Recently, GoodLookingAndSleazy left a comment regarding male life expectancy, which I wanted to discuss in an article. Here is what he wrote:
Guys, what do you think about male life longevity (or lack there of)? I first learned of it in a sociology class in high school. The teacher talked about stress, but this freshman feminist said “women can handle it better.” She spouted feminist and subversive things all of the time. Some people accused her of being a narc (government mole). She was all up on politics at 14 y /o when nobody else gave a fuck including myself.
Anyway my dad died at 52. My grandfather died at 59. Looks bright, eh,? We had a discussion at my work about it and a female read my face (I had said nothing). She mentioned dealing with the females in men’s lives. I said that I didn’t want to be the one to mention it.
Male life expectancy is not even 80 years on average in the Western world. To my great surprise, it is only 73 years in the United States. I think it is worthwhile to consider how much time you will have on this earth. Sure, you may think that you are an outlier, and perhaps you are. Yet, you never know when Death comes knocking.
GoodLookingAndSleazy mentions that members in his family died in their 50s. Plenty of guys die even younger. Once you are in your 30s, you will probably start hearing about some old friend or acquaintance having died. I know of people who died in stupid accidents. A friend of mine died in his early 30s, which can be ascribed to his carefree attitude. He attended some shaman ritual somewhere in South American, and the concoction he drank had him fall asleep, to never rise again. Then, there are lifestyle problems. My father had a good friend who came by our house quite frequently, so much so that my mother loudly complained to my father afterwards. This guy was full of energy and physically active. In his late 30s or early 40s, he built a house — and died within about a year after it was completed. I was a little boy back then so it was quite puzzling to me. Now that I am a lot older, it is still quite puzzling. He either had a stroke or a heart attack, I don’t quite recall what it was. In any case, in one moment he was a bundle of energy, and the next one he was dead. He literally dropped dead. Nobody around him had expected it.
When I speak to young guys, they sometimes tell me that they want to fully focus on their career and establish themselves, and older guys often tell me that they are now too busy to follow their supposed interests. In this group, you sometimes have people talking about wanting to write a book, or explore the world. This includes guys who work in fields where it is not unheard of to take a sabbatical. Yet, they don’t do it because they need to make more money, even though they already have more than they need for their money-maxxed bachelor’s lifestyle. Also, traveling is surely a lot more fun when you can go back-packing and bang sluts in hostels, as opposed to hanging out in four-star hotels and wondering why traveling is not as fun as you had imagined it to be.
Whenever you think there is something you would like to do one day, but not today, you should keep in mind that you may never do at all. Of course, there is something to be said for delaying gratification, but this has little to do with slaving away in the moment at all costs. Men are much more likely to fall into this trap than women. This also affected me to some extent in the past. One example that looks perhaps trivial in hindsight is that I did not play Quake II when it came out. I could only play it in the “software renderer”, and at a very low resolution. Still, it was fun. I thought I’ll play it whenever I can justify getting those then newfangled “graphics accelerator cards” because I wanted to have a better experience. No biggie, I will wait, I thought. A few years later I built a new PC and put a Geforce 256 graphics card in it, installed Quake II — and realized that I did not care about this game anymore. More worryingly, there was no other game I wanted to play as much as I originally had wanted to play Quake II around the time of its release. In the end, I did not even do much PC gaming, and only a few years later, when I got a Geforce 3, I think, I did some modest gaming, like the first two Max Payne games and Doom III. Looking back, I think I cheated myself out of some pretty fun times, and had I played Quake II back then, I likely would look back fondly on it, similar to how I fondly look back on experiencing Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube.
Of course, I also did a few years of wild partying. This was great fun, albeit it also led me to confront some existential questions. I did this closer to the end of the time window where you can pull this off and if I had been in different circumstances, this window would have closed years earlier. Some of my friends back then, and also several women I banged, told me that I was wasting my life or “idling away my life”, and that I should “make something of myself instead”. On the one hand, I thought I had to make up for lost time, and on the other, I was also aware that if I do not do this now, I may never have the opportunity again. A close friend tried to lecture me back then, telling me that I could write “pointless books” and “waste my time” when I was old and financially secure. Quite frankly, I don’t think this his how it works. I think when you are old, you want to look back at your life and revel in your memories, not try to make new memories. The debauched boomer-cruise lifestyle is not only financially out of reach for most people in my generation, I also don’t think any older guy gives a shit about being able to bang some wrinkly widow. I much rather be an old dude tending to his garden, turning his back towards the degeneracy of the world. If I do not get there, at least I do not have to ask myself if it would have been fun to bang some club sluts in my 20s. It was, and I am glad I did it when I had the chance. God could strike me down tomorrow, and if He does, I can tell myself that I have had, overall, a pretty good life.
Life expectancy has been going down in the United States. Especially if you are a working class male. There is absolutely no representation for this demographic. There is a serious problem with my country. I’ve posted that two former male coworkers killed themselves. This is an ugly subject, but a necessary one.
I don’t think the average life expectancy figure is not that relevant for us. Because that figure includes a lot of people who die young because of excessive risk taking. Moreover, it also includes a lot of social classes which have a completely different lifestyle then us here.
What should be relevant for us, is the expected age we are going to achieve. That is, conditional on the age we already have and conditional on our lifestyle, how long are we expected to live?
Aaron also brought up again the topic of peak age for picking up women. According to him it’s around the 20s. To be honest, at first I was a bit skeptical about that claim given all the “manosphere” stating that it is in the 30s.
However, based on my personal observations, I am now convinced that he is right.
When I look at most of my “Chad” friends it already started with 20. These chads then settled at around 28. I think they probably settled at right around the end of their peak.
I feel like my personal peak was between 24-29.
Well, it is just an average. It varies from man to man. As our “peak” does as well. There are outliers. But we should concern ourselves with everyone. Not just us.
I think one major reason it peaks is what Maou pointed out in the other thread. He pointed it out in a different context, but basically… If you’re an a situation where you’re so behind it’s not worth even trying, why try?
I would expand that to “why even try in your 20s”. Like if a guy is below-average looking, comes from a poor family, morbidly obese, and socially anxious… It first takes like 3-4-5 years to swallow the red pill that you CANNOT get laid. And then it takes another 10 years to change it. Heck, the weightloss alone and finances take a decade.
So for a guy who’s:
– At 25 Morbidly obese, socially anxious, poor and no seeming future
– And at 37 he’s finally fit, financially well off, confident, and finally has a lifestyle
You can bet his peak is in his 30s, not his 20s. Same with a guy who’s so far off he can only become fuck-able at like 37 or 38 for the first time due to an uphill battle. His peak is going to be his 40s.
The peak in 20s is true for most guys, since most guys don’t fit that scenario. Most guys aren’t better in their 30s or 40s than they were in their 20s. Mostly because they weren’t that far down to begin with, there’s no way to improve in such multiples for most men.
Individual peaks can be at different times. However, while a peak of a guy could be in his 30s/40s, if that guy had exactly the same fitness level, mental health, social skills, etc when he was in 20s, then his 20s would be his higher peak.
Therefore, people should try to reach their peak in their 20 and not postpone it till their 30s or 40s.
If.
Consider that if you’re morbidly obese and very socially anxious and nobody is sponsoring you, then it’s literally mathematically impossible to achieve it within your 20s. Not enough time to handle all 3 of those things.
I factor in the fact that society still gaslights young guys that “looks don’t matter”, “money doesn’t matter” and all that other bullshit. So it takes a couple of years to even figure out that in order to start getting laid you need those things. So if a guy is lucky and figures it out by 23-24, he’ll get it done by 31 if he’s lucky.
The only guys who can peak in their 20s by just deciding to “use up their twenties” are tall, good looking guys. And especially if their family is funding their lifestyle. If you’re a short or broke guy, there’s nothing there to use up.
I agree what you say but I think your case is an outlier “Consider that if you’re morbidly obese and very socially anxious and nobody is sponsoring you”.
I have seen no such person during my studies.
I reckon that 80% of the men are capable of reach their prime in their 20s. And that’s what these 80% should aim for.
But you said that when manospherians say the EXACT same thing, they’re hurting guys because a guy will put off things until he’s 30.
Are you some sort of magical special case when you do it, the same logic doesn’t apply to you?
– The statement made my manospherians is helpful to one segment of the population, and can hurt another segment.
– The one made by you is helpful to one segment of the population, and can hurt another
It’s the exact same thing. You’re both destroying nuance in the exact same way.
GUESS WHAT: a guy who only laid 0-2 uggo chicks till 25 years of age is BETTER served by the manospherian side of this statement. He’ll be encouraged to get shit handled and start getting laid. Yours would hurt him.
So again, it depends on who’s hearing the message. Which is why nuance matters, and this arithmetical average bs is completely useless.
Aaron regarding “ This is not a valid comparison. You can absolutely get young women even in your 30s”.
Yes, you can if you belong to the upper echelon of men. If you are below that you probably cannot.
OTP, regarding your statement, “Yes, you can if you belong to the upper echelon of men. If you are below that you probably cannot.”: The other men were not really able to get young women even in their 20s.
Also, not everyone ages the same. A guy who remains in shape, doesn’t start losing hair and takes care of his skin will remain just as attractive in his thirties.
That assumes guys were at their peak in their 20s fitness wise. For guys who were morbidly obese, they can only go up. So not “just as attractive in their thirties” but more attractive.
Which isn’t a bad assumption to make because on average guys are in a worse shape in their 30s than guys in their twenties. But that’s the average. Guys who were in a horrible shape in their 20s can only go up.
But the thing is even if a guy stays in shape in his 30s, how high is his peak really?
Even a in shape guy in his 30s has a tougher time getting prime aged women, 19-25, than the same in shape guy in his 20s. So the guy in his 30s will mostly get post peak women (and not even the best ones, because the best ones will be married).
On top of that a guy in his 30s won’t have the same free time, energy and libido than a guy in his 20s. Therefore, the quantity of women for the guy in his 30s will be much lower.
One Time Poster
I don’t think you understand the definition of a peak. A peak isn’t you against another guy. It’s you against you.
A high-status high-earning fit you at 35 will get laid more than a morbidly obese broke ass loser you at 25. (Assuming average looks and height).
“But if you had been high-status and fit at 25 you would have gotten laid more”. Sure, but that’s another topic. We’re talking your peak. If you start out morbidly obese and broke and average looking in your 20s, you’re going to peak in your 30s. Doesn’t matter that another you in an alternate universe could have had rich parents or started losing weight at 14 and got it done by 19.
Again, you’re bringing up alternate universes. Should we also bring in Santa Claus into the conversation?
If you can get zero prime chicks in your 20s, it doesn’t matter that “you could have gotten them in an alternate universe”.
“prime aged women, 19-25” – The vast majority of 20-something guys can not bang prime-aged hotties. They’re dating either the 2% of tallest/hottest/famous men, or they’re dating older established guys (or both).
The average 20-something guy barely gets to bang 1-2 subpar chicks during that entire decade. And no, it’s not because he’s “putting it off” and he just needs to hear that his “peak is in his 20s” and magically prime-aged hotties will start banging average broke-ass 20 somethings (eyeroll)…
@One time poster, the peak in this case has to do with lifestyle rather than looks. Sure, if a guy attends party college while being funded by his parents, he will have more opportunities for meeting women compared to his later years.
However, my point is that a guy who takes care of his appearance will not look worse in his thirties. A lot of guys will get fat, wrinkly and start losing hair but that is not inevitable. One of the examples of this are famous actors, many of whom look even better in their thirties.
Lifestyle is definetely a huge factor, and it costs money. Aside from being average looking, the average guy also can’t afford the lifestyle. Unless you imagine he can get this peak by approaching chicks in malls or something?
The average 20-something guy doesn’t have the money to do the party lifestyle unless he has rich parents. Who’s gonna sponsor that? Santa Claus?
Yes, he can go out occasionally even if he doesn’t have rich parents. But nobody bangs a ton of hot prime sluts by “occasionally going out”. Not even the best skilled players in the world achieve quantity of slut fucked without a quantity of going out. And the only place you can go out for free is the streets. And most live with their parents. Where is the sex going to happen, right in front of his parents? Average-looking guy who doesn’t even have the quantity to get the skill will bang chicks against buildings, in garages and park benches or something?
Or do you imagine average looking guys banging sluts in bathroom stalls, despite only occasionally affording to go out to such places? And ibiza-style tourist foam parties are even more expensive. They’re full of rich kids from rich parents, not average dudes for fucks sake.
To add to what Alek wrote: The cheap partying lifestyle I had in Berlin was a historical fluke. Back then, rents were very cheap. You could get a room in a centrally-located shared apartment for sometimes less than 150 Euros per month, and you could rent your own place for 400 euros (one bedroom, at least 50 square meters) very easily. Clubs were also quite cheap. For about seven months a year, roughly from April to October, you had hordes of young people flying in for long weekends to party or even go on multi-week binges.
Today, the fiscal barrier to entry is a lot higher. Plenty of the cheap clubs and bars have disappeared. In fact, from friends who still go out, or who reentered the party scene after a divorce, I am hearing that there are fewer young women out there than there used to be and that there are some clubs whose patrons seem to have aged with them, i.e. the 19 year-old slut from 2007 is now 35 but still slim because she desperately hopes to lock down a guy. Obviously, this kind of partying is not the same. A related issue is that hostels and flights have gotten more expensive, too, so you no longer get groups of young middle-class sluts flying in from Spain or Italy, paying five euros for their easyJet ticket, and 10 euros a night for a hostel bed. Back then you frequently ran into groups of young men and women who came back every few weeks as it was so cheap. Today, you get “young professionals” and couples, not chicks going on short-term trips, looking to get dicked down abroad.
“The cheap partying lifestyle I had in Berlin was a historical fluke.”
Was this by chance sometime after the 2008 crash? I imagine that type of housing situation will not replicated to such a degree anytime soon, if ever.
It was, but housing was cheap even before. The 2008 housing crash did not meaningfully affect rents. After the German reunification, there was the expectation that Berlin would turn into a booming metropolis as opposed to a degenerate cesspool. Consequently, private and institutional investors bought up real estate and often renovated it. However, there was little job growth and the city was even shrinking for many years. Thus, rents cratered as there was too much supply of housing. It was not uncommon that you would get two or three months of free rent as landlords were desperate to find tenants. I even saw the occasional offer of a “free flat-screen TV” if you were willing to sign a rental contract. There was some influx of tech-mania money later, but this only became a factor after 2010. The other factor, though, is illegal immigration, which kicked into high-gear in 2015. This led to housing becoming extremely difficult to secure, with many hundreds of applicants per apartment. Today, an apartment that would have cost you 400 euros to rent back in the days might cost you over 2,000 euros. There are rent controls, but landlords are very creative when it comes to skirting them, for instance by only offering short-term leases or furnishing the apartment and claiming that it was only a short-term rental. There are increasing legal challenged towards the latter, though.
Wow, that little window that occurred in Berlin sounds phenomenal. It’s like the perfect storm for slaying pussy, as if the stats were truly aligned. The whole immigration thing sounds like a gigantic cockblock, however. Not only did natives have to compete for housing at much higher rates, but also having to compete with their extremely aggressive style of “pickup” which essentially boils down to ganging up on chicks in alleys. I get the feeling that the number of women willing to go out slooting dramatically declined as a result.
Btw, this conversation thread highlights just how essential logistics are to picking up chicks. Too many guys today seem to get the impression that looks-maxxing and being on your grind is what will draw in all the available pussy. Even for the guys who are more relationship-oriented and just think they only need that one chick willing to commit. They’ll not ever likely be put in a position to meet and date hot young chicks with low partner counts. Most of those probably got married to their high school sweet heart.
Women staying away from clubs due to excessive cultural enrichment is also a factor, but this was a somewhat temporary phenomenon as plenty of clubs simply refuse entry to those people. This was even happening in oh-so-woke Sweden. However, this did not solve the problem as all the rocket scientists then went started to hang out outside of clubs or busy streets, which led to a sharp uptick in violent crime and sexual assault. It did not really affect middle-class girls as they simply go by cab, and hang out in different places. The bigger issue is probably that women get attention so much more easily online nowadays.
By the way, state interference plays a role both in housing and the sexual market place. The government provides free housing for rocket scientists, by paying sometimes two or three times the market rent, in addition to agreeing on paying for subsequent renovations. In terms of sexual violence, those people can also sexually assault and rape women for free, virtually without any repercussions.
Alek;
Let’s take sport – particularly running fast – as an example.
You can look at the peak across the population: people are the fastest when they are 20.
You can also look at it individually. A person is a fat slob in his 20s and then gets fit, so he hits his running fast Peak in his 30s.
Now the manosphere tries to argue that men across the population peak in their 30s. I think this is BS and needs to be debunked.
The second thing is that I think that most people should try to hit their individual peak in their 20s.
I do not think that it is controversial that athletes peak early and then enter a gradual decline, with some rare exceptions like golf where even men in their 50s can perform at the highest level. Also, if you were a top performer in your 20s, you will probably still be far, far above average in your 30s. The same is true with regards to pulling women. If you did really well in your 20s, you may perhaps not do quite as well in your 30s, but still far better than the vast majority of men in that age group. On a population level, I do not think one can plausibly make the claim that guys, in general, peak in their 30s. This is indeed PUA marketing nonsense. They may make this claim because guys in their 30s tend to have much more money than guys in their 20s.
Alek you wrote “ prime aged women, 19-25” – The vast majority of 20-something guys can not bang prime-aged hotties”
Let’s take an average 19-25 year old women. That average 19-25 year old women is hotter than the average 30-35 year old women.
If you hit you prime in 20s you can bang that average 19-25 year old women. If you hit your prime in 30s you can bang the average 30-35 year old women but not that average 19-25 year old women. So the guy peaking in his 20s had a higher quality women than the the guy peaking in his 30s.
This is not a valid comparison. You can absolutely get young women even in your 30s. When I went back into pick-up in my mid-30s, I did not suddenly go after older women. One difference is that more older women approached me, which is just what they do, but this does not mean that you cannot actively pursue younger women. One issue, though, is that you are probably a lot better off not using your real age in online dating as some women will set their app to filter out guys past a certain age. Nonetheless, they still get wet when you approach them in real life.
Thanks for letting me know, I did not know that. What are you going tell us next, that the sky is blue?
Dude, we already went through this. You’re REPEATING YOURSELF. WE KNOW.
“If”.
== Formatting fixed
Thanks for letting me know, I did not know that. What are you going tell us next, that the sky is blue?
Dude, we already went through this. You’re REPEATING YOURSELF. WE KNOW.
“If”.
DUDE WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH THIS. IT was not the topic.
The topic was not “do guys who peak in their 20s get hotter girls than guys who peak in their 30s”.
OF COURSE GUYS WHO CAN BANG HOTTIES IN THEIR 20S GET HOTTER CHICKS THAN GUYS WHO CAN GET HOTTIES IN THEIR 30S.
O
F
C
O
U
R
S
E
Let me guess. Your next comment will be educating us how 2+2 is 4, and that the moon orbits the earth?
The topic was “do all guys peak in their 20s”. The topic WAS NOT “do guys who achieve their peak in their 20s bang hotter girls than vs equivalent guys who only start getting laid in their 30s”.
WHY WOULD WE EVEN HAVE THAT TOPIC? It would be like us discussing if 2+2 is 4. OF COURSE IT IS. Who are you trying to convince that 2+2 is 4? Some imaginary debate opponent in your head?
So where are these imaginary manosphere debate opponents. Have you ever seen one on this blog? Who are you debating exactly?
Who has ever said otherwise. Again, who are you debating? Are you using us as proxy for debating the manospherians. Go debate them on their blogs. Nobody here has ever said anything as stupidly unsophisticated as “don’t even try to get laid in your 20s, wait until you’re 30”.
Alek – I just said my position when the peak age is.
You are the one who somehow tried to debate with telling me that people peak at different ages, which is completely irrelevant to my point and obvious.
But that’s the whole point. There is no “THE peak age” since it varies based on the cards you’ve been dealt.
Unless you mean “the peak age for guys for guys who are above average looking and their parents sponsor their party lifestyle throughout their 20s so they don’t even have to get a job until they’re 29” —> ok, then yes?
Is that what you mean? In that case ok maybe. But that’s not what you said. And saying that’s “the peak age” for guys in general is plain wrong for everyone except that type of guy.
Do you not see you’re doing the exact same error as the manospherians? You’re falling into their trap. The manospherians say BS like “the page is 35”, and you go “no, THE page age is 25”.
Both are equally wrong and for the same reason. Both lead to lack of nuance and not seeing the unique case. Yes the manospherian one is dangerous for the reasons you listed out…
However, yours is just as dangerous. Because if a guy who doesn’t have daddy-mommy money and looks and only discovers these topics at 25, he’ll conclude “oh well, I missed my chance, better not even try”… “Since I had 0-2 lays with uggos by 25, and this is the best it will get since guys peak at 25, I shouldn’t even put in any effort, since it can’t get any better”.
Alek no reason to set up strawmen here.
Aaron says: „ On a population level, I do not think one can plausibly make the claim that guys, in general, peak in their 30s.“
I say: guys on average peak in their 20s.
All my friends at university had a partying lifestyle at university. We went out 3-4 times a week. We somehow could afford it.
All the people I know who didn’t go to university worked, and then had a parting lifestyle going out Thursday till Saturday. Somehow they could also afford it.
Once I started working In my late 20s, I could only go out once a week. I would just not have the stamina anymore to go out more often. Most of my university friends where the same.
But maybe times have changed.
Like befriend likes, or people hang out with people of the same class.
– How many of your friends had factory workers blue collar as parents (let me guess, all were middle-upper class?)
– How many of your friends were obese (let me guess, none).
– How many of your friends were bullied in school for being shy or withdrawn or intellectual and had to spend years to even become social? Let me guess, none.
Exactly my point dude. People from blue-collar families have to start working straight out of school just to survive. They can’t both commute, work and also party. You were middle-upper class if your parents sponsored your partying.
You do realize most guys don’t go to university and can’t afford it right? Like how fucking out of touch do you have to be to not realize that years of going out 3-4 times a week for years is not the norm or within reach for most guys? How can you be this out of touch? Read some stats some time, it will help break that solipsism.
Translation: “me and all my above average friends all had an above average experience, therefore it’s like that for everyone”.
actually half of the young adults do go to university. Then most of the people who do not go to university have a chilled 9-5 office job. Also a lot of people get fed by the state. Most of These people have the energy and means to go out regularly.
Do they necessarily party? No
Is partying 3-4 days a week normal? No
But still 1-2 a week Meeting friends and maybe going out is within the means of the average person.
So I rather think you are out of touch with the normal person, when you state something like „Consider that if you’re morbidly obese and very socially anxious and nobody is sponsoring you”. It’s not normal to be morbidly obese and very socially anxious. And Sponsoring is not necessary to go out regularly.
I think you underestimate how many people do manual, low-skilled, or unskilled labor. For a “chilled 9-5 office job” you normally need a degree nowadays. This was different in the past. As little as ten or twenty years ago, much fewer people went to university. In Germany, for instance, the percentage went up from 33 % in 2000 to almost 60% in 2013, with a slight decline since then.
When I was a student, I had a completely warped view of society. I thought that I was somehow “poor” because I did not have a fancy place like some of my friends. Hardly any of my friends needed to work to get by, and neither did I. Only afterwards did I learn how rare this actually was. In my view, my parents did not give me a lot of money, but it was enough for me to cover my expenses, and could afford to go out, buy clothes, or occasionally eat in restaurants. Not needing to work to sustain myself put me into a very privileged position, and this also enabled me to do really well academically.
Perhaps ironically, it was via picking up women in clubs that I gained an insight into different strata of society, ranging from the lavish lifestyle of the haughty daughter of a billionaire down to women whose life you can only describe as pitiful as they had zero support from home and were trying to make ends meet by holding down multiple part-time gigs. This also makes you quite cynical about society because you realize that to a significant degree the outcome of your life is dependent on the womb you crawled out of. I used to have a self-image of having overcome significant challenges and having suffered from insufficient parental support as well as downright antagonism. While it is true that my parents had other plans for me, and also that I work harder than anybody I know in real life, I nonetheless think that I have gotten quite a leg up. My parents made it possible for me to find my own way, and this also included financing a few years of debauchery as they did not want me to get some random job just so that I would have something to do. Had they cut off financial support, I would have been totally screwed. Conversely, I think I would have made much different choices had I not been given such freedom in the past. The outcome of all of this is that my life story is so bizarre, even without the pickup part, that hardly anybody I meet in real life would be able to relate to it. It would be extremely alienating to them.
I was going to add that clarifier myself, but I already added too many comments so I stopped.
Yes, I meant have their parents pay for BOTH university and private LODGING and PARTYING 3-4 times a week for years on end in a different city.
Like what average family can pay for that?
– Only 1/4 of guys are going to university in a different city. So only a 1/4 can even afford going to a university where they have their own accommodation away from parents.
– Another 1/4 go to university in their local place (living with their parents)
– And over half don’t go to university at all
Even if you assume all 1/4 (actually less than 1/4) of guys are tall enough, social enough, and can do both uni and party all the time (both in terms of ability and finances), it’s a 1/4 of guys. That’s even if every single one of those checks all those boxes.
So who’s paying for it if you don’t have a job. Santa claus is paying for your partying?
Where the hell are you going those replies? they are so long bringing up so many points, I don’t have time to go through them.
Again my points are:
– the hypothetical prime for *most* guys is their 20s
– the actual prime for the average guys is in their 20s
What do you disagree with specifically?
Nice excuse.
Don’t mix and match two different discussion. That was in a different context where I discussed EXCEPTIONS, not the arithmetic average which is completely useless.
As for the discussion here about what’s normal (average)
– A FULL 40% of 20-somethings are obese.
– Was your group of party-goers (whose partying is paid by santa clause) composed of 40% obese guys? If not. Your circle WAS NOT AVERAGE.
– And did you study and party in a different city where mommy and daddy paid for it? Or was it Santa Claus?
– That is to say, that 40% of guys have a ZERO CHANCE of slaying hotties in their 20s, off their weight alone.
– That doesn’t include the guys handicapped by height, shyness, lack of finances and having to work just to survive. Again. JUST WEIGHT ALONE assures that at least 40% of the 20-somethings have ZERO chance of slaying hotties.
Nah you just revised that to save face. None of your arguments were consistent with trying to make this completely useless and impractical point that nobody disagrees with and doesn’t help anyone.
It also makes you a hypocrite because you said that when manospherians generalize like that it hurts the people it doesn’t describe.
The average guy spends his 20s not getting laid primarily due to things he CAN CHANGE and if he changed them, he could get laid 10x more in his 30s.
What practical use is it to point that most guys are lazy and since they don’t get laid in their 20s continue not getting laid in their 30s?
You say „ Don’t mix and match two different discussion.“ but our discussion here is under the umbrella “peak age of guys”. Within that umbrella the debate “how much can 20 year olds go out” is not that relevant.
Besides you are setting up a strawmen again. I wrote “But still 1-2 a week meeting friends and maybe going out is within the means of the average person.”.
What do you disagree with that?
Bullshit. None of your long-ass arguments (you fucking hypocrite bringing up length) earlier were consistent with merely trying to prove an arithmetic average.
An arithmetic average nobody disagrees with, and is completely useless, and even opposite of helpful for guys. (you hypocrite).
Also I believe that the manospherian average is true (on average) for the population of people who even find the manosphere, are into self-development etc.
– Guys who on average discover the manosphere in their mid 20s after no success with chicks
– Are intent on doing whatever it takes to start getting laid
– WILL PEAK in their 30s.
Alek you just wrote
“ Nah you just revised that to save face”
That is complete BS.
My second post on the topic was:
“Individual peaks can be at different times. However, while a peak of a guy could be in his 30s/40s, if that guy had exactly the same fitness level, mental health, social skills, etc when he was in 20s, then his 20s would be his higher peak.”
My third post was:
“ I reckon that 80% of the men are capable of reach their prime in their 20s. And that’s what these 80% should aim for”
So stop setting up strawmen and debating irrelevant shit. I feel like you are really hurt about this peak age story and instead of thinking rationally your overrun with emotions.
Where’s the practicaly in these hypothetical? It’s the equivalent of “in a different universe if my grandma had a dick, she would be my grandpa”.
= I already pointed this out:
– The arithmetic average is useless because it serves no practical purpose
– The hypothetical is completely useless since things are not “all things being equal” outside of a hypothetical. The average guy can not get those things all dialled in while in his twenties. Reading that “if he could have done so hypothetically and be reborn with rich parents he could have laid more girls than the version of him without rich parents”.
*Or is it Santa Clause paying the bills, still haven’t found out.
“ Where’s the practicaly in these hypothetical” I can come up with bunch of practicalities for that hypothetical. But it’s practicalities are irrelevant, I just made that point because it’s true. No need for practicalities.
To your other point: “ The average guy can not get those things all dialled in while in his twenties.”
Since we already established that the average guy peaks in his 20s rather than 30s, most guys are closer to getting all these things dialed in their 20s, rather than 30s.
This estimate is coming from someone who had no clue that his circle is not average. Someone who’s entire circle was made up of guys who had their parents pay for years of partying and only had to get a job at the very end of his 20s.
“who had their parents pay for years of partying ”
Apologies… santa claus…
Alek instead of setting up strawmen and doing ad-hominem, why don’t you provide me with a figure? If not 80% how much?
(Keep in mind that 20s end with 29)
Why did you write all those lenthy comments going into all sorts of fantasy-filled hypotheticals if your only goal was to inform us that 2+2 is 4?
You’re mixing two different pieces of logic into one. FLAWED
– The reason that males (a population of 4 billion) have an arithmetically average peak that falls under their 20s is because most guys don’t even TRY. The guys NOT doing any work are bringing the average down. As are guys with rich parents, height and looks.
– You can’t then say that if a guy does try to dial it in, then it must happen in his 20s, since that’s where the average is. FLAWED REASONING.
– You need to limit to the population of guys TRYING to change things. Most of whom only start in their mid 20s. Their average is NOT the same as the overall population’s average.
TL;dr = your logic summarized
– Since most guys don’t do shit to improve, and hence peak in their 20s
– If you try to get shit done, it has to happen in your 20s
Flawed logic.
“ You admitted you real motive in the end, so I don’t care.”
The post you refer to was one of my first posts on the topic.
“You were trying to convince us that most guys can’t go improve or go up beyond their 20s.”
I wasn’t trying to convince anyone as I never made arguments for that. But you actually think that most people can improve beyond their 20s?
“ In fact, you admitted you believe the number is 80% who should just give up if they didn’t get it in their 20%”
Saying that 80% should try to hit their peak in their 20s (which is what I said) is not the same as saying that these guys should give up when they don’t make it in their 20s. That’s an incredible dumb thing to say.
Aaron my last post here is in the wrong place, please delete
Look I feel like I’m wasting my time here, so I will write one more thing trying to end on a conciliatory note:
1) I think your concern is that when people read “you peak in your 20s” that guys don’t try improve in their 30s. That’s a valid point and it’s not my intention for this to happen.
2) my concern is that when people read “you peak in your 30s” that people miss out on maximizing their peak years in their 20s because they think they can have their peak in their 30s. That happened to me. I hope you agree with me that my concern is valid, too.
To be more precise. This is one explanation I found:
“ Can is used to describe an ability or permission. It can also refer to a general truth or something that has a strong sense of possibility.”
You use can for *general truth*.
And I’m not even sure if you use it correctly for a general truth.
I think what you mean is “could”.
But then I’m not a native speaker.
Aaron, very insightful post about meeting people from different classes.
I was thinking of the period around 2007-2015, where a lot of people studied as you said, and there was still an abundance of 9-5 office jobs without degrees which didn’t pay spectacularly, but enough.
As I said before, times probably have changed now.
“ Why did you write all those lenthy comments going into all sorts of fantasy-filled hypotheticals if your only goal was to inform us that 2+2 is 4?”
Because you seem to be a guy who thinks 2+2=5
“ You’re mixing two different pieces of logic into one. FLAWED”
– you shifted the goal post from “dialled in” to “try to dial in”
– I think the population who tries to dial in is more likely to peak in their 20s then 30s. Of course, it won’t be in their early 20s but rather like 25-29. Which is the peak age I gave myself in my first post on this.
Ok then, let me answer you.
1) Most guys don’t even KNOW why they’re not getting laid. A 21 year old does NOT EVEN KNOW about the concept of hypergamy, status, or what effect it has, or even know that they’re not getting laid because of their height, or because there’s such a thing as a numbers game or what kind of effort it takes or when. Or what effect lifestyle has or to even build one.
2) The average age at which a guy even learns its possible to change your “luck” with chicks is 25 in my estimate. Most never learn and believe it’s set in stone for life.
3) The average guy needs to fix AT LEAST 3-4 things to start getting laid with hotties. That takes 10 years to achieve. So 25+10 is 35.
So at most 20% of guys can get it dialed in within their 20s. Either because they only had one thing to fix, or they learned what to work on very early. The rest (80%) will need until 35.
=== Again, the reason this is off to you, is because you didn’t even fucking know that:
A) 40% of guys are obese
B) 75% don’t have a rich mommy or daddy to sponsor a decade of partying
C) 40.8% of guys are short
D) 43% of 20-somethings have ZERO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING MONEY
E) 20% of 20-somethings are shy, and 10% to the point of clinical social anxiety
F) No research on what guys luck a lifestyle that makes them fuckable, but I can bet you that most average looking guys don’t have a lifestyle conducive to lining up a bunch of sluts
–> For example 24% report never going to clubs or bars
–> No definitive data for what percentage of guys don’t socialize much (once or less a week), but the estimate is that the number is substantial, owing to financial and time constraints, which you wouldn’t know about, coz santa clause paid you to party for a decade…
– I could actually go on… But the average guy doesn’t have JUST ONE of these handicaps, but a couple of them. He needs to handle at least 3-4 of them. That takes a decade. The miraculous stories of guys going from zero to banging lots of chicks within a few years are guys who only had 1 thing to tweak or fix.
Here’s the conclusion extracted, since you’ll say you’re too busy servicing your sponsor santa to read the logic by which it arrives:
“So at most 20% of (average looking) guys can get it dialed in within their 20s. Either because they only had one thing to fix, or they learned what to work on very early. The rest (80%) will need until 35.”
That literally makes no sense. Since I said all your hypotheticals are TRUE but useless. You had a different motive for going to such length.
And I actually fucking agreed with you that 2+2 is 4. And then stated that you obviously had a different motive to all those lengthy comments, and not merely convincing us that 2+2 is 4.
=== the 2+2 is 4 refers to this
“– the hypothetical prime for *most* guys is their 20s
– the actual prime for the average guys is in their 20s”
Something every sane person on the planet agrees with. And I don’t buy for a second you spent that much effort to convince us of something we already know and believe.
1) IMO the median age a guy learns about not getting laid is 19
2) some guys won’t work on themselves, but if a guy wants to work on himself the median age is 21
Side note: the average guy will fail on improving himself significantly, because most self help stuff and PUA stuff is bullshit.
3) but assuming a guy actually makes improvements. the biggest improvements are already by the age of 25 (median)
4) after 29 the improvements the median guy makes are smaller than the natural declines of his peak
“ === Again, the reason this is off to you, is because you didn’t even fucking know that:”
All bunch of irrelevant points and strawmen
But in the end, you DID admit your real motive, which was to convince us that most guys have no potential to improve past their twenties. You even gave a number, setting it at 80% Which is the REAL thing you were trying to push with all of your comments earlier, not “merely to inform us about the arithmetic average” which we already know and agree with…
Reading issues? I said learn WHY he’s not getting laid (the actual reasons, and what to fix). Society brainwashes guys that girls don’t care about looks, height doesn’t matter etc etc. Most guys are blue pill for life. The average at which guys take the red pill is 25. Of course they know they’re now a study by 19.
I AGREEM But there are literally HUNDREDS of competing schools in self-improvement, all of which say opposite things. If you’re lucky, your very first tries will lead you to redpill videos.
However, you’re just as likely to believe that practicing yoga or “being a better male feminist” is the way to improve which brings more pussy. The odds that the red pill is the first thing you discover are slim to none. You’re far more likely to spend 2 years pursuing this one wrong path, then 2 years pursuing another wrong path.
In summary in general: I get the feeling you’re completely blind to how lucky you have been in life, and then project it onto others.
The ODDS that the very FIRST thing you run into when you look for “ways to improve that make me more attractive” is redpill content ARE TINY. It’s like winning the lottery. Google (and the mainstream) proactively promotes PC ways of “improving” yourself to get women.
Go ahead, ask a bot or search engines, and see what kind of wrong paths they lead you on.
“ That literally makes no sense. Since I said all your hypotheticals are TRUE but useless. You had a different motive for going to such length.”
Check my posts, they were mostly short.
Check also my posts how I told you I don’t want to have an irrelevant debate and just focus on my two main points.
You admitted you real motive in the end, so I don’t care. You were trying to convince us that most guys can’t go improve or go up beyond their 20s. In fact, you admitted you believe the number is 80% who should just give up if they didn’t get it in their 20%, which is why I even got into all these debates with you, because I intuited this is your motive.
You admitted you real motive in the end, so I don’t care.”
The post you refer to was one of my first posts on the topic.
“You were trying to convince us that most guys can’t go improve or go up beyond their 20s.”
I wasn’t trying to convince anyone as I never made arguments for that. But you actually think that most people can improve beyond their 20s?
“ In fact, you admitted you believe the number is 80% who should just give up if they didn’t get it in their 20%”
Saying that 80% should try to hit their peak in their 20s (which is what I said) is not the same as saying that these guys should give up when they don’t make it in their 20s. That’s an incredible dumb thing to say.
„ In summary in general: I get the feeling you’re completely blind to how lucky you have been in life, and then project it onto others.
The ODDS that the very FIRST thing you run into when you look for “ways to improve that make me more attractive” is redpill content ARE TINY“
Huh? That’s what I wrote:
“ Side note: the average guy will fail on improving himself significantly, because most self help stuff and PUA stuff is bullshit.”
And isn’t what this blog is about?
And isn’t also the blog about that while you can improve at the edges, you cannot make massive improvements?
Of course you can make massive improvements.
Look I feel like I’m wasting my time here, so I will write one more thing trying to end on a conciliatory note:
1) I think your concern is that when people read “you peak in your 20s” that guys don’t try improve in their 30s. That’s a valid point and it’s not my intention for this to happen.
2) my concern is that when people read “you peak in your 30s” that people miss out on maximizing their peak years in their 20s because they think they can have their peak in their 30s. That happened to me. I hope you agree with me that my concern is valid, too.
They don’t. But can. I think your main issue is that you confuse what IS, with what CAN be. Most people don’t improve. But can have much better 30s than 20s. Because their 20s are SO SHIT, they can only go up from there.
Let me make this is as simple as possible
1) Fact: A full 40% of guys are obese in their 20s
2) CAN YOU not be obese in your 30s
Of course you can. So ONLY looking at WEIGHT alone, at least 40% of guys can have better 30s than 20s. They don’t, but CAN.
Cool, so then you agree with me that it can’t be done as quickly or easily.
– It takes like a decade just through the wade through all the bullshit.
– Some figure it out early, like Aaron, but Aaron is like on a billion in terms of sniffing out BS early, most people take much much longer
It only takes a few false starts to waste 4-5-6-7 years on BS. And then even when you start working on what you should, it takes 5-6-7 years to achieve it. And most people have multiple things to fix. The math doesn’t add up to most people getting it done within their 20s.
Again, take weight
The fact that 40% of 20-somethings struggle with obesity is PROOF that they cannot solve it within a decade or two (and with most people ever).
That alone makes it impossible to say that 80% of people can get their prime achieved in their 20s. Apparently all they need is someone to tell them that the manosphere is lying. It’s like a magic pill yeah?
“Manosphere is lying to you and making you postpone your prime” — boom, you wake up with a sixpack 😀
SAME WITH FINANCES. Look up how long it takes people to move up a class financially. I assure you it’s not just “as quickly as they learn that the manosphere made them postpone it”.
Alek, I am not confusing can with is. You just use can as an hypothetical: “If Santa clause exists, can this happen… “
Let me be more clear – there are four different categories:
1) those who are already amazing
2) those who can improve in their 20s
3) those who cannot improve in their 20s, but can in their 30s
4) those who can neither improve in their 20s nor 30s.
For category 4), their “peak” will be in their 20s. But the peak is so low that’s it dumb to talk of peak.
Ignoring category 4, category 1) and category 2) are together the 80% I’m taking about, while category 3) are the 20% I’m talking about.
To be more precise. This is one explanation I found:
“ Can is used to describe an ability or permission. It can also refer to a general truth or something that has a strong sense of possibility.”
You use can for *general truth*.
I already agreed with you that its a valid concern. In fact your closing comment is what I wrote 30 comments ago, at the start of the debate. I find both equally concerning.
And yes, I can empathize, if you were personally hurt by the BS spouted by someone (in this case the manosphere) you want to make sure others don’t get hurt by it as well.
However, it’s very easy to swing to the other extreme and end up promoting the opposite extreme, which can do the same harm (to a different segment, but all the same damage that the manosphere did to you).
I didn’t swing the opposite extreme because I said 80%/20%. The opposite extreme would be 100%/0%.
You’re right. Yours is worse. The manospherians never said anything like “80% of guys have to postpone getting laid until they’re 30”.
They just made a non-nuanced generalized statement which only means “you can keep improving and increasing smv past 29”. It’s meant to motivate people not panic and freak out if their 20s are running our ran out and that they can still become fuckable even after 29.
You read it as “I should purposefully put things off until my 30th birthday”.
Lol making up shit and setting up strawmen again
Like someone mentioned, look at the some actors in their 30s. Two roles that come to mind are Brad Pitt in Fight Club and Christian Bale in his Batman roles. Women were drooling over both those guys in these movies and they’re both mid-late 30s in them.
I think it’s interesting how men can still increase their SMV after 30 but yet I can’t think of too much women can do to increase theirs. Once their looks start declining so do their prime options. A guy once told me women in their early to mid 30s are the worst because they still expect a lot from a man but don’t have much to offer. After 40 they know they’re washed up lol
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit recently as I’ve been planning my long term future more. Particularly this relates to retirement planning, and investing money now and when to cash out. Currently in my late 20s.
It’s a tough act to land due to compound interest. The way compound interest works is that the vast majority of gains tend to happen at the end. Warren Buffet made 99% of his wealth after age 55, and 90% after age 75. For a regular guy, retiring at 62 vs 65 vs 70 can make a big difference as to how much money you have for retirement, or even if it lasts. Not to mention inheritance, if you have children and trust your heirs. In the US 60% of lifetime Healthcare costs occur the last 6 months of life.
The difficult part for me is that while I would be perfectly happy retiring early with a modest amount of wealth it’s impossible to tell how much money you’ll actually need, and for how long. You could try to retire early at 55, run out of money at 75, then be stuck in poverty since your professional skills have atrophied + ageism. We can have the best planning in the world but you never know what will happen.
I’m not sure what the answer is. Right now I’m trying to save/invest as much as reasonablely possible, not because I plan to retire early [I’m being conservative and assuming I’ll work until 70] but because I don’t know when the gravy train will end. I have a good job… FOR NOW. But what is AI takes it? My particular sector gets flooded with cheap labor? What if im earning a lot of money at age 50, get laid off, and then struggle to find another job in my field (I would be an “old white male” after all)?
This all to say, it’s a difficult act to balance delayed gratification vs life being short and chaotic.