"The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society"

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

There may be another factor too I reckon. Yes on the surface very attractive women seem to have lots of options and yes they will tend to get much more attention, but their numbers of good men as options may be remarkably low as a percentage of that attention. Maybe even lower than a plainer woman. They're more likely to get attention from "players" and indeed friendzone types and more men who are just seeing the visuals and nothing else. Over time that can make them quite defensive in social settings and more sound lads may think "oh oh ice queen/hard work" and not bother. So guys already known from within their social circle have been pre checked as it were, for arsehole factor.

Very attractive men would in general have an easier time as it's still the cultural standard that men approach women* so they at least have more choice. The attractive woman is usually the approached, so that's one less filter.





*though in reality and experiment women nearly always signal first in a social setting. Micro gestures and looks that signal a willingness to engage. Strangely many men are terrible at spotting such signals. One would think it would be innate, but it seems not. Though maybe that's nature at work in another way, IE men who recognise the signals more often are transmitting better social intelligence and if they follow up with an approach are signaling better social confidence? Still one would also think that would be "bred out" by now. Odd one.

They tend to be far more unforgiving when it comes to guys who don't appear confident. If a guy mumbles or is a bit too drunk etc it's game over usually. You can sometimes get away with it if the woman is below you in terms of physical appearance and is really attracted to you, or if the woman is a bit more mature, but young pretty girls will nearly always reject guys who fall below a certain standard socially - it's like it's wired into their DNA. The only exception to that rule I can think of is young single mothers who are pretty. They have a tendency to be slightly more forgiving if they fancy you.

Although that whole pick up bootcamp thing seems like a load of nonsense and a waste of money, one thing they do might be of value - which is hiring female models for the shy men to talk to and practice on. It would seem a bit odd though, I have to say.

Leeleather

Pug160 wrote: »

They tend to be far more unforgiving when it comes to guys who don't appear confident. If a guy mumbles or is a bit too drunk etc it's game over usually. You can sometimes get away with it if the woman is below you in terms of physical appearance and is really attracted to you, or if the woman is a bit more mature, but young pretty girls will nearly always reject guys who fall below a certain standard socially - it's like it's wired into their DNA. The only exception to that rule I can think of is young single mothers who are pretty. They have a tendency to be slightly more forgiving if they fancy you.

Although that whole pick up bootcamp thing seems like a load of nonsense and a waste of money, one thing they do might be of value - which is hiring female models for the shy men to talk to and practice on. It would seem a bit odd though, I have to say.

Why does a pick up boot camp seem like nonsense?

nokia69

Leeleather wrote: »

Why does a pick up boot camp seem like nonsense?

if it works, the only reason is because it tells you that you need to make a move and talk to women, and also try not to worry about the knock backs

paying for that kind of advice is foolish IMO

Leeleather

nokia69 wrote: »

if it works, the only reason is because it tells you that you need to make a move and talk to women, and also try not to worry about the knock backs

paying for that kind of advice is foolish IMO

What are you basing this on that the only reason it works is that they make you talk to women?

Plenty of men talk to countless women and get no where, often there is something about their body language, mindset and general behaviours that needs correcting. Like leaning in for example, an instructor can walk over and whisper in the students ear to lean back.

Seriously?

Leeleather wrote: »

What are you basing this on that the only reason it works is that they make you talk to women?

Plenty of men talk to countless women and get no where, often there is something about their body language, mindset and general behaviours that needs correcting. Like leaning in for example, an instructor can walk over and whisper in the students ear to lean back.

Sounds a bit like the media training that politicians for example receive to handle the media and attempt to control the message given. They’re both about manipulation at the end of the day.

Wibbs

Leeleather wrote: »

Why does a pick up boot camp seem like nonsense?

Couple of issues I have with the whole thing.

It's exploitative, or at least the temptation to be so is very high. There are a subset of young men who feel adrift and are a charm for being exploited by "gurus" selling snakeoil at a price, using the interwebs to bolster sales.

Much of it is snakeoil and dishonest. Examples like telling men looks, height etc don't really matter, it's all about the "game"(that we're selling). Many of the so called gurus are good looking men, so are ahead of the pack from the get go. Quite a number of their on the ground encounters are staged.

It works on a subset of women. The honest PUA types will tell you that the ratio of approaches to numbers then dates and then sex/relationships is a very high one. 1 in a 100 or less. Hardly conducive to dealing with women in general, never mind that the subset of women that it works on might actually be a bad match for many guys.

It turns interaction into a process. That's fine if it's a learning thing, however I would contend that the type of guy who buys into it is more likely to be the type of guy who is addicted to processes in his daily life, a guy on the shallow end of social autism and that's why he has issues with romantic encounters in the first place. The PUA process will really appeal to this type, but IMHO it's not helping and may actually make things worse.

Mainly though it's the exploitation of vulnerable men for profit. Now I'm sure there are PUA guys who are trying to do it honestly and fair play, but IMH it's a small enough number.

Potatoeman

Seriously? wrote: »

Sounds a bit like the media training that politicians for example receive to handle the media and attempt to control the message given. They’re both about manipulation at the end of the day.

It depends on how much you are altering yourself. If its just body language its not really manipulative.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

It's exploitative, or at least the temptation to be so is very high. There are a subset of young men who feel adrift and are a charm for being exploited by "gurus" selling snakeoil at a price, using the interwebs to bolster sales.

The thing is, noone else seems to be interested in reaching this subset affrording PUAs the perfect environment in which to proliferate. I do think that it's unethical at the very least but not everyone has the likes of Boards.ie to get free help and advice.

Leeleather

Wibbs wrote: »

Couple of issues I have with the whole thing.

It's exploitative, or at least the temptation to be so is very high. There are a subset of young men who feel adrift and are a charm for being exploited by "gurus" selling snakeoil at a price, using the interwebs to bolster sales.

Much of it is snakeoil and dishonest. Examples like telling men looks, height etc don't really matter, it's all about the "game"(that we're selling). Many of the so called gurus are good looking men, so are ahead of the pack from the get go. Quite a number of their on the ground encounters are staged.

It works on a subset of women. The honest PUA types will tell you that the ratio of approaches to numbers then dates and then sex/relationships is a very high one. 1 in a 100 or less. Hardly conducive to dealing with women in general, never mind that the subset of women that it works on might actually be a bad match for many guys.

It turns interaction into a process. That's fine if it's a learning thing, however I would contend that the type of guy who buys into it is more likely to be the type of guy who is addicted to processes in his daily life, a guy on the shallow end of social autism and that's why he has issues with romantic encounters in the first place. The PUA process will really appeal to this type, but IMHO it's not helping and may actually make things worse.

Mainly though it's the exploitation of vulnerable men for profit. Now I'm sure there are PUA guys who are trying to do it honestly and fair play, but IMH it's a small enough number.

As someone who has benefited from it in the past I can tell you the difference it made to be is huge, and this is all free material, I would have loved to have taken a bootcamp if I had the money. Looks and height quite clearly do make a difference, but it is seriously underestimated how effective good "game" is. The point of deemphasising looks and height is that so many men have limiting beliefs around those things, and you really don't need to be good looking or tall to consistently attract hot women. It takes time to get there, but with practice and the right guidance you can get there if you are an average looking guy.

For me, it didn't work on a subset of women, it worked on women in general. How many women aren't attracted to high status cues, such as being relaxed and outcome independent or being self amusing rather than trying to impress. Making a woman laugh at herself is about as universal as it gets, I'd say it's very rare that a woman is turned off by making her laugh at herself.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is, noone else seems to be interested in reaching this subset affrording PUAs the perfect environment in which to proliferate.

Oh I very much agree. Who else can such men turn to. All too often they'll hear the very well intentioned, but ultimately as much use as bewbs on a bull "just be yourself". If being oneself worked these guys wouldn't have an issue. For me it's up there with telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

Again IMH - and I'm loathe to add another term to the list of medicalised mind states - many of these chaps are suffering from a subdivision of social phobia to varying degrees and with various reasons behind it(autism spectrum, social interaction stagnated in a pre adolescent state kinda things). Then again is the mainstream psychology discipline even looking at it in this way and are there therapies out there? I mean beyond general therapy(which no doubt would be useful for some). Though if I just wanted to rack up the notches I'd be asking a PUA type long before I'd be asking a mainstream therapist. The former are on the ground as it were with tried and tested(if longwinded) theories and practices. I might well need the mainstream shrink after I got through with the notch journey mind you.

In one way PUA bootcamps are following some aspects of phobia therapy by forcing the men to interact with the object of their phobias by approaching as many women as possible. And I could see how that could work to lower the agitated state. It's the ancillary stuff that is the more worrying for me. The process, the "red pill" stuff. Fine for otherwise mentally healthy guys who just need to get over the hump of talking with women, but not so fine for those with more underlying problems, where this could set the stage for obsessive behaviour and a very rigid worldview.

You see this with some of the more honest "gurus" themselves with their collating of approaches, bangs etc and a few who are more honest who say that they can't ever really let go emotionally with a woman. They're always thinking of the process, the next one. The guy Roosh behind Return of Kings, a site that has gotten some blasting around here(and easy to see why) has spoken honestly on this very subject. He has said he can't quite settle no matter how sound and gorgeous the woman is. The deeper he feels himself getting in the more he wants out.

It would also depend on what a guy wants to get from it. The removal of approach and interaction phobia so he can engage with women and the world in a more healthy way, fine. Racking up notches on the bedpost forever looking for the next perfect approach and bang, not so fine IMH. And I'm not talking about the women here BTW, women have the choice whether to shag someone or not. I don't buy into the "a PUA tricked me into bed" victim stuff. At any point in the interplay the woman can choose not to fall on his mickey. I mean the men caught in that mindset and how that could negatively impact their lives and worldviews on women.

Those worldviews are pretty plain to see on PUA forums and blogs and missives. Basically Women(tm) are narcissistic, hypergamous and untrustworthy with an expiry date and you have to see the matrix to be able to deal with them and here are examples of hypergamous and untrustworthy Women(tm) etc. Surprisingly, as quite a number of these dudes are clearly intelligent guys, they seem to miss the possibility that they're actively preselecting for these type of women . There is a huge amount of confirmation(and cultural) bias going on.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I very much agree. Who else can such men turn to. All too often they'll hear the very well intentioned, but ultimately as much use as bewbs on a bull "just be yourself". If being oneself worked these guys wouldn't have an issue. For me it's up there with telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

Again IMH - and I'm loathe to add another term to the list of medicalised mind states - many of these chaps are suffering from a subdivision of social phobia to varying degrees and with various reasons behind it(autism spectrum, social interaction stagnated in a pre adolescent state kinda things). Then again is the mainstream psychology discipline even looking at it in this way and are there therapies out there? I mean beyond general therapy(which no doubt would be useful for some). Though if I just wanted to rack up the notches I'd be asking a PUA type long before I'd be asking a mainstream therapist. The former are on the ground as it were with tried and tested(if longwinded) theories and practices. I might well need the mainstream shrink after I got through with the notch journey mind you.

In one way PUA bootcamps are following some aspects of phobia therapy by forcing the men to interact with the object of their phobias by approaching as many women as possible. And I could see how that could work to lower the agitated state. It's the ancillary stuff that is the more worrying for me. The process, the "red pill" stuff. Fine for otherwise mentally healthy guys who just need to get over the hump of talking with women, but not so fine for those with more underlying problems, where this could set the stage for obsessive behaviour and a very rigid worldview.

You see this with some of the more honest "gurus" themselves with their collating of approaches, bangs etc and a few who are more honest who say that they can't ever really let go emotionally with a woman. They're always thinking of the process, the next one. The guy Roosh behind Return of Kings, a site that has gotten some blasting around here(and easy to see why) has spoken honestly on this very subject. He has said he can't quite settle no matter how sound and gorgeous the woman is. The deeper he feels himself getting in the more he wants out.

It would also depend on what a guy wants to get from it. The removal of approach and interaction phobia so he can engage with women and the world in a more healthy way, fine. Racking up notches on the bedpost forever looking for the next perfect approach and bang, not so fine IMH. And I'm not talking about the women here BTW, women have the choice whether to shag someone or not. I don't buy into the "a PUA tricked me into bed" victim stuff. At any point in the interplay the woman can choose not to fall on his mickey. I mean the men caught in that mindset and how that could negatively impact their lives and worldviews on women.

Those worldviews are pretty plain to see on PUA forums and blogs and missives. Basically Women(tm) are narcissistic, hypergamous and untrustworthy with an expiry date and you have to see the matrix to be able to deal with them and here are examples of hypergamous and untrustworthy Women(tm) etc. Surprisingly, as quite a number of these dudes are clearly intelligent guys, they seem to miss the possibility that they're actively preselecting for these type of women . There is a huge amount of confirmation(and cultural) bias going on.

Great post there, Wibbs.

I definitely fall into this bracket. I'm a fairly shy person and I've had to move around a lot because of my career which has exasperated the problem. I was offered a free PUA course by a Brighton-based artist but I backed out at the last minute. I just didn't like the idea of "putting on a show" just to get a woman into bed. It just didn't feel right. Perhaps I should have taken it, I don't know.

Leeleather

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Great post there, Wibbs.

I definitely fall into this bracket. I'm a fairly shy person and I've had to move around a lot because of my career which has exasperated the problem. I was offered a free PUA course by a Brighton-based artist but I backed out at the last minute. I just didn't like the idea of "putting on a show" just to get a woman into bed. It just didn't feel right. Perhaps I should have taken it, I don't know.

What "show" do you need to put on to get a woman in bed? Learn how to bring out your natural high status personality and ando I traction with a woman is you enjoying yourself. When I was chatting up women, it wasn't "work", it was fun, perhaps that's the problem. You don't know how to have genuine fun when chatting up women. You care too much what they think of you. One exercise I did was to approach women with the constraint that I wasn't allowed talk. It's an exercise whereby it is vurtually impossible to successfully chat up a woman so all you can really do is amuse yourself and have fun. Its a a good training drill for those who are outcome dependent. After doing this it became easy to walk over and approach women with the ability to actually use words.

ancapailldorcha

Leeleather wrote: »

What "show" do you need to put on to get a woman in bed? Learn how to bring out your natural high status personality and ando I traction with a woman is you enjoying yourself. When I was chatting up women, it wasn't "work", it was fun, perhaps that's the problem. You don't know how to have genuine fun when chatting up women. You care too much what they think of you. One exercise I did was to approach women with the constraint that I wasn't allowed talk. It's an exercise whereby it is vurtually impossible to successfully chat up a woman so all you can really do is amuse yourself and have fun. Its a a good training drill for those who are outcome dependent. After doing this it became easy to walk over and approach women with the ability to actually use words.

What do you mean by "natural high status personality and ando I traction"? I think the latter half of that quote is a typing error but I can't discern what you mean.

Leeleather

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What do you mean by "natural high status personality and ando I traction"? I think the latter half of that quote is a typing error but I can't discern what you mean.

We all have different "imprints" of our personality. Our brains are constantly "pinging" off cues in our environment to determine our relative social status in that environment. Depending on the perceived social status your brain will give you access to a different version of your personality. The higher status ones are the fun ones that allow you to enjoy yourself and to be relaxed and carefree. This is the one you want when trying to attract women.

Did you ever notice how in certain circumstances you feel more free to express your unique quirks and eccentricities unapologetically. Your brain perceives that you have high relative social status in that environment.

There is a way to give yourself access to this high status personality much more often. Approach lots of women if differing scenarios, this gives your brain the reference experiences required to realise approaching women is not a serious threat, it then gives you access to your high status personality that attracts women or at least is much better at attracting women. When you have this personality you feel great when talking to women, your focus is outside your head and in the moment.

You'll notice that teenagers tend to hang around in larger groups than older people. They need more friend around for their Brains' to give them a higher status personality as the world is a more intimidating place to a teenager.

Potatoeman

Leeleather wrote: »

What "show" do you need to put on to get a woman in bed? Learn how to bring out your natural high status personality and ando I traction with a woman is you enjoying yourself. When I was chatting up women, it wasn't "work", it was fun, perhaps that's the problem. You don't know how to have genuine fun when chatting up women. You care too much what they think of you. One exercise I did was to approach women with the constraint that I wasn't allowed talk. It's an exercise whereby it is vurtually impossible to successfully chat up a woman so all you can really do is amuse yourself and have fun. Its a a good training drill for those who are outcome dependent. After doing this it became easy to walk over and approach women with the ability to actually use words.

Just be yourself except funnier, more entertaining, confident and attractive.

Potatoeman

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I very much agree. Who else can such men turn to. All too often they'll hear the very well intentioned, but ultimately as much use as bewbs on a bull "just be yourself". If being oneself worked these guys wouldn't have an issue. For me it's up there with telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

Again IMH - and I'm loathe to add another term to the list of medicalised mind states - many of these chaps are suffering from a subdivision of social phobia to varying degrees and with various reasons behind it(autism spectrum, social interaction stagnated in a pre adolescent state kinda things). Then again is the mainstream psychology discipline even looking at it in this way and are there therapies out there? I mean beyond general therapy(which no doubt would be useful for some). Though if I just wanted to rack up the notches I'd be asking a PUA type long before I'd be asking a mainstream therapist. The former are on the ground as it were with tried and tested(if longwinded) theories and practices. I might well need the mainstream shrink after I got through with the notch journey mind you.

In one way PUA bootcamps are following some aspects of phobia therapy by forcing the men to interact with the object of their phobias by approaching as many women as possible. And I could see how that could work to lower the agitated state. It's the ancillary stuff that is the more worrying for me. The process, the "red pill" stuff. Fine for otherwise mentally healthy guys who just need to get over the hump of talking with women, but not so fine for those with more underlying problems, where this could set the stage for obsessive behaviour and a very rigid worldview.

You see this with some of the more honest "gurus" themselves with their collating of approaches, bangs etc and a few who are more honest who say that they can't ever really let go emotionally with a woman. They're always thinking of the process, the next one. The guy Roosh behind Return of Kings, a site that has gotten some blasting around here(and easy to see why) has spoken honestly on this very subject. He has said he can't quite settle no matter how sound and gorgeous the woman is. The deeper he feels himself getting in the more he wants out.

It would also depend on what a guy wants to get from it. The removal of approach and interaction phobia so he can engage with women and the world in a more healthy way, fine. Racking up notches on the bedpost forever looking for the next perfect approach and bang, not so fine IMH. And I'm not talking about the women here BTW, women have the choice whether to shag someone or not. I don't buy into the "a PUA tricked me into bed" victim stuff. At any point in the interplay the woman can choose not to fall on his mickey. I mean the men caught in that mindset and how that could negatively impact their lives and worldviews on women.

Those worldviews are pretty plain to see on PUA forums and blogs and missives. Basically Women(tm) are narcissistic, hypergamous and untrustworthy with an expiry date and you have to see the matrix to be able to deal with them and here are examples of hypergamous and untrustworthy Women(tm) etc. Surprisingly, as quite a number of these dudes are clearly intelligent guys, they seem to miss the possibility that they're actively preselecting for these type of women . There is a huge amount of confirmation(and cultural) bias going on.

A certain amount of it seems cause and effect. They alter their personalities to attract women and lower their opinion of them to handle rejection. Sure they attract women with issues of their own but ultimately they become more sucessful at attracting women.

Wibbs

Potatoeman wrote: »

A certain amount of it seems cause and effect. They alter their personalities to attract women and lower their opinion of them to handle rejection. Sure they attract women with issues of their own but ultimately they become more sucessful at attracting women.

That's wasn't my point though P. My point is that they are heavily preselecting for a particular type of woman with the PUA approach. A type of woman who bolsters their PUA/RedPill worldview and this has a big feedback loop going on.

As I said, the honest PUA guys will state quite clearly that the ratio of approaches converted to numbers/dates/sex is a very small percentage of the whole. Yes with practice guys can certainly increase that percentage, but my contention is they're still within the range of this particular type of woman. What type may that be? More emotionally driven, more spur of the moment, more flaky, less reliable, more hard work overall. Indeed the very type that PUA/RedPillers claim applies to women in general. For them it seems very clear that this is the case as those that their stuff works on(and it does work) are who they deal with. So out of hundred approaches, the best at this gets say 10 numbers, 2 dates and one shag. Cool, it worked, but it tells you little about the 90 women it didn't work on. Sure some may be with blokes/didn't like the look of the guy etc, but I would contend that this overly anal focused approach to "chatting up women" for whatever end purpose is missing a helluva lot of the bigger picture.

Oh and just going on personal experiences here, I've seen that preselection in myself. For a time years back now, my general approach was fun and extremely cocky and meh and "next!" if I was getting nowhere. And it got results. No doubt about that. However the vast majority of those it worked on were dopes, narcissists and crazies to varying degrees. Now I knew that this wasn't all women, it wasn't even close to many women, but after a while you do tend to believe in some way that it is. Not good.

Leeleather

Wibbs wrote: »

That's wasn't my point though P. My point is that they are heavily preselecting for a particular type of woman with the PUA approach. A type of woman who bolsters their PUA/RedPill worldview and this has a big feedback loop going on.

As I said, the honest PUA guys will state quite clearly that the ratio of approaches converted to numbers/dates/sex is a very small percentage of the whole. Yes with practice guys can certainly increase that percentage, but my contention is they're still within the range of this particular type of woman. What type may that be? More emotionally driven, more spur of the moment, more flaky, less reliable, more hard work overall. Indeed the very type that PUA/RedPillers claim applies to women in general. For them it seems very clear that this is the case as those that their stuff works on(and it does work) are who they deal with. So out of hundred approaches, the best at this gets say 10 numbers, 2 dates and one shag. Cool, it worked, but it tells you little about the 90 women it didn't work on. Sure some may be with blokes/didn't like the look of the guy etc, but I would contend that this overly anal focused approach to "chatting up women" for whatever end purpose is missing a helluva lot of the bigger picture.

Oh and just going on personal experiences here, I've seen that preselection in myself. For a time years back now, my general approach was fun and extremely cocky and meh and "next!" if I was getting nowhere. And it got results. No doubt about that. However the vast majority of those it worked on were dopes, narcissists and crazies to varying degrees. Now I knew that this wasn't all women, it wasn't even close to many women, but after a while you do tend to believe in some way that it is. Not good.

Are you saying there is nothing you can do to improve at chatting up women in general, merely this subset you speak of?

For example, let'stake the rhythm and tone to how you speak. It is generally taught that you should speak slowly from the chest rather than the neck, that you should speak with changing rhythm and tonality and speak with pauses rather than filler words. Does making those adjustments only work with this subset of women?

Does making a woman laugh at herself only work on this subset?

You seem to be assuming PUA only consists of "cocky funny" stuff which is really only a small part of it, and yes cocky and funny works better on some women than others, but there are other things that work more effectively on each subset of women.

Wibbs

Leeleather wrote: »

Are you saying there is nothing you can do to improve at chatting up women in general, merely this subset you speak of?

Certainly though I would expand it to talking to people in general without coming across "weird".

For example, let'stake the rhythm and tone to how you speak. It is generally taught that you should speak slowly from the chest rather than the neck, that you should speak with changing rhythm and tonality and speak with pauses rather than filler words.

Jeheeeebus. This is what I'm talking about previously. It's like how to speak normally for asberger sufferers.

Does making those adjustments only work with this subset of women?

Does making a woman laugh at herself only work on this subset?

Actually I would say yes. Speaking... slowly... from... the... chest(whatever the hell that means) would be offputting to some. I've known women who preferred and actively sought out fast speaking more "hyper" men, while others wanted the full on Clint Eastwood man with no name vibe. This is cultural biased too. This whole Alpha stuff which includes this slowed down speaking pattern is very American. It's also one are that is a near complete nonsense. Humans don't organise themselves by alpha, beta, gamma behaviour. Wolves most certainly don't and they're poster boys for the theory. Few enough animals do and they're usually those that have harems and it's a helluva lot more complex than the broscience trotted out on the subject.

And why just laughing at herself? Why not laughing at you and with you? It sounds all very "autistic" and unnatural to me and for chaps who may be on that spectrum hardly helpful(which I'd bet if you wheeled in a shrink au fe with that spectrum of conditions into a bootcamp he or she would find plenty of subjects within, or at least wouldn't have to look too far). Like I also said if this stuff is taken up non too seriously by guys who just happen to be behind the curve on social interaction and they steer clear of the obsessive linear stuff and the red pill stuff, I can see it being helpful. Certainly helpful considering I don't see too many alternatives at present, but by its very nature it's attractive to men with a tendency towards linear thinking and obsession and that's not so good.

Look at the guru dudes themselves. Forget the get rich quick eejits and the obvious scammers and look at many of the newer breed who are putting in the work. They're near obsessives to a man. Endlessly polishing the system constantly "gaming" and approaching, getting the numbers in, getting the bangs, working the data etc. Now one could well argue that this kind of obsession is how many discoveries are made and I'd agree with that and that it tends to be more a male tendency, but that's the gurus the masters of this stuff. Great if it's working out for them, but by its very nature it'll attract a similar mindset in other men. Men tend to be more reductive, more A B C, more want to see the underlying mechanism and that's cool*, hell I'm looking in a mirror here, but I also recognise the danger in that sort of thinking too. It can easily become wood for the trees syndrome with a side order of obsession.

Hell I've seen quite the few examples of this on Boards over the years. Guys who are very caught up in the whole PUA mindscape, endlessly pimping the ideas and ideals of the genre, with vids and the like. Usually they get banned and then they come back as reregs time and time and time again always with the same spiel. Major obsessives. The proof of the pudding as it were of when this stuff goes wrong.



*some have suggested that the autistic spectrum itself is a wayward example of the "male mind" in extremis.

Potatoeman

I thought most of it was body language and being entertaining rather than running through a script.

Leeleather

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly though I would expand it to talking to people in general without coming across "weird".

Jeheeeebus. This is what I'm talking about previously. It's like how to speak normally for asberger sufferers. Actually I would say yes. Speaking... slowly... from... the... chest(whatever the hell that means) would be offputting to some. I've known women who preferred and actively sought out fast speaking more "hyper" men, while others wanted the full on Clint Eastwood man with no name vibe. This is cultural biased too. This whole Alpha stuff which includes this slowed down speaking pattern is very American. It's also one are that is a near complete nonsense. Humans don't organise themselves by alpha, beta, gamma behaviour. Wolves most certainly don't and they're poster boys for the theory. Few enough animals do and they're usually those that have harems and it's a helluva lot more complex than the broscience trotted out on the subject.

And why just laughing at herself? Why not laughing at you and with you? It sounds all very "autistic" and unnatural to me and for chaps who may be on that spectrum hardly helpful(which I'd bet if you wheeled in a shrink au fe with that spectrum of conditions into a bootcamp he or she would find plenty of subjects within, or at least wouldn't have to look too far). Like I also said if this stuff is taken up non too seriously by guys who just happen to be behind the curve on social interaction and they steer clear of the obsessive linear stuff and the red pill stuff, I can see it being helpful. Certainly helpful considering I don't see too many alternatives at present, but by its very nature it's attractive to men with a tendency towards linear thinking and obsession and that's not so good.

Look at the guru dudes themselves. Forget the get rich quick eejits and the obvious scammers and look at many of the newer breed who are putting in the work. They're near obsessives to a man. Endlessly polishing the system constantly "gaming" and approaching, getting the numbers in, getting the bangs, working the data etc. Now one could well argue that this kind of obsession is how many discoveries are made and I'd agree with that and that it tends to be more a male tendency, but that's the gurus the masters of this stuff. Great if it's working out for them, but by its very nature it'll attract a similar mindset in other men. Men tend to be more reductive, more A B C, more want to see the underlying mechanism and that's cool*, hell I'm looking in a mirror here, but I also recognise the danger in that sort of thinking too. It can easily become wood for the trees syndrome with a side order of obsession.

Hell I've seen quite the few examples of this on Boards over the years. Guys who are very caught up in the whole PUA mindscape, endlessly pimping the ideas and ideals of the genre, with vids and the like. Usually they get banned and then they come back as reregs time and time and time again always with the same spiel. Major obsessives. The proof of the pudding as it were of when this stuff goes wrong.



*some have suggested that the autistic spectrum itself is a wayward example of the "male mind" in extremis.

There are more attractive ways to speak, I probably didn't even describe it properly, it'seems something you have to hear being demonstrated, it can be subtle.

Why laughing at herself? Because through nearly 15 years of countless puas practicing it'a proven to be effective. Teasing women in a funny way a flirting, it works, who knows why, but it does.

It's commonly taught that you should learn and apply the principals that work, but not stick to them dogmatically, let reality be your authority and not a pua instructor. That's the message that is given, ie "don't just believe what we tell you, try it out for yourself".

For example there is a general principal that you shouldn't buy a woman a drink, generally speaking that is good advice when approaching, but there are of course going to be exceptions where it is counterproductive to dogmatically stick to that principal. They teach that you shouldn't be dogmatic.😉

Call Me Jimmy

Wibbs wrote: »

If being oneself worked these guys wouldn't have an issue.

I disagree here. The shyness or lack of confidence that they might have is unnatural. Even though it may have defined them for a long time, I don't think that is anyone being themselves, in fact the opposite, it is hiding oneself.

I am not an attractive prospect, and it weighed me down (still does) but the difference when I've been on say ecstacy for example, where I was fully myself and all my negative habits went away, was incredible. I was animated like I used to be, unafraid, having a good time, loose and open. I tell ye the strangest thing happened one night, an absolute knockout of a woman approached me! (she was not high). In the context of my life that was huge. It was definitely down to me being myself, my looks hadn't changed etc. I don't think the person lacking in confidence beforehand was the real me, that was obscuring me.

Even people who wouldn't self-identify as lacking in confidence etc. I think give off so much 'uptight' energy that the moment someone walks in with genuine, visible love for themselves, that shines out like a beacon.

I don't agree with pua stuff because there is no need to focus on the women. I think it comes from a place of manipulation. But corny as it is I 100% believe if a man genuinely 'unlocks' himself he will be fighting women off (obviously not if they look absolutely hideous but that is such a small percentage).

EDIT: apologies for the comma fest

Pug160

Wibbs, there are more people who have problems speaking clearly and confidently than you might think. We are creatures of habit and we sometimes have to keep reminding ourselves to do really basic things. If you haven't been in another person's shoes it can be difficult to relate to certain issues the rest of us have. Talking too fast is almost always considered a negative trait, as is mumbling. If you're able to speak clearly and confidently, trying to improve further is overkill - most certainly. But if you're not quite there it is something that needs to be tackled. Most of the problems guys have is linked to confidence, so eliminating one issue won't necessarily get rid of another. Everything needs to be improved and you need to develop as a person overall.

It's probably fair to say that some men are deluded and haven't had a proper look in the mirror and analysed what they bring to the table. But there are some of us who really do put the effort in and look pretty decent physically and have lots to offer. We just want the best. Yeah egos are involved and validation too, but there is no shame in wanting the best you can get. For every couple of men who do well for themselves there's probably at least one man who settles for less than what he can get. It's usually shy men who are not good socially who are more inclined to do that IMO.

Two of my uncles are noticeably better looking than their wives. The gap is huge in fact. It's something the other women in the family circle have even commented on. When one of them was asked if he was attracted to his other half's personality, he said no. Now granted, they're probably extreme examples, but I'm making sure it doesn't happen to me.

Blured

Pug160 wrote: »

We just want the best. Yeah egos are involved and validation too, but there is no shame in wanting the best you can get. For every couple of men who do well for themselves there's probably at least one man who settles for less than what he can get. It's usually shy men are are not good socially who are more inclined to do that IMO.

Emphasis mine. This just seems so shallow. IMO "The Best" looking girl at the bar is usually not the most interesting/fun one. I know the general conversation here was about using PUA to get a girl at a bar, but what about settling down with someone. You hardly do all of that based on looks? And would you not consider a relationship with someone you met and really got on it, were attracted to, etc because you though you could get a better looking girl?

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

Two of my uncles are noticeably better looking than their wives.

As an aside and obviously just my observations down the years I have noticed that kinda thing in Ireland much more than in other countries I've been in. I remember a couple of Italian lads I knew back in the day who also noted and and were fascinated by this. They were much more about the looks vibe.

Wibbs

Blured wrote: »

IMO "The Best" looking girl at the bar is usually not the most interesting/fun one.

I take your point B and would tend to broadly agree, though I would wonder why can't the best looking woman be interesting and fun too? It's not an either or deal IMHO or IME.

Plus attraction can vary so much. Eye of the beerholder and all that. Though it also comes down to the loins too. Interesting and fun and intelligent are givens, but if Mr Willy isn't in play then it's pretty much game over. Then they become friends. For me anyway. Maybe I'm shallow? Maybe I'm honest? I dunno. Answers on a postcard please...

Pug160

Blured wrote: »

Emphasis mine. This just seems so shallow. IMO "The Best" looking girl at the bar is usually not the most interesting/fun one. I know the general conversation here was about using PUA to get a girl at a bar, but what about settling down with someone. You hardly do all of that based on looks? And would you not consider a relationship with someone you met and really got on it, were attracted to, etc because you though you could get a better looking girl?

I wouldn't want to settle down with someone purely based on looks. The novelty of her being very attractive would wear off pretty quickly if she was an airhead or high maintenance or simply annoying for various reasons. Some men think attractive women are more likely to cheat or be bad mothers, which might be the reason some guys stay away from the prettier ones. If I don't get what I want I'll stay single for life.

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

Some men think attractive women are more likely to cheat or be bad mothers, which might be the reason some guys stay away from the prettier ones.

And again why P? I really can't see how a woman's looks would impact such things.

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

And again why P? I really can't see how a woman's looks would impact such things.

It's not something I really agree with myself - it's just something I know a certain number of men think. Probably insecurity on their part. An attractive woman will always have admirers and the ability to easily have an affair with a handsome man and be discreet about it. Some of them (the men) probably think all pretty women are self centered and will be worse mothers as a result of that.

Anybody else's guess is as good as mine.

Call Me Jimmy

Well not saying its the case, but the conventional wisdom is that exceptionally attractive people will not have had to work for social status or friendships, courtships etc. and so an interesting personality has not grown out of necessity. Not saying I subscribe to it but I do think if I was very attractive I'd be caught up in a whole cycle of intrigue-seduction-sex-drama rinse and repeat. I could see myself going through life without much thought or interest in anything 'substantial'.

But basically yea, I think the attractive = not interesting has all the hallmarks of wishful bitterness

Blured

Wibbs wrote: »

I take your point B and would tend to broadly agree, though I would wonder why can't the best looking woman be interesting and fun too? It's not an either or deal IMHO or IME.

Plus attraction can vary so much. Eye of the beerholder and all that. Though it also comes down to the loins too. Interesting and fun and intelligent are givens, but if Mr Willy isn't in play then it's pretty much game over. Then they become friends. For me anyway. Maybe I'm shallow? Maybe I'm honest? I dunno. Answers on a postcard please...

Definitely agree with you, if there isnt sexual attraction there then a relationship isnt going to work.

My main point was about someone not settling for "less" than they can get - if you are with someone who you are attracted to, have fun with, etc you surely dont leave them because you think you can do better looks wise

Leeleather

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I disagree here. The shyness or lack of confidence that they might have is unnatural. Even though it may have defined them for a long time, I don't think that is anyone being themselves, in fact the opposite, it is hiding oneself.

I am not an attractive prospect, and it weighed me down (still does) but the difference when I've been on say ecstacy for example, where I was fully myself and all my negative habits went away, was incredible. I was animated like I used to be, unafraid, having a good time, loose and open. I tell ye the strangest thing happened one night, an absolute knockout of a woman approached me! (she was not high). In the context of my life that was huge. It was definitely down to me being myself, my looks hadn't changed etc. I don't think the person lacking in confidence beforehand was the real me, that was obscuring me.

Even people who wouldn't self-identify as lacking in confidence etc. I think give off so much 'uptight' energy that the moment someone walks in with genuine, visible love for themselves, that shines out like a beacon.

I don't agree with pua stuff because there is no need to focus on the women. I think it comes from a place of manipulation. But corny as it is I 100% believe if a man genuinely 'unlocks' himself he will be fighting women off (obviously not if they look absolutely hideous but that is such a small percentage).

EDIT: apologies for the comma fest

I mentioned earlier about multiple personalities so to speak, drugs and alcohol can allow you to release a higher status version of your personality as it switches off that "pinging" your brain does to the environment to a degree. Obviously though when your motor functions become effected this is all negated. It allows you to be in the moment and express yourself genuinely in a carefree manner.

Call Me Jimmy

Yea my point was simply that underneath most people are interesting and likeable when whatever their collection of programmed behaviours and or neuroses move to the side.

Leeleather

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yea my point was simply that underneath most people are interesting and likeable when whatever their collection of programmed behaviours and or neuroses move to the side.

Fully agree with this, but people wear masks which hides there uniquness for fear of being weird.

Call Me Jimmy

Which makes sense when ostracism is (was?) probably the biggest danger for a human. But the tides are obviously changing based on this and modern social habits (or lack thereof).

Wibbs

The other aspect of this, is that until very recently in our history we lived cheek by jowl on top of one another. It would have been much harder to be a "loner", someone who detached from society. It would have been the preserve of the wealthy and even then they'd have servants on top of them on a daily basis. Going further back your tribal types were/are almost never alone. And I'd bet big money that examples of social phobia are very thin on the ground among such peoples living that lifestyle today. Modern tech, especially these days has allowed us to be both alone and apart and more, it allows us to find others of a kindred spirit. Even in my day *Grandpa Simpson's voice* it would have been far more difficult for say a teenager to be a loner. They would have been spotted as being alone, detached from society.

Today those same men and women have online avenues to hang out with others of their kind. I think this period will be looked back upon as a time when we were starting to navigate this new dynamic of human social interaction.

Don't get me wrong, on the very positive side it has meant that folks who would have been isolated in the recent past, no have an avenue for contact and that's bloody brilliant(speaking as a carer for nigh on a decade, I am soooo effin grateful on that score), but as a negative it can lead to, as this thread title says 'checking out of society" while seeming to be in a society of likeminded folk.

OnTheCouch

Pug160 wrote: »

Attractive, desirable women - particularly the ones in a certain age bracket, have lots of handsome guys pursuing them, so the novelty and value of appearance alone probably erodes somewhat. The difference between a woman thinking you're shaggable and actually giving you a chance can sometimes be immense.

The reason for that, I assume, is because women in the most desirable bracket have more filters than other women as they're attracting so many desirable guys (and plenty of undesirable ones too for that matter). There seem to be other quirks more associated with pretty women - at least from what I've observed. For example, I've noticed that they're more likely to form a romantic relationship with someone they've got to know over time, perhaps in a social circle or at work (that's just my own observation mind you). That could be related to the more extensive filters they have in place. I do agree with some of the research that suggests that most couples are on a similar level appearance wise, but it doesn't tell the whole story - not by a long way.

Wibbs wrote: »

There may be another factor too I reckon. Yes on the surface very attractive women seem to have lots of options and yes they will tend to get much more attention, but their numbers of good men as options may be remarkably low as a percentage of that attention. Maybe even lower than a plainer woman. They're more likely to get attention from "players" and indeed friendzone types and more men who are just seeing the visuals and nothing else. Over time that can make them quite defensive in social settings and more sound lads may think "oh oh ice queen/hard work" and not bother. So guys already known from within their social circle have been pre checked as it were, for arsehole factor.

Very attractive men would in general have an easier time as it's still the cultural standard that men approach women* so they at least have more choice. The attractive woman is usually the approached, so that's one less filter.

Yeah the two above points made by Pug and Wibbs are very on the money in my opinion. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of couples where the woman is attractive and the man perhaps less so come about through these scenarios, ie, she has known the guy through work or friends and therefore feels far more comfortable with him than the masses of guys that hit on her on a regular basis. Plus as Pug says, good looks are probably ironically enough not as big a deal for her, as she is probably immune to some degree from constantly having handsome player types try it on. As opposed to for instance a plainer-looking girl who isn't used to the attention and as soon as a cute guy chats her up she's completely taken in by the 'romance' of it all, hook line and sinker.

As Wibbs mentions, attractive ladies often get hit on/surrounded by just the type of guys they don't want to attract and therefore get a bit on edge if they don't know the person that well. So sometimes when meeting them cold they can seem a bit bitchy. Again, another reason why PUA seems so appealing to many, the premise of 'seduce super hot babes within half an hour' etc.

Of course these statements are not always true, you naturally see attractive men with attractive women all the time, the latter have eyes just like anyone else. Plus, really handsome men are so rare (at least in Ireland), then if you do see the odd one, he does tend to clean up, if he is that way inclined.

However, under the right circumstances (generally over longer periods of time rather than quick meetings however) average looking men can really do well with striking women, especially if they treat her like a human being and don't put her on a pedestal and imply she is flawless. Sometimes even being not as attractive as a man can be advantage in these situations, as the very handsome men often have rather 'flat' personalities as they are used to women coming on to them on looks alone.

Coming back to the main point of the thread, I certainly don't think it's as big a problem as claimed in the article. I wouldn't be 100 percent sure about getting married and I think more and more men are coming round to the fact that it's an institution that favours women, but I don't think huge amounts of men are shying away from females either.

There may be more shy/awkward/overly nice males around now then there used to be, but I don't imagine there's a huge difference. Most men who so desire will end up with a woman eventually, indeed many of my male friends, whom I would not consider to be particularly 'good' with women, are with someone who is more objectively attractive than they are. Now this may be for financial reasons or whatever, but that's another argument.

I think the main point I agree with is the sending of mixed messages to men these days. The feminist-influenced media subliminally implies that you should be overly nice and not stand up for what you believe in as far as I can see. And that sensitive is the way to go. Well yes and no. In my experience, the best way to connect with women is to be sensitive, considerate and a gentleman, but not allow yourself to be pushed around either and have your own opinions. Of course, it is easy for me to say this here, sometimes real life can be trickier...

Call Me Jimmy

OnTheCouch wrote: »

In my experience, the best way to connect with women is to be sensitive, considerate and a gentleman, but not allow yourself to be pushed around either and have your own opinions. Of course, it is easy for me to say this here, sometimes real life can be trickier...

I always think of it in terms of friendships. If it was a potential friendship, most people wouldn't want the person to defer to them on everything because it would be boring. If you have to remind yourself to have your own opinions around women I think it's a sign ye mightn't be ready for a relationship (not speaking of you personally).

OnTheCouch

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I always think of it in terms of friendships. If it was a potential friendship, most people wouldn't want the person to defer to them on everything because it would be boring. If you have to remind yourself to have your own opinions around women I think it's a sign ye mightn't be ready for a relationship (not speaking of you personally).

Very much so, and I in any case could not be with a woman who expected me to constantly defer to her and go along with everything she said. There are enough men who will do that for her and enough women who won't expect that from me for us not to be together, simple as.

Mind you, some people simply do want, both in friendship and relationships, someone they can boss around. Often they'll hang/go out with a person simply because he or she agrees to everything they say or propose. So even though I agree with your opinion and would very much advocate it, it's definitely not true 100 percent of the time.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

I thought this article discussed an interesting phenomenon that may not get discussed much:

THE SEXODUS, PART 1: THE MEN GIVING UP ON WOMEN AND CHECKING OUT OF SOCIETY
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/

I've no idea how common it is in different countries.

I have read before about some Japanese young men doing this.

There are also communities on the internet called MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way. A lot of them seem to be men who are divorced and are not happy about how things worked out, rather than being young men.

For what it's worth, the author is gay so not actually an advocate of the position.

The original link has changed (I've put in the correct one above).

Also I don't recall part 2 being posted:

THE SEXODUS, Part 2: “Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/09/the-sexodus-part-2-dishonest-feminist-panics-leave-male-sexuality-in-crisis/

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

The original link has changed (I've put in the correct one above).

Also I don't recall part 2 being posted:

Don't even know where to start with "part 2". What is wrong with transgender or gay people???

One thing I notice with so many of these articles is how so much of a womans value is put on her looks eg her weight

qt3.14

PucaMama wrote: »

Don't even know where to start with "part 2". What is wrong with transgender or gay people???

One thing I notice with so many of these articles is how so much of a womans value is put on her looks eg her weight

1) Where does he say there's anything wrong with them? You do know the author is gay, right? He says it in that very article.

2) One thing I notice with so many men in general is how so much of a womans value is put on her looks eg her weight. It's a shortcut to checking a potential partners genetic worth, and pretty much every animal that has eyes has a gender that picks up on nonfunctioning visual cues and a gender that displays them. In birds for example, the males usually are the ones displaying, peacock tails etc, bower bird nests while the females do the observing. In humans it's the females displaying, for example extraneous breast tissue (other primates do without them, in humans they serve a sexual function as well as a nutritional one), a suboptimal pelvic anatomy (take a look at earlier bipedal hominids, their pelvic displacement was markedly more efficient for bipedal locomotion AND birth than modern humans, wouldn't have been as sexy though!)

Anyway, the more calories a given subject can invest in producing these nonfunctioning cues, generally the better their genetics by simple virtue of them being able to do so and maintain the caloric needs of base survival.
We might have passed by such simple interactions in the last 10-20k years but our brains are still hard wired for them.

Wibbs

qt3.14 wrote: »

It's a shortcut to checking a potential partners genetic worth, and pretty much every animal that has eyes has a gender that picks up on nonfunctioning visual cues and a gender that displays them.

Aye, but weight in women is very much cultural and varies over time. In some thin is in, in others downright corpulence is the order of the day. Though the hourglass hip to waist ratio is very consistent.

In birds for example, the males usually are the ones displaying, peacock tails etc, bower bird nests while the females do the observing. In humans it's the females displaying,

Again it's mostly the women displaying. At least on the surface. However that's cultural and varies too. In quite the number of societies it has been the men who were the ones overtly displaying. Even in modern western society men are giving off subtle display cues all the time. In how they dress and socially interact for a start and that's before we get to overt displays of wealth and social standing. BMW man in the sharp suit is displaying just as much as the woman in the short skirt.

for example extraneous breast tissue (other primates do without them, in humans they serve a sexual function as well as a nutritional one),

Bewbs are an unusual evolutionary change alright. to another great ape full breasts would be an automatic turn off. A complete reversal of the human view. To another great ape full breasts mean the female is lactating and not fertile. An odd one alright. It may be down to something simple, us walking upright. So this brought the breasts into more focus and larger and perter were selected for by males as a sign of reproductive health and youth.

a suboptimal pelvic anatomy (take a look at earlier bipedal hominids, their pelvic displacement was markedly more efficient for bipedal locomotion AND birth than modern humans, wouldn't have been as sexy though!)

Actually that's not correct. That's old news. Among the first(and unexpected) changes in the earliest hominids was for a wider pelvis in women. Unexpected because it does reduce efficiency and more, this happened before our brains and skulls got much bigger, which was what was thought drove this change*

Anyway, the more calories a given subject can invest in producing these nonfunctioning cues, generally the better their genetics by simple virtue of them being able to do so and maintain the caloric needs of base survival.
We might have passed by such simple interactions in the last 10-20k years but our brains are still hard wired for them.

I would agree that there is some hard wiring. EG the optimum hip waist ratio in women, height in men etc. However humans have put a gargantuan amount of cultural layers on top of this wiring and that varies far more than the evolutionary hardwired theory usually gives credit for. Humans are and have been extremely variable and adaptable in our sexuality and reproductive strategies. It's one big reason for our success. I would say that women's bodyshape varies far more and far faster as a cultural "ideal" than men's though. As I've pointed out before, the look of the male Greek ideal would still get women's hearts a fluttering today, whereas the female Greek ideal would be "yea she's OK I suppose". As for rapidity of change? The Miss World of say 1960, the "ideal" for her time, wouldn't even be considered in a local round of the same competition today and no way would she win.



*though IMH I would say that was the reason even that early on. They had bigger skulls than chimps, but more, modern human babies are basically born premature. They're still embryos at birth. Their skulls haven't knitted together for a start. Go back 4-5 million years, maybe their kids were born more like chimp babies, pretty fully formed and with fully formed skulls. This would require the larger pelvic opening and pelvis. That what evolved later wasn't the pelvis once it reached a certain size, but more that our kids got progressively more immature at birth to accommodate our increasing brain size.

HalloweenJack

Have read both parts and can't get away from the feeling that any lad under 30 and who hasn't been through a messy divorce and struggles girls but buys into this idea that women aren't worth it, is just making up excuses for their lack of success.

I don't want to sound judgmental by that. I myself am a very quiet, laid-back person and I've had lots of problems with my self-esteem over the years and obviously that also came through in my attempts to get with girls.

There's a lot of peer pressure as teens to get with the opposite sex and when I got into the late teens/early twenties, as someone who hadn't had much success previously, I found alcohol and/or other drugs as confidence boosters and tried to overcompensate for wasted time earlier on.

It worked to an extent but then I also realised that the reasons why I struggled with girls as a teen was because I had a lot of other stuff going on upstairs and although alcohol/drugs got me over mental blocks when it came to approaching girls, it didn't help me deal with all the other stuff I had going on and I eventually ended up in counselling.

When I left counselling, I was a lot more naturally confident and, similar to what one poster mentioned earlier, I think being able to accept who I am and being more confident in myself has made me more attractive.

In a very roundabout way, what I'm getting to is that these men (I refer specifically to those under 30, never married, unlucky in love) need to address why they struggle with approaching women, instead of blaming women or looking for a work-around (PUA-type nonsense).

I know it's not easy. I've accepted who I am but it hasn't made it any easier for me to approach women but I think my self-confidence is there to see and women respond in a more receptive way to confidence, even if it's in a clumsy way.

One thing that stood out for me but that wasn't expanded on is this from part 2:

And the sexodus will affect women disproportionately harshly because research data show that when women “act like men” by having lots of casual sex, they become unhappy, are more likely to suffer from depression and destroy their chances of securing a meaningful long-term relationship.

There is a link to a graph and it seems reasonably respectable. I would like to know is this caused by "women acting like men" or more specifically that any person, man or woman, who has a lot of casual sex becomes unhappy?

And as a slight tangent to the above, the few guys I've met who are adherers to PUA were boring and one-dimensional. They had internally closed themselves off from the world. They would only ever talk about their experiences in general terms, they rarely gave specific examples of anything they did and, despite being really talkative, they always stuck to "safe" topics and never talked about anything personal. They would talk about "plays" and all this crap and I just found it to be incredibly boring, insulting to women and cynical.

I definitely find that those who invest the most in that PUA stuff are sociopathic or have massive walls put up to stop anybody possibly finding out the slightest bit of personal information about them. I imagine that is a reaction or a defence mechanism to avoid being hurt, which I can understand but ultimately it just seems sad. The girls that were into these guys were ones who wanted to get to know them and change them so, in fairness to the guys, it worked for them but it just seems terribly cynical and doesn't seem to actually care for what the women involved feel/want.

Personally, PUA and MGTOW are both extreme reactions to a fear of rejection.

Potatoeman

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Have read both parts and can't get away from the feeling that any lad under 30 and who hasn't been through a messy divorce and struggles girls but buys into this idea that women aren't worth it, is just making up excuses for their lack of success.

I don't want to sound judgmental by that. I myself am a very quiet, laid-back person and I've had lots of problems with my self-esteem over the years and obviously that also came through in my attempts to get with girls.

There's a lot of peer pressure as teens to get with the opposite sex and when I got into the late teens/early twenties, as someone who hadn't had much success previously, I found alcohol and/or other drugs as confidence boosters and tried to overcompensate for wasted time earlier on.

It worked to an extent but then I also realised that the reasons why I struggled with girls as a teen was because I had a lot of other stuff going on upstairs and although alcohol/drugs got me over mental blocks when it came to approaching girls, it didn't help me deal with all the other stuff I had going on and I eventually ended up in counselling.

When I left counselling, I was a lot more naturally confident and, similar to what one poster mentioned earlier, I think being able to accept who I am and being more confident in myself has made me more attractive.

In a very roundabout way, what I'm getting to is that these men (I refer specifically to those under 30, never married, unlucky in love) need to address why they struggle with approaching women, instead of blaming women or looking for a work-around (PUA-type nonsense).

I know it's not easy. I've accepted who I am but it hasn't made it any easier for me to approach women but I think my self-confidence is there to see and women respond in a more receptive way to confidence, even if it's in a clumsy way.

One thing that stood out for me but that wasn't expanded on is this from part 2:

There is a link to a graph and it seems reasonably respectable. I would like to know is this caused by "women acting like men" or more specifically that any person, man or woman, who has a lot of casual sex becomes unhappy?

And as a slight tangent to the above, the few guys I've met who are adherers to PUA were boring and one-dimensional. They had internally closed themselves off from the world. They would only ever talk about their experiences in general terms, they rarely gave specific examples of anything they did and, despite being really talkative, they always stuck to "safe" topics and never talked about anything personal. They would talk about "plays" and all this crap and I just found it to be incredibly boring, insulting to women and cynical.

I definitely find that those who invest the most in that PUA stuff are sociopathic or have massive walls put up to stop anybody possibly finding out the slightest bit of personal information about them. I imagine that is a reaction or a defence mechanism to avoid being hurt, which I can understand but ultimately it just seems sad. The girls that were into these guys were ones who wanted to get to know them and change them so, in fairness to the guys, it worked for them but it just seems terribly cynical and doesn't seem to actually care for what the women involved feel/want.

Personally, PUA and

MGTOW are both extreme reactions to a fear of rejection.

Im not sure about the happiness as there was a report in the US where they discovered that mens happiness has increased over the last 40 years or so but womens has decreased.

I have also heard that men are less attracted to marriage the older they get but woman are more attracted to it after thirty. That would seem to be a problem with both parties wanting different things.

OnTheCouch

Potatoeman wrote: »

Im not sure about the happiness as there was a report in the US where they discovered that mens happiness has increased over the last 40 years or so but womens has decreased.

I have also heard that men are less attracted to marriage the older they get but woman are more attracted to it after thirty. That would seem to be a problem with both parties wanting different things.

Whereas I have seen one or two girls become more favourable to the idea of marriage as they get older, I would still maintain the majority (maybe even the vast majority) intend getting married at some point and knew this from a young age. I have seen a lot more instances of men not being 100% sure about it and going along with it in order to keep the partner happy.

Potatoeman

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Whereas I have seen one or two girls become more favourable to the idea of marriage as they get older, I would still maintain the majority (maybe even the vast majority) intend getting married at some point and knew this from a young age. I have seen a lot more instances of men not being 100% sure about it and going along with it in order to keep the partner happy.

Im not sure what you mean, are you agreeing with me?

I think for guys its more likley if they are in a long term relationship of over five years after thirty but this would be biological as they dont have the same time constraints as women.

OnTheCouch

Potatoeman wrote: »

Im not sure what you mean, are you agreeing with me?

I think for guys its more likley if they are in a long term relationship of over five years after thirty but this would be biological as they dont have the same time constraints as women.

Yes and no. I've known a couple of female friends who were fairly anti-marriage in say their early 20s and came round to the idea later on, but the majority have known from very early exactly what they wanted: that being marriage and kids. Of course it depends who you know and what circles you hang in, but that is what it's been like for me.

I would agree with you mind you when you say men in long-term relationships after 30 would probably be more likely all right. Simply the staid nature of their every day existence, societal pressures, likely huge pressure from the girlfriend, make it more of a possibility they'll just think 'Fxxx it, let's get married.' Even if there's not a whole lot of logic behind it.

Although I myself was quite eager to get married in my teens and early twenties and now I'm not sure at all, even verging on being against marriage, so I may be somewhat biased on the topic.

Potatoeman

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Yes and no. I've known a couple of female friends who were fairly anti-marriage in say their early 20s and came round to the idea later on, but the majority have known from very early exactly what they wanted: that being marriage and kids. Of course it depends who you know and what circles you hang in, but that is what it's been like for me.

I would agree with you mind you when you say men in long-term relationships after 30 would probably be more likely all right. Simply the staid nature of their every day existence, societal pressures, likely huge pressure from the girlfriend, make it more of a possibility they'll just think 'Fxxx it, let's get married.' Even if there's not a whole lot of logic behind it.

Although I myself was quite eager to get married in my teens and early twenties and now I'm not sure at all, even verging on being against marriage, so I may be somewhat biased on the topic.

Well what I heard was that marriage was more appealing to guys in their early twenties and decreased over time where it was more appealing to women after thirty. So it seemed that both wanted it at different times. This was from the US so Im not sure about Ireland.

iptba

Shock study: Marriage rate declines with porn use, threatening economy, society

By Paul Bedard | December 19, 2014 |
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-study-marriage-rate-declines-with-porn-use-threatening-economy-society/article/2557461

Porn use, they said, can be credited with cutting the marriage rate. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.

Aside: Studies suggest that women are more likely to initiate separation than men (I've seen figures as high as 90% in college educated couples) so I think there are likely plenty of other reasons also for divorce.