it she'll start looking for a suitable guy in her early 20s, if not sooner. If she's not, she risks getting into a very uncomfortable position as she gets older. If things don't work out, she may become yet another 40 year old cat lady.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Read More