The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!
The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.
Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.
What do you guys think about this article from Natty or Not? It relates to women not having that many options in reality. He essentially claims that women are not getting approached that often in public, even at work/social circles/in clubs, and that online matches are usually pump and dumps.
It seems to be a debate on this side of the internet how many options women really have. Some people claim that women have it much easier than men and are swatting away suitors because of the current sexual marketplace, while others [like this article] say women having a great advantage is a myth. Curious what you think.
https://nattyornot.com/the-myth-that-women-have-many-options/
Unless he means asocial women who have no social circles and never leave the house, I have no idea what hes smoking.
Any 6+ female I have ever known was barraged with interest and have full chat inboxes full of thirsty guys.
Maybe Its different for 5s and hes talking about fives. I wouldnt know as I’ve only hung out with the 6+ range.
So they dont get cold approached… so what? That only mostly ever happened in movies. Why is that even a relevant things. Any woman who’s at least of average socialization will have hundreds of friends of friends of acquaintances showing interest.
In a sense, NattyorNot is speaking the truth as yes, even though many women certainly do have higher options than the average man due to various reasons there aren’t enough Chad’s willing to settle down and be faithful to go around. The excessive online matches women get tend to be narrowed down to the top 10-20% or so percent, and those are generally going to be guys with a lot of options who feel compelled to explore them. There are probably plenty of poor saps on the lower rungs that would happily settle for an obese slut as their wife or girlfriend. Add to this to the fact that shaming culture and punishing consequences like metoo exist, as well as declining testosterone resulting in decreased motivation, or just plain finding out about female nature and their inflated egos online paired with a slew of bad experiences heavily disincentivizes otherwise decent men (those maybe in the top 30-40%) from even trying that much.
There’s also the case that for whatever reason some otherwise decent looking fellow squanders their chances with a hot chick. One of my friends a few years back told me about how this pretty hot chick we both knew gave him the most obvious in and yet he didn’t realize, or perhaps didn’t want to admit how bad he had fucked up. He basically knew her from work (this girl has a reputation for being pretty easy btw), swiped on her Tinder profile, to which she instead added him on Facebook and bypassed the Tinder setup (presumably she had a paid Tinder account), where he then failed to act by simply sending her a message and moving things forward. Soon after, she approached him at a work function sitting next to him and literally saying, “I’m making all this money but I have no boyfriend to spend it on, teehee.” His response was basically, “oh, huh huh, that’s cool.” I assume he was just intimidated by her.
I just came back to say that I went to read the article. It’s a lot more nuanced, so I’m taking my comment back. I was commenting off of the summary conrad here gave. But reading the article itself now I dont think that’s a representative summary of the point that nattynot is making.
To be fair to Conrad, NattyNot did frame it in a weird way though.
In the core of the content he is talking about how women artificially limit their options (push them away).
But if you were to skim the article, you would think he is saying women don’t get options. It’s almost like hes doing it as some clickbait device of some sort or who knows what.
Alek, this is a rare instance where I have to disagree with you.
While I do agree women are going to receive more interest than the article claims from their social circle, I find it difficult to believe that every 6+ woman has “hundreds” of acquaintances showing interest in her, unless you are talking strictly online messages.
I don’t see how that would even work statistically given that guys in committed relationships and guys who have dropped out of pursuing relationships/are too scared to show interest make up the majority of the male population. Is it the same thirsty guys hitting on every single 6+ woman so that all of them can have hundreds of guys flirting with them? And the majority of people, even women, aren’t going to have hundreds of acquaintances who are in a position to show interest [i.e. most people don’t have hundreds of acquaintances to talk to, let alone get to the point of flirting.]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, or vastly underestimating how much offline attention somewhat above average women get.
To elaborate, my personal experience is that average or somewhat above average women usually have a orbiters that they keep around, some of which may be decent quality guys, but where my issue lies in the claim that a 6 or 7 is getting HUNDREDS of guys showing interest in them. Maybe I’m just coping or something but that sounds high to me for all but the most social women.
TL:DR version: women have more options only as long as they lower their standards enough, and put in a little bit of work themselves.
So on paper it will appear they have more options because they get a lot of signals of attention, but signalling is cheap. Closing the deal for real requires some investment in time, money, and work, which a mayority of guys cannot or will not do.
I think we need to clearly distinguish between short-term and long-term relationships. In principle, women can get no-strings-attached sex with relative ease. Those signals are cheap. Even a Chad will bang a Six every once in a while. However, the big issue is that for long-term relationships, women suffer from the collective delusion that there is an endless number of good-looking, financially stable, tall guys out there, which is absolutely not the case. Consequently, from the average female’s perspective it looks as if there is a dearth of guys once she wants to settle down. Of course, the tragedy is that when she could have gotten a top-shelf guy, or at least a pretty decent guy, she was busy “getting an education” and had sex on a whim with random guys.
Yeah, they’re definitely artificially limiting their options. I recall a conversation Molyneux had with a women in her thirties who pursued education that did not end until her late twenties/early thirties. She, of course, wanted to settle down. Molyneux managed to unearth that throughout her twenties, she had gone on dates with AT LEAST 100 different men. He chastised her for having “deranged standards”, and told her that as a woman in her mid-thirties, she would now have to lower her standards. Moly did seem sincere in that he wanted her to get the life she wanted.
I don’t mean in a single day. I mean overall. Yarara explains it well, so I’ll borrow that term: signals of interest.
Girls refuse to put in even 0.0001% of effort to let it go past just a signal. Most normal guys are not going to risk being a creep.
Often they’ll have a shallow interaction with her offline, and use it as an excuse to send her a message online.
It’s everything from the friend of a friend who only said hi to them once, to the neighbour or coworker they shared an elevator ride with a couple of times. They ask them for their socials then write them.
Btw, women are plenty aware these are signals of interest. They brag about it, so it’s not like they don’t know. They show me their inboxes and send me screenshots.
I would add that in this case “lowering their standards” would involve merely going from supremely absurdly insanely irrational demands that they deem as “standards”, and lowering them to merely “super high demands”.
And in the case of effort, it would merely involve going from doing 0.00000000000000000000% of the effort, to only putting in maybe 0.0001% of the effort.
Guys are not asking that women do the pursuing, but they won’t risk being a creep by moving forward when women refuse to do even 0.00001%.
I see, you’re saying the hundreds figure is over the course of a life time and includes subtle signals as well. That I can accept. I thought you were saying that every 6 or above has hundreds of guys from their social circle as a relationship option at any given time.
Lifetime?!?!? Lol no, it’s far more than that lifetime-wise.
By overall I mean that she can message them like “let’s have a date” and the guy would be like “YEEEEEEEEAAA”. Or any guy who would immediately jump on the opportunity if she only showed interest back.
So I’m not counting a guy who showed interest 10 years ago, he might be married by now. But all friends of friends or anyone who has written to her or shown interest in the past year or so (maybe 2). Those are all actual options if only she would be ok with investing more than 0.0000% effort back.
Some of those guys that would count as an option messaged her 2 years ago, some of them messaged her yesterday. But the dude that sent a couple of messages a year ago is still within her “options” if only she showed interest back.
Heck, she can even go to his profile and start liking all of his pictures, he’ll get the message and ask her out. He won’t be like “she was cold an unreceptive 2 years ago when I tried to test the waters”, he’ll jump right back on the opportunity. In my mind that is an actual option. In women’s spoiled minds it is not.
Let me ask you this Alek. If every decent woman has literally hundreds of options at her fingertips how is it possible that anyone other than the top 1% of guys are getting decent looking women? Because if you have to compete with 200 guys, you would need to be the top guy out of all options.
I can never tell if I should be blackpilled or not.
U serious? Have you not checked out the stats? Virginity rates amongst men are soaring, and in the last 10 years alone, the number of men who aren’t having sex has TRIPLED (with a slight reduction in sex for women over the same period).
Linked to wrong video, it seems multiple channels covered this study. But it’s nothing new. Just more confirmation, the skew towards the stop has gone crazy with the advent of social media.
– Women have more options than ever (using my definition of an option).
– Yet, women don’t count most of those as an option (because their definition doesn’t include non-chads sending signals as an option).
Only guys who blatantly pursue the shit out of her (or chads) count as an “option”.
I’m acutely aware of rising sexlessness. What i’m asking is if you need to be top 1% given the number of options available.
According to Pew, 33% of young women are single compared to 50% of men. This means young women are dating older men which could explain the rise in virginity.
Average woman has more options than an average man, both in getting casual sex and in getting relationships. In the old days men used to make more money but now wage gap has disappeared leaving the average guy not having much to offer.
Either way a man should focus on mogmaxxing and making money. Even if you don’t get a quality relationship, or a social circle from which you can pull women, at least you’ll be able to bang escorts which certainly beats playing video games and jerking off.
Exactly.
@Conrard
What Skepdick says
I think you’re overthinking this, because in the end, the solution (actionable step) is the same… gym-optimize*, moneymaxx, status-maxx.
*-I’m saying “gym-optimize” and not “gym-maxx” on purpose, because the gym has rapidly diminishing returns, and it’s easy to overdo it and waste time and energy you could be putting into the moneymaxx part.
Thanks fellas.
Re: gym optimize, I’m doing money-optimize as well. I earn a decent salary and am on track to earn more, but I am not going for a truly “big bucks” career because I don’t see it being worth the time requirement. My goal is to make as much as possible per hour of actual work, while keeping work hours at 40 or under [long term – I’ve put in more hours earlier in my career to set myself up.]
“…at least you’ll be able to bang escorts which certainly beats playing video games and jerking off.”
Arguably. Here in the US the only place I’m aware of to bang escorts legally is Vegas, and imo if you’re paying a 6-8 escort (legally or illegally) $500 for and hour or two for condom sex you’re getting cucked. Your next best option is to whoremax abroad, but then you have to factor in exorbitant travel and lodging costs. Imo, sex is a function and indulging in it beyond that is similar to using a drug. For much cheaper prices, I can get more satisfaction and bang for my buck by playing a video game or dropping acid with a good friend next to a fire pit.
One almost wonders if the modern US were deliberately set up to humiliate men. Just look at the issue that all of education and most of the corporate world has been modified to cater to the whims and preferences of women. On top, there is #metoo, the divorce industry, and the fact that prostitution is illegal almost everywhere. Yet, for some reason the US probably produces more porn than the rest of the world combined, and it is primarily for domestic consumption. It would be more fitting if there was porn, and whoring was allowed.
Thinking a bit further about the relationship between porn and prostitution, it seems that the following is the case:
– some societies have banned porn and prostitution
– some societies have banned neither porn nor prostitution
– the US and several other countries, such as Sweden, have banned prostitution but not porn
– no country has banned porn but not banned prostitution
I think an argument can be made that banning one but not the other is incongruent, and an attempt at social engineering whereas the first two positions are possible outcomes in the moral development of society.
@Picklenanny
I have seen some of those escorts. They are ugly.
Prostitution is illegal in Vegas as well, but very laxly enforced.
It is legal in some other places in Nevada, though, but only in counties with a lower population. There’s some information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada for anyone who’s interested.
Nevada is, to the best of my knowledge, the only place in the U.S.A. to have legal prostitution.
The US is a complete gynocracy that wants to humiliate men. All government and corporate power favors women.
Yes that’s right, it is illegal in Vegas. So, when you think about it and if you’re not from around the area you’ll need to catch a plane to Vegas, organize your lodging, rent a car or a taxi to transport your dick and balls over to the one of the several whore houses, negotiate a price (which now that I think of it may exceed well over $500 depending), bust a nut and then I guess go back to the hotel and go to sleep. Who has the time for all that? I’d take a vacation maybe but at those prices and for the quality of women it’d make much more sense head to EE or SEA. And now that it’s been mentioned it really does seem quite strange about the deal that men in the US have been given. Also figure in the circumcision ritual that Euro dudes have been spared.
I have a hunch that circumcision was much more common in Europe before 1933. This practice is not banned, by the way. I have met a few guys, I think they were all or mostly non-Jews, who had their foreskin chopped off “for cosmetic reasons”. I remember group showers in school after sport, and one boy pointing at another, asking why his penis looks so different. There was a downright bizarre example years later, when I had to stay in the hospital for a few days. I had to share the room with another teen, and at some point he started talking about “circumcision not being weird”. I asked him why he was telling me that. In response, he pulled his pants down, showed me his circumcised cock, and said that it is like a regular penis but better because it is easier to clean. I was not sure if he was gay or psychologically damaged as a result of having gotten circumcised, but he certainly was not normal.
That is very strange behavior even for a fag. It reminds me of women at the office when they share pictures of their breast augmentations and other cosmetic procedures. Definitely a very feminine thing to do. I once met a guy who randomly pulled out his dick in the report room, laid it on the table and started punching it for lulz.
Was this guy on drugs or simply mentally unstable?
I think I’ve shared here before how much I hate it that I was circumcised as a newborn. The myth that it’s desireable to do so on health grounds has been around for who knows how long, and the doctor that attended my birth convinced my mom and she agreed. And take into account that jewish influence in my country is pretty low and it’s mostly confined to little Israeli flags in cars and stuff like that, and there are clearly more Muslims living here than Juice.
I should investigate what percentage of baby boys being delivered is victim of the same kind of abuse.
Aaron, I’m gonna go with unstable as that place had a semi-rigorous random drug testing policy.
Manuel, I pretty much agree with you. I grew up in an environment where if you were left intact you were the odd one out. It’s pretty insane to think that everyone around you is happily mutilated and grateful that it happened.
I tend to believe most women are “getting there needs met” online both from hook ups and from men telling them how beautiful they are on their instagram accounts. You won’t see much “hooking up at work” because every guy is afraid of being called the next Harvey Winestine. What I do see is old guys chatting up younger ladies and if they are not rebuffed, trying to see if their might be interest. IDK if they are looking for sugar babies or if they are senile old boomers out of touch with modern women. Usually these own seem irritated or even disgusted by these older guys.
Another thing I have noticed is it seems like 10 years ago if you made fun of a guy and said “You are so ugly and you can’t get a girlfriend” he would be humiliated. Now I see more guys who seem to just be happy with there hobbies or a friendship with another man or even having a dog rather than chasing women. IDK if this is because guys aren’t afraid of being called gay because everyone says how great it is to be gay or if they finally got the message that women aren’t all that pleasant too be around for very long.
Put my name in incorrectly in my previous comment, so it’s “awaiting moderation”
Fixed. I also took the liberty of correcting the spelling of your alias.
Guys, for Freddie Mercury, we have Marc Martel.
Now for Steve Perry from the Journey, we have Arnel Pineda:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yy6pmsQ9H8
Hott Damn !!!
They found a looker of a Lady Boy that sounds almost exactly like the original singer.
If you listen carefully musically (s)he is spot on but slightly mispronounces a few words. Overall 9.5 outta 10 and maybe can singer better than the original singer after all these years.