The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Constant, Unending Attention

A faithful reader and commenter, DC Phil, was talking to another blogger, Badger, and passed along something interesting and disheartening, especially for younger guys. I’ve alluded to it in the past but after some thought, the idea came together more solidly:

Thoughtful guys can’t compete with the constant and unending attention that younger women demand and now get through technology. These young women have the technology at their immediate disposal to fill every nanosecond with stimulation. Texting, tweeting, Facebooking, phoning, IM chatting. Technology produces a continuous stream of entertainment, education, and social connection. A girl’s every thought and every image can be quickly recorded and instantly transmitted to a network of other girls who are doing the exact same thing by recording and transmitting their own thoughts and images.

I see it in young women every day. Their faces raptly reading or texting (if they’re not actually talking) and if the response isn’t immediate, the look up, empty-eyed, looking instantly bored. Then, the phone makes a sound, and immediately concentration is refocused back on the wee screen. Consider this odd social change: pedestrian fatalities have risen because pedestrians are focusing on the phone, not the traffic that they just stepped in front of.

The nightclub scene must be wretched for young men because they are forced to compete with such instant, information gratification. A thoughtful, even marginally polite guy – unless he’s incredibly handsome – has to break through the wall of technology to even get a girl to acknowledge him. Is it any wonder why night club Charisma is about being almost primal? Guys should dress in skins and carry a club. That’s a facetious remark but indicative of where things stand with girls and their technology. In such an environment, guys have to practice the Charisma of a caveman.

For women closer to my age, it isn’t technology, but constant and never-ending activities. Shopping, cleaning, yoga, socializing can fill a woman’s non-work hours completely. But these are usually non-multitasking things without all the technology getting in the way. Getting a woman’s attention is far easier than getting a girl’s attention.

Constant phone use is a red flag. A girl who claims that she can’t live without her phone is a girl who is incapable of an truly intimate relationship with a man. A girl (or a woman) who cannot step away from the bombardment of digital attention is not of good character. She’s just indulging in a form of attention whoring  I have tremendous sympathy for younger guys. If the law allowed it, I’d recommend that guys carry around a cell phone jammer to break through the technology barrier.

Single Post Navigation

58 thoughts on “Constant, Unending Attention

  1. Speaking from what I see, women socialise to find better guys to trade up to.
    They give their undivided attention to the men they’re terrified of losing.
    The disrespect normal men get, is a foreshadowing of what the relationship will turn into if he “tries to win the hand of the maiden”.
    Hence the lament of the carousel rider “Where have all the good men gone?”

    Woman, you didn’t want them when they were around you earlier …
    They don’t want you now when you’re looking for a carpenter-therapist. to fix up your life.

  2. LostSailor on said:

    As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I’ve been in the publishing industry for 25 years. Part of my job these days is to understand and relay to my bosses the ways in which the future landscape for publishing is changing and how we need to change to succeed (or even stay alive). To that end, I sit on a couple of industry trade-group committees and do the conference thing.

    I recently heard a talk that describe this phenomenon quite well, in an attempt to explain to publishers how they need to change their thinking about content and how it’s delivered: The speaker described 3 different types of publishing: “lean-back” publishing of printed material, “upright publishing” of traditional web-delivered material, and “face-down” publishing, or material that is presented on a hand-held device like a phone or tablet.

    So I guess we need to come up with “face-down” Game to deal with the era of “face-down” dating.

    “Face-Down” dating. Not what you think it is, you dirty sods….

    • Intriguing, LS. A little OT, but I’m curious how they’re viewing competition from independent ebook authors. Since the #1 Kindle book right now is a self-published ebook BDSM vampire mommy porn (50 Shades of Gray, I think), and not a single publisher outside of Amazon is getting one red cent, I would imagine that there is some concern and even a strategy by the traditional publishing houses to compete. Personally, I made more on my crappy self e-published fantasy series than I did on my New York Times best seller, once Simon & Schuster and the license holder got their cut. At this point I’m selling over 2000 copies a month, and it goes up by 30% every time I release a new volume. So what’s the incentive to consider a traditional publishing house any more?

      I’m not being snide, here, just curious. Last time I went to a convention (NYComicCon) with publishers represented, Kindle was a dirty word.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Don’t mean to veer too far OT, but…

        Kindle is not necessarily a dirty word for traditional publishers; we’re all putting our content on Kindle (or should be) as well as Nook, iPad, and whatever other devices are out there.

        The concern, and not a huge concern, is that Amazon is experimenting with becoming a publisher. My view is that direct-to-Kindle publishing will work for some authors but not necessarily for all authors. There are some things that publishers do, such as editing, marketing, print distribution (which is still important) that Amazon doesn’t do. Yes, authors can do these things themselves, but many are either ill-equipped or disinclined, and hiring it out piecemeal can get expensive. (I did a brief stint years ago as a freelance editor-for-hire working directly with unpublished authors and charged $30-$40 an hour depending on the manuscript and level of effort, and a thorough line-edit–not that it’s done much these days–can take anywhere from 10 to 40 hours).

        That said, Amazon is potentially a dicey partner for self-published authors. If they were successful in cornering a significant market share, it’s quite possible you’d see the terms change unfavorably. Amazon doesn’t care about you, and they can be real dicks sometimes. Then there is the discoverability issue: as more and more self-published authors are added to Amazon, getting your content noticed by your target audience becomes more difficult. For every 50 Shades of Gray, there are probably hundreds of similar titles that are not succeeding (though if BDSM-chick-lit-porn were a stock, I’d go long…)

        But there are market segments that lend themselves to this, and other segments that will much more resistant. The strategy for publishers is to get content out through as many channels as possible, and those channels will only proliferate in the future. It also means rethinking the entire process from how content is created, structured, edited, and produced, and this includes everything from fiction, cookbooks, textbooks, to scholarly monographs.

        For traditional publishing, this is a sea-change. Really. Next up: SmartTV. If you’re an author, how to you approach content creation such that it fits into that space, too. Don’t think it’s going to happen? I’ve seen some of what the likes of Sony and LG are planning, and they’re planning big. Think of it this way: Your TV is no longer a TV, it’s just another screen in your life…

        Okay. Now can we get back to Gaming chicks…?

  3. Dirt Man on said:

    The good news is there are women (and girls) out there that are worth it and which aren’t so married to the constant need for attention. Of course they are rarer, and therefore of course more valuable.

    It’s actually better that the girls are so obvious with their attention needs when you think about it. Your last paragraph nails it. I consider the situation life-made-easy, meaning these girls are taking themselves out of the running before men waste any time with them. Most guys won’t get it and will foolishly try and plow through it. The smarter guys will pass over the whordes (can’t resist that) and look for the exceptions to the rule. Smart women either avoid that behavior or wake up from it.

    • P Ray on said:

      “Most guys won’t get it and will foolishly try and plow through it.”
      Women are the ones giving them that advice.
      as in “You need to show her that you’re sincere, by treating her better”.
      As I once heard:
      “You need to treat me as more than a human being”
      “Best friends agree on EVERYTHING!”

      Women are lamenting the change of events … NOT because it makes it harder for them to get alphas,
      but because they now have to be more available to the men they want to use without reciprocation.

      It’s not about “mutual respect”.
      It is about getting things without working for it, or under dishonest pretexts.

      After all, is it reasonable to assume a man marries a woman so that he can give her all his current and future assets … while she does not intend to be companionate, respectful and sexually available to him?
      Otherwise, as Chris Rock said: “I mean she can have the alimony, but I want some p?ssy payments.”

      Chris Rock: When it’s time to get a divorce, women got it made. You go to court, start talkin’ that sh?t. “I’m used to this, I’m used to that. I’m accustomed to this.” What the f?ck is accustomed? Whats that got to do with shit? You go to a restaurant, you accustomed to eatin’. You leave, you ain’t eatin’ no more. They don’t owe you a steak. What about what the man’s used to? It might not be money, but during the course of a relationship, a man grows accustomed to a few things. I would love to see a man go to court and say, “Your honor, check this out. I’m accustomed to f?ckin’ her four times a week. Now I feel I should be able to f?ck her at least twice a week. I mean she can have the alimony, but I want some p?ssy payments.”

      Chris Rock: Everybody need a pre-nup. People think you gotta be rich to get a pre-nup. You got twenty million and your wife wants ten, big deal, you ain’t starvin’! But if you got thirty thousand, and your wife wants fifteen, you might have to kill her!

      Chris Rock: So you gotta think about OJ’s situation. 25,000 a month, another man drivin’ his car, f?ckin’ his wife, and a house he’s still payin’ a mortgage on. Now, I’m not sayin’ he should have killed her, but I understand.

  4. I think the constant phone use is a blessing in disguise, because it allows us to see, with a single glance, who is a narcissistic, self-centred, flaky, superficial, not-worth-the-time-of-day bitch, i.e. most young women today. Red flags are useful; let them all be hoisted high, visible to all…

    • I’m really surprised that men are encountering this. Or maybe I just dont know what women do on dates as well as I think because I am a woman and I date men, so I only know what women do on dates based on what my guy friends tell me. But I do wonder if it’s primarily with younger women (age 18-25). I’m 34.

      When I am on a date my phone is on silent or vibrate and it stays in my purse. I only look at it when I am inside the ladies room. Even when I am out with friends, I tend to keep my phone in my purse. Having a phone out when you are with others is rude. The whole point of a phone is to communicate BUT if you are with a man (or friends) already, your need for communication is being satisfied by the conversation on the date.

      I will say though that I have (on rare occassions) seen men spending too much time on their phones on dates, often under the guise of “checking quote unquote important work email” but…I tend to think that these men either have no manners or they just arent that into their date. And when women do it, the same should be thought of them.

      However…I dont understand the comments that are taking issue with women who workout, take yoga, have activities in their life, etc. That doesnt seem negative… b/c usually it’s the women with nothing going on in their lives that become clingy the moment they meet a man b/c HE becomes their HOBBY. I would think a woman with her own interests / passions would be a positive prospect to a man rather than a woman who says (in answer to the “how do you spend your time” question): “I work at my XYZ job and I date you.” That would seem like they would be the type to put a lot of pressure on the guy to “entertain them” b/c they dont have any personal interests/hobbies.

      • DC Phil on said:

        1. PM was referring to women on their phones, etc., in general and not on dates. Thankfully, I’ve never encountered this with any of the women I’ve dated save for one, and that was on our third, and last date, where she had obviously lost interest in me by then. (No fourth date — I saw the signs clearly.) She was 26 and, on our second date, she told me how she was on pins and needles waiting for the new version of Android coming out. Uh, huh . . . telling.

        The issue is with how many women are on their phones CONSTANTLY, talking, texting, checking FB status, etc. It’s as if the woman can’t do something like emerge from the Metro, walk half a mile to the supermarket, and just take in the sights and sounds. Maybe you’re right in that this is just younger women, who grew up with this technology and so their brains are wired to it from an early age.

        2. Yes, guys are glued to their phones as well. It’s everyone and not just women.

        3. Women’s activities are their own to do, and you bring up a valid point that, if the woman has no life outside of her job and her paramour, then she’s a poor LTR prospect because she needs something outside of the relationship. I know that I couldn’t deal with a woman who made me the center of her life because she’d drive me up the wall. There has to be some balance.

        Rather, the comments are how peculiar it is that women seem to be so involved in so many things, leaving the guy wonder if she’d have time for him at all. A usual red flag for me is if the woman is working too much or who has a job that requires her to travel a lot, especially out of the country because she works for the World Bank, in international development, an NGO, or something like that. To me, she has no time for dating or a relationship and should just not bother trying to. The guy will get fed up eventually and look for someone else.

        Women who fill every hour with some kind of activity lead me to believe that they can’t stand to be alone with themselves. IMO, everyone needs a little solitude to recharge and to look deep within for any problems that might be there, preventing one from moving forward and growing. Not that activities can’t do this. But, again, if the woman has such a full life, what need does she have for a man — if not some chump who can subsidize it? 🙂

      • LostSailor on said:


        I have encountered a number of women in their 30s who check their phones on dates, though fortunately not that many. At least you appear to have been raised correctly with good manners.

        And of course it’s fine that a women work out and have activities in their lives. The problem arises when women have filled their lives with “hobbies” their passionate about instead of relationships. The dating profiles of women who have 10 different “passionate” activities listed raise red flags because they are probably not going to have a lot of time left over for a man in their life. I have also dated several women like this. Their lives are a whirlwind of activity that can mask an otherwise empty and unexamined life.

        If their activities overlap with some of my interests, that all well and good, but otherwise I don’t really care what their into as long as it doesn’t interfere with their making time for me. As TPM has posted about several times, it’s not their hobbies, but what they bring to the table relationship-wise that will be attractive to men: looks, femininity, a pleasant disposition, etc. That’s what’s important.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Ah. DC Phil beat me to the punch.

        I should have spiked the punch…

      • @ DC Phil and Lost Sailor

        I get the whole “what if she’s too busy to find time to really invest in a relationship” …but I can tell you this is not really something you need to worry about…I have seen even the most “independant” (dirty word, I know) woman drop many or ALL her activities to invest in a relationship once there is an actual relationship unfolding. But when we’re single…yeah, yoga, dance class, etc…it’s better than sitting at home watching tv and having our brain melt.

        ….okay, as for seeing women on their phone while not on dates…eh, if you’re not dating them or with them all the time…you have no idea if that is the 1st or 81st time they’ve looked at their phone in a hour, so judging a woman across the street who is looking at her phone and saying “I wont go run game on her b/c she looking at her phone….is shooting yourself in the foot / limiting your targets. Also, funny enough…I have been places before (cafe, bar, etc) and really wanted a man across the room to hit on me and given him some smiles but been afraid he would i was a loser because I was by myself so I would look at my phone as though I was waiting for a girlfriend so he wouldnt think I was a social leper. Sometimes, they’ve come over and said hi; sometimes not. I dont think my phone had anything to do with it but it gave me some confidence…Dumbo magic feather, I know…but hey, we’re all human. Anyway, confidence is more attractive than the insecure / unhappy look.

        But honestly…yes, women are social creatures we do like to interact (phone or in-person)….I think it’s a predominanty feminine trait. A guy friend of mine once said: introverts get their energy boost from being alone; extroverts get their energy from socializing. Maybe more women are extroverts and more men are introverts…i dont know. Generalizations like that are tough but are often true.

        As for all people needing introspection….yes we all do need it, however, we dont all need the same amount. You may need 5 hrs to yourself, a woman may only need 1 hr. However, to assume that her life is “unexamined” is a misconception. Examining, self-reflection is exactly the reason WHY women talk. We “talk it out” with our friends, family, etc. in order to gain a greater perspective. We conduct our reflection process differently from men so it appears to not be taking place. But in contrast, I have heard women say about quiet men…”he didnt say much, I guess there must not be much to him personality-wise.” Now, he may be as profound as any philosopher but to a woman talking is bonding. So, it’s not helpful for either gender to assume that b/c the other is doing something they would do (talking / keeping quiet) that they must not have “self-reflection” or an “interesting personality.”

        But maybe, women just need to talk more. I read this article once that actually gave a number of words per day that the average man vs woman needs to say…women needed like 2,000 more words a day.

        I think men are more comfortable with silence and women more comfortable talking is because of previous times in history…men would hunt/go into battle together and silence and the ability to communicate without speaking was important so that they would not scare off the animals they hunted or alert enemies they were fighting.

        Meanwhile, women lived in a community…because there were no microwaves or Swiffers or modern conveniences, housework was done in community…women assisted each other in major projects (preparing the home/food stores for winter; preparing for the birth of a child with sewing new clothes, etc) and they bonded during these activities by talking.

        So, yes you can look at women and think…Oh, these silly motor-mouths but really, it’s just how feminity developed from the begining of time. You can rail against it but as PM said another blog to a woman who was upset at normal male behavior (you can always date women)….well, gentlemen, you can always date men…or date masculine women who dont have this feminine trait of constant talking…but the manosphere is kinda all about feminine women so it’s just one of those trade-offs…feminine women have long-hair, cook and talk (a lot). Lol…just part of our wiring.

      • LostSailor on said:


        The key, as DC Phil pointed out, is balance. A woman may “drop everything” (which would be a little silly, and perhaps creepy) once she’s in a relationship, but relationships take time to develop. In today’s frenetic dating scene, a woman who has too many activity commitments is less likely to have the time to invest in creating a relationship. So, having an active life is fine, but there are limits. Which is why a woman with too many activities will generally be less attractive to a man.

        I didn’t say that all active women have unexamined lives, but a woman with a hyper activities schedule certainly raises red flags. When women talk with their girl-friends, it’s not so much self-examination as it is mutual validation. “Talking it out” in this manner all too often is more about validating choices and soothing egos. I’ve witnessed this countless times.

        And a quite man like you mentioned is not a Charismatic man. For a man with charisma, his taciturn nature implies a bit of mystery and is attractive.

      • DC Phil on said:


        1. As LostSailor said, it’s a balance. I’m old enough to remember when women seemed to have less going on in their lives than now, and when the dating scene was less frenetic. Sure, a woman has activities and I have my own, but I also know what it’s like to be overscheduled and then feeling run down when I don’t have enough time to recharge. For me, going to the gym is important because it keeps me fit and balanced so that I don’t slip into lethargy. I don’t have a demanding job, but I can perform much better when I’m feeling fit.

        2. Consider what you said here:

        I have been places before (cafe, bar, etc) and really wanted a man across the room to hit on me and given him some smiles but been afraid he would i was a loser because I was by myself so I would look at my phone as though I was waiting for a girlfriend so he wouldnt think I was a social leper.

        Um . . . so you couldn’t have put down your phone, got off your duff, and gone over to him to introduce yourself and make some chit-chat? If he wasn’t open, then his loss. The fact you didn’t means that you usually operate by default: i.e., expecting the man to make the first move. Maybe he wasn’t interested? Period. Second, “he’d think I was a loser/social leper” is self-defeating, don’t you think? That shows me another default: i.e., women can be overly sensitive to what others think of them, especially younger ones. What do you care what he thinks?

        3. I agree, women are hardwired to be more social. No disagreement there. But, men aren’t — at least not in the way that women usually are. The issue men have is that, if we’re aware of this tendency in both sexes (and many aren’t, at least not in depth), then we’d sometimes like things made a little easier for us. As in, we see a woman we like and we want to go over and talk to her. We’d like her to put down her phone, shut her trap, smile at us, and be open to a conversation. Give us incentives to continue the conversation. (Mind you, I’m talking about more socially aware guys, and not the socially retarded ones. I’ve seen enough of those, too, in my life.)

        4. You’re spot on with the assumption “quiet guy = not much personality-wise.” I’m sure this has happened to me many times in my life because I’m usually a quiet and reflective type. I can think deep thoughts, but I don’t share them with many people. But, the fact that a woman assumes that about me, or other quiet and reflective men, is a long-standing issue. Assumption = missed opportuniity.

        5. Yes, women, in general, need to talk more. “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” covered this ad nauseum, so I won’t go into it here. Also, men are more comfortable with silence, yes. Sometimes, we just wish that women would understand this. Also add that men like to talk facts and about solutions to problems, not to talk just to talk. I’ve also seen that there are many women out there that talk and talk because they’re nervous or insecure.

      • @Lost Sailor….I agree.

        @DC Phil…
        Yeah, I dont approach men if I have already given them a “green light.” I like men to be the aggressor/pursuer. If they dont approach, I always just presume they are not that into me. If I am in close proximity to a man, I may strike up an innocuous conversation, such as asking for time, directions, do you know the name of this song (in bars), etc. And if he doesnt start hitting on me after a few mins I presume he’s not that into me and I move on. But I’m not going to walk across a cafe to speak with a man…that to me seems too masculine/aggressive of a move (or screams DTF).

        As for saying that I am too concerned with what men think? HA! LOLOLOL. Everything women do is because we are concerned about what men think. We dress, walk, keep up our appearance, take up certain interests, etc all for the approval of men. If there were no men in the world, many women would never own heels or makeup or stockings. Men are the single greatest motivating factor for everything a woman does from the age of 12 onward, maybe even earlier than that. Studies have shown girls are afraid to raise their hand and ask questions in certain classes (math/science), specifically because of the fear that the boys in the class will make fun of them or simply “think they are dumb.” Are women insecure? Yep. Since the dawn of time. Heck, a lot of feminism comes directly from the insecurity of women. And while yes there are many confident women and yes the average woman has areas in her life she’s very confident about….men are a constant source for female insecurity. We know that men are constantly judging us on our looks, our behavior, how quickly/slowly we go to bed w/ a man – the balancing act of our concern that we’ll be judged as easy or prudish, our habits/idiosyncrasies, etc. Ah, thanks DC Phil, I needed a good laugh. Yes, darling, women are indeed very, very concerned with what men think of them.

        “We’d like her to put down her phone, shut her trap, smile at us, and be open to a conversation.” I agree 100%. When two or more people are together, no one should be on the phone / obsessively looking at their phone. My issues was more with the judgment being made about stuff that doesnt impact men….a woman across the street waiting for the bus is talking on her phone or txting constantly…as long as she isnt texing/talking to you…who cares.

        “Assumption = missed opportunity.” …and really that’s all I am saying… assuming a woman talking / txting to her friends is worth hitting on, is IMHO a missed opportunity.

        “Also, men are more comfortable with silence, yes. Sometimes, we just wish that women would understand this.” Most women do understand it. That’s why we talk to our girlfriends / sisters so much so that we dont have to unleash our talking onto men. When I “need to talk” …I call my sister. She and I love to talk and then I wont prattle on and on with my man, b/c I got it all out of my system with another women who actually enjoys it, b/c I know that men view it as akin to torture. So, when I am with him, I can more quiet, still, serene. Men/women cannot change the nature of the other gender…all we can do manage ourselves so that we cater to the other as much as possible. In other words….I’ll promise to talk to my sister, if ya’ll promise to watch sports with your brothers. Much like men view long talks, I view sports watching…I can do it now and then to make you happy but if it becomes too frequent, it feels like torture. 😉

        Kisses, JS

      • DC Phil on said:


        Glad that I gave you a laugh. You did, too. For example:

        I like men to be the aggressor/pursuer.

        Oh, isn’t this typical, eh? 🙂 And, if the guy IS the pursuer, you’ll definitely give him the time of day and be willing to talk with him, I’m sure.

        Here’s my take: women are risk-averse, and aren’t taken to task for being risk-averse. Men shoulder much of the risk of interaction. Now, if women don’t want to meet me halfway, what’s the incentive to take on this risk? My goal is to get you out of your panties quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. If I can do that in the first few dates, I’d consider that a success. If I can do it on the first date, a resounding success. If it takes me more than five dates, you’re just stringing me along/

        If they dont approach, I always just presume they are not that into me.

        I can say the same for women who don’t give me any indication that they’re interested in being opened up, or who act cold, distant, or indifferent when I’m talking to them. I’m also not interested in the woman playing hard to get.

        If I am in close proximity to a man, I may strike up an innocuous conversation, such as asking for time, directions, do you know the name of this song (in bars), etc.

        All good. At least you know how this works. This is what I call making an attempt to meet the guy halfway.

        But I’m not going to walk across a cafe to speak with a man…that to me seems too masculine/aggressive of a move (or screams DTF).

        You’d be surprised at the reaction you might get sometimes. Honey, if you did that with me, I’d be overjoyed that you had the balls to take a big risk and try to open me up. I wouldn’t necessarily look upon that at too aggressive or masculine or — heaven forbid! — DTF. You’d only be masculine if you came at me trying to shake my hand with your business card in the other hand.

        Men are the single greatest motivating factor for everything a woman does from the age of 12 onward, maybe even earlier than that.

        Eh, I doubt that. You sound like you’re cherry-picking some specious data there. You’re telling me that you were fully cognizant of the fact that, at, say, 7 years old, you were trying to get boys’ attention? Funny, but I don’t remember that when I was that age. I usually remember little girls my age thinking I was nerdy and icky. 🙂

        But, if you want to cherry-pick, consider this: I do remember from HS biology about the onset of puberty and what it does to boys and girls. They start to notice each other more, where they were kind of indifferent and maybe even equitable. Sure, there are exceptions, and both genders pick on each other in an attempt to cover up their interest in the other sex.

        We know that men are constantly judging us on our looks, our behavior, how quickly/slowly we go to bed w/ a man – the balancing act of our concern that we’ll be judged as easy or prudish, our habits/idiosyncrasies, etc.

        All true. No disagreement here. On the other hand, women are sizing up men, too: e.g., potential, earning power, looks, agreeableness, smarts, how much we make her ‘gina tingle.

        My issues was more with the judgment being made about stuff that doesnt impact men….a woman across the street waiting for the bus is talking on her phone or txting constantly…as long as she isnt texing/talking to you…who cares.

        In a way, I do agree. However, don’t you remember a time before cell phones, smartphones, and the Internet? I do. I remember when you could go out in public and people would just be standing, waiting for the bus, and just taking in the sights. Nowadays, referencing the main subject of this post, it’s constant stimulation. Now, I don’t know about you, but if I’ve been constantly stimulated during the day, I’m not interested in a boring opener by someone wanting to talk sports.

        So, the issue is, with these women talking, texting, surfing, etc. are they really present when guys try to talk to them? I’d be more inclined to think that a woman just sitting and doing nothing, but with a smile on her face, is much more approachable than the chick who’s chatting with her BFF about the newest restaurant that opened up. But, maybe that’s just me. 🙂

        “Also, men are more comfortable with silence, yes. Sometimes, we just wish that women would understand this.” Most women do understand it.

        So you say.

        That’s why we talk to our girlfriends / sisters so much so that we dont have to unleash our talking onto men. When I “need to talk” …I call my sister.

        So what do you talk about? What Ben Bernake and the Federal Reserve are doing to handle joblessness, world history, Cartesian philosophy? Or, guess what your bitch of a co-worker said to you as you were making copies, when the next rerun of SITC is on, or how you got two sundresses for the price of one at H & M? I think you know the answer to that one. 🙂

        My point: content, content, content.

        But, all things being equal, you don’t seem all that self-absorbed as some women I’ve met.

  5. rgoltn on said:

    Well said…. As a MWM in my mid-40’s, I see it daily in my wife’s friends; all mid-40’s divorced and never married women. They have dogs, cats and an endless stream of activities like yoga, movies, eating, shopping, more eating etc. It is actually sad. It is like SITC, but more lonely. That is the cold fact; if they do not fill their time up with such stimultion, the dead air in their houses, condos and apartments hits them with waves of lonliness, depression and anxiety.

    • DC Phil on said:

      Which just goes to prove that they’re profoundly incapable of dealing with solitude. They never learned how to just sit and be along with one’s thoughts.

  6. This is the equivalent of porn for men – women get their attention fix on the internet just like men get their sex/orgasm fix from easy, unrestricted access to porn. Soon we’ll be in pods living in a completely virtual world. There won’t be any great war where the machines take over and enslave us like in The Matrix. It will happen incrementally until we’re frogs in a boiling pot of water. Unless one takes the red pill…

    • P Ray on said:

      That assumes something good will come from a relationship that neither person is invested in.
      Being lonely in a relationship is probably much worse than being alone.
      That said,
      A woman lonely in a relationship with a man she is terrified of losing,
      doesn’t really think of herself as alone.
      After all, “better to share a winner than to have a loser all to yourself.”
      Which is why if a woman seems distracted or completely unavailable on certain days e.g. Valentine’s, Thanksgiving (and has unexplainable knick-knacks around) …
      you are being given good signals that in the ranking of relationships up to the current day,
      you come DEAD LAST.
      The excuse from her will be along the lines “I was trying to protect your feelings” …
      when she’s actually failing to say “I’m trying to protect MY IMAGE TO OTHERS”.
      No harm being curious about the past and honesty of the person you intend to spend the rest of the forseeable future with.
      After all, to the female rejoinder (almost always said by those looking for a fallback guy) to wary men “You have to trust unconditionally!”
      Comes Ronald Reagan’s … “Trust. But verify.”

    • Dude, right on. Someone ought to update E.M.Forster’s “The Machine Stops”.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Thank you! I was wracking my brains trying to remember the title of this. Years since I read it, but it is certainly applicable to today, visionary even.

      • DC Phil on said:

        Reminds me of one of those old “Choose Your Own Adventure” books I used to read as a kid . . .

        It was on time travel. You could go into the past or the future. One page took you far into the future where you, the reader and protagonist, were submersed in a tank of water with a breathing apparatus and an electrode and wire attached to your forehead. The wire sent pleasurable signals to your cerebral cortex and you had a feeding tube. Every so often, you’d be dropped into a larger tank with rushing water so that you’d have to paddle with your arms and legs. This was your exercise. Basically, this was your life.

        That image stays with me to this day.

  7. Will S.: Depressing as it is, yes, the red flag that goes up 10 seconds after meeting a chick saves you the headache you would otherwise have in the long run.

    This is only going to get worse. I won’t blame the technology because these rules (i.e. “no phones at the dinner table”) existed before cell phones.

    Did their parents never teach them social skills? Maybe, maybe not. But when I see little kids in restaurants now with their face buried in a phone (or worse: parent’s face in phone while ignoring the kid), I know that that’s at least two generations of FAIL.

    • P Ray on said:

      Women have the amazing ability to become glued to their phones when they do not want to interact with a guy but need a socially plausible excuse.
      I can bet you they will blow off a caller if Sam Worthington asked them for the time of day.

      I wouldn’t take technology as a cause, when it is just a “socially plausible” excuse.
      I’m pretty sure that even in the ages of stone tablets, the “learning” was just an excuse mechanism for “pretending to be busy” and “enabler to keep me around men I considered of high status”.
      After all … the socialite who says she’s too busy to read books, has no problem keeping up with blogs and observing trends. It’s still information. But perhaps she may also recognise that increasingly in a world driven by spin … it’s not WHAT you know, but WHO you know. And that it’s more profitable to move ahead on the basis of rumour and hype, since people of substance may not only be harder to con, but have the ability to make it difficult for her to build a name in the industry for the long-term.

    • teh_skeeze on said:

      Manners have gone the way of the Dodo. The other day I’m hanging out with my friends and a commercial comes on. It was a PSA about saying please and thank you. We looked at each other and said “Did we just see that?”

      • DC Phil on said:

        Very sad. I remember I was taught that for fear of being slapped by my mothers. 🙂

        On the other hand, given that most Game books, CDs, and blogs out there are about male socio-sexual skills that should have been taught to young guys by their fathers and other male relatives, not surprising.

  8. “A girl who claims that she can’t live without her phone is a girl who is incapable of an truly intimate relationship with a man.”

    Key point.

    A friend of mine once got up and walked out on a date at a very classy restaurant because she answered her phone twice and texted five times before the bread arrived. Unless a woman is a surgeon on call or a mother with a sick kid, there is no legitimate reason for her to use a phone on a date. And women who can’t unplug . . . sad. But they’re basically carrying a big red “Don’t Marry Me!” flag.

    • “A girl who claims that she can’t live without her phone is a girl who is incapable of an truly intimate relationship with a man.”


      I would add that the surgeon on call can get a pass, a mother with a sick child on a date raises a big red flag right there (not that I’m interesting in dating mothers anyway).

      Great idea and article btw.

    • P Ray on said:

      The other key thing:
      A woman who goes out of her way to tell you what her problems are … ON A SUPPOSED DATE.
      Notice how they never do that with the guys they later complain “only wanted me for my body”?
      If they’ve got the time to let you know what a mess their life is, maybe the guy in the position of such a date should go public on that.
      After all …
      A problem shared, is a problem halved.
      I’m pretty sure sharing that problem with the whole world … makes it “No Problem!” 🙂

  9. Jay in DC on said:

    Well, I have to say that I have arrived yet again at another place I’d like to call home. I stumbled into the Manosphere unwittingly by somehow clicking a link that took me to RooshV. The fact that you use a Matrix analogy is so fitting because after reading Roosh and the massive amount of links to other blogs I felt quite overloaded by it all in the way that Neo first did when “Awakening”. Likewise, prior to awakening, I moved through my day in the enforced slavery that the Washington DC dating scene is. And like Trinity said, there is something wrong and you can sense it, but you cannot quite place your finger on it. I mean, I saw that women who were at best a 5 or a 6 had the self-esteem of an 8 or 9. I saw that “What do you do?” is invariable the first or second question out of a woman’s mouth who is dating in Washington DC. But again, until you have others that can offer your the Red Pill, you can never be sure if it is just your imagination, or if there is truly an alterated reality that we are being force fed. I see that Phil DC, Roosh, Rookie, and I at the very least have experienced this hellish alternate reality here in DC. It is like a magnet for the worst that womankind has to offer. Extremely “strong, independent, career-oriented, driven” women are basically a dime a dozen here. A feminine woman? Needle in a haystack.
    To end my little bio let me tell you the most interesting part of just how fucked this situation is. I am not by an defintion, a beta male. I’m a low alpha, to be sure. Above average looks, intelligence, physique, and salary, and great game. But even with all that I still have to go out with about 20-30 women to find even one worth my time. I dated 44 women in 2010 via and found ONE who was worthy of my time and attention, and she was, wait for it… a foreigner. Shocker. A Hungarian who had been in a long marriage so simply did not realize that 5’8″ 120lb women with hair halfway down their back who are educated and, get this, nice; are well like diamonds amongst coal. Again, this was my second revelation and since then as Roosh also did I seek out foreigners like a heat seeking missile for this reason. Currently I have a Ukranian on the hook, same M.O. as the Hungarian. The thought of having to deal with DC women fills me with such revulsion I can scarely elucidate it accurately, but then, I think most of you know what I mean…

    • Jay in DC on said:

      God, lots of typos and grammatical errors! Sorry for that I went on a bit of a rant and couldn’t correct my spelling. Is there an edit function? I’m guessing not, either way I think you catch my general drift.

    • DC Phil on said:

      Welcome to the Manosphere.

      I second the emotion with foreigners. I remember when I was in Korea in the mid-90s and how easy it was to socialize with the girls there. (Of course, I had the foreigner’s cachet in a small city during the period when globalization was gaining speed, so that helped.) Though I wound up banging only two of them (one being my former student at my language school), they were friendly, sweet, and seemed genuinely interested in me. Much easier to deal with . . . and my opinions of American girls at the time where very close to what Manosphere denizens think of them now.

      Also, I was in Romania last year and found those girls easier to deal with, too, though hypergamy has made some inroads. It’s a cultural thing.

      I recommend that you and I hang out sometime. PM is all for getting local Manosphere denizens to socialize since we need solidarity.

    • LostSailor on said:

      Jay in DC: “Why do my eyes hurt?”

      Manosphere: “Because you’ve never used them…”


    • @Jay in DC

      Tell me about the scene in DC! Ridiculous. I had a girl (SEC) roll off all of her accomplisments then asked where I went to school..bla..bla..bla, i just looked at her and asked her when was the last time she got f’d (all in front of her friends) then walked away..
      Tom in Bal

      • DC Phil on said:

        LOL. I really need to use that one the next time that happens to me. (Fortunately, it’s rare . . . but I also don’t deal a lot with under-25s, where this sort of behavior is very common.) Too bad I’m still too polite. 🙂

    • DC Phil on said:


      Refer to my one response to JS about what women talk about.

      I’m curious . . . did your Hungarian girlfriend like to prattle on about dumb shit, either with you or with her female friends? How about your current Ukrainian squeeze? I’d wager that neither of them do because it’s a cultural thing. The fact that they don’t have the latest technological gadgets tells me that they’re more comfortable with solitude and relating to you over a nice home-cooked meal or a glass of wine . . . curled up on the couch all snuggly. 🙂

  10. DC Phil on said:

    Oh, an addition from the conversation I had with Badger . . .

    His view is that women who are “foodies” and who love to go out to restaurants, cafes, wine tastings, etc. are, at heart, stimulation junkies in the same vein as the younger chicks glued to their phones and iShit (TM). Staying at home watching a movie, listening to music, or reading must be so profoundly boring that spending tons of cash in overpriced eating and drinking establishments is better. Even better when you have some beta chump paying for the eats and booze. 🙂

    He told me that, when he was in Europe, the girls he was with over there were more inclined to stay at home and chill. I believe it, though I’ve not seen too much of it myself. There are some chicks here in DC who are like that, but they’re a dying breed.

    Remember C., the one I wrote about some time back? She had an old-style TV with built-in VCR and a crappy DVD player. Also, an equally crappy laptop computer. Neither were a priority for her. She preferred to cook and bake and talk walks in the Arboretum. And, no smartphone.

    • Jay in DC on said:

      Phil- This was entirely my experience with my Hungarian GF. She had an old school CRT TV, super old DVD player, a VCR and a flipphone. She had almost never watched American Television and described the few times that she had as “wretched and stupid.” And unlike the “indepedent” American women who are anything but, she truly was. She would go to the gym a few nights a week and just well… go home. My new Ukranian friend has the same basic ideology. The thing that again makes me feel like I’m out of the matrix is that they are both quite attractive and -very- intelligent. Now the pseudo intellegentsia liberal retards that are here in DC in droves, but truly smart regarding a variety of topics. The Hungarian was 35 (I am 39 btw) so age adjusted she was an 8, maybe 8.5. The Ukranian is 35, age adjusted she is a 7/7.5. My Hungarian GF actively asked me to come over so she could cook dinner for me, frequently. I would watch her in the kitchen this tall thin modelesque women with long thick brown hair and a tight beautiful ass and seriously think to myself “how the fuck did I land this woman?” In retrospect, despite as I have mentioned being fairly alpha I still beleive she was bit out of my league. Both of them have opinions that they have formed on their own without having to consult with what is currently the correct answer, politically. And both of them expect one thing of me that draws me to them like a moth to a flame. Make decisions. They are from cultures where most men are still quite alpha, they simply wouldn’t know what to do with a pussified beta male. “Wherever you want to go” is a phrase I heard both of them use. Again, once you have experienced this, you simply cannot go back to the normal DC frau who is going on about what the latest hot spot all her GFs have convinced her is happening that week. I’m hoping this Ukranian dealie works out, but if not, I am highly interested in becoming an ex-pat as Roosh has done. I am actively learning Russian as most of the women I find the most beautiful and easy to deal with hail from countries where this is a first or second language.

      • DC Phil on said:

        Well, damn son! Where did you find your Hungarian and Ukrainian? I need to find out where such women hang out!

      • Jay in DC on said:

        Mainly on but it took me to develop a “system” much like what PM describes in his post of the same topic. There are certain keywords you can search on and definitely you can filter by Languages spoken. I also met a couple bangin’ hotties at Club Lima on K Street doing some “real world” work but those were very short term engagements for obvious reasons. A girl in a club is a girl in a club and you aren’t going to likely end up with her for long term. However, that is one of the last bastions of “true” international club scene in DC. I’m pretty sure it is run by the russian mob because every single bouncer there speaks Russian. But that being the case there is a preponderance of Eastern Euro/Russian women there and they are much much more approachable. Again, just put yourself near the bar or a group and the accents you hear tell you who to focus on. My runs on foreigners were much much more successful. I dated a Brazilian for about 3 months in early 2010 she was an au pair which many of these younger foreign girls are. Two russians that I just didn’t have good chemistry with, a Moldovan who was much bigger than her photo would suggest, and then I struck gold on the Hungarian. Ukranian same deal, same place. It definitely requires some effort though to “data mine” the place in that way.

    • Jay in DC on said:

      Last thing for tonight- In this wonderful Matrix analogy, since I am “reinserted” into the matrix (DC dating) I take the tack of the Oracle’s kid— “Do not try and bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends (American women) only yourself (dating foreigners)”.

    • DC Phil on said:


      Thanks for the info. I’d like to take this offline. Got an anonymous email I can use? I have to pick your brain for more info.

  11. 1hoss on said:

    The constant texting in social situations was a kick in the ass to me. I thought it was rather rude, will take some getting used to.

    Thanks for the helping me reset my expectations, PM.

  12. 1hoss on said:

    My recent foray into the social scene and the presence of constant texting/phone checking was a kick in the ass. I’ll just roll with my own style of disaffected indifference.

    Thanks for helping me reset my expectations, PM.

  13. someguy302004 on said:

    DC is great, isn’t it. The 5s and 6s with the attitudes of a 9 crack me up- to the point of a sly smirk when I sense it near me. I occasionally do this mental trick when I walk around- I picture every female I see wearing a tiara and a pink shirt that says “princess”
    I also wonder how many carats their golden vagina is!

    If i get a look, I make sure that that attitude of mine (smirking indifference) in response to theirs is noticeable.

    Also, another “trick” that I do is datIng teachers instead of lawyers. Roughly speaking, less masculine than lawyers, I think.

    • DC Phil on said:

      Teachers are generally less masculine than lawyers, but I’ve met some teachers in my life that can be downright nasty because they hate their jobs and are overstressed. I used to be a substitute teacher years ago and worked at some inner city schools. Never again — and I did actually feel sorry for some of those teachers. This was in the days before ubiquitous cell phones and smartphones, mind you. Probably much worse now.

      Oh, and there’s some cattiness going on with female teachers. I’ve seen it because, somehow, they felt I was a threat to them.

      • Jay in DC on said:

        This is interesting to me. I dated two teachers and found them both quite agreeable though they worked in the ‘burbs so that likely has much to do with it. Teachers and nurses tend to display feminine traits because “caring” is part and parcel to what they do, at least in theory. Lawyers are the -worst- and DC is lawyer capital of the USA by a large margin. I dated three and every one of them fit the worst stereotype quite well. Now if I am matched with them I simply click through. You could not open a briefcase full of 100s and offer it to me to date an attorney.

      • DC Phil on said:

        As I said, these were teachers in inner city schools. Also, a friend of mine had an unpleasant experience teaching in the ‘burbs many years ago at one Catholic school that was made up of predominantly women teachers. These were white women whose husbands were professionals (read: doctors, bankers, lawyers, etc.) who happened to get into teaching because it was an “easy” road for them. The school and the neighborhood were both upper-class/moneyed conservative, and these women thought their shit didn’t stink. They also had a corrosive sense of “noblesse oblige” towards the students and teaching in general. My friend, being of the liberal persuasion, was badly outnumbered and incurred the wrath of a couple of these women because he called them out on their provincialism, narrow-mindedness, and racism (remember, this was a white district) one time. He never recovered from that.

        Also, one caveat . . . not all women who went to law school turn out to be lawyers, so don’t necessarily rule them out as options. On OKC, for example, I’ve seen many women who state that they went to law school, only to change their minds because they found the field soulless and too combative.

        The one woman I dated last year shortly before Thanksgiving went to law school and she specialized in family and child law, but was doing more in social work at the time. Her goal was to do child advocacy. Admirable, generally speaking. Too bad she turned out to be intellectually vacuous, somewhat incurious, and too steeped in the hookup culture (read: the chick was whack). She was 28, so she was of that cohort.

      • someguy302004 on said:

        Fellow DCers- Phil and Jay, etc

        I have a confession to make- after that long post about avoiding lawyers, I ended up getting a mid twenties law student’s number last night in a bookstore in DuPont Circle….but she was so leggy and pretty….

        If either of you want to trade dc war stories, email me at someguy302004 at yahoo.

  14. I see this all the time when I am out and about. The worst cases are the under 35 women/girls. They almost look like zombies shuffling through the store or down the street, eyes glued to a glowing little screen. The ones that really crack me up are when I go to the grocery and I see a young mom, pushing a cart, baby strapped into the carrier, trying to juggle keys out of a purse and gabbing loudly in the checkout line on a cell phone glued to her ear. She can’t even stop the conversation for a minute to acknowledge the checkout girl and just goes through the whole transaction ignoring the world around her except to swipe the ATM card. WTF?

    Seems very weird and compulsive to me. And yes, I really only notice women doing it to this extreme. It’s practically a stereotype of a young blonde girl, big bug eyed sunglasses, flip flops, red Japanese car something or other, cell phone stuck in one hand, cigarette hanging out the window in the other, steering with the knees. Recently here they passed a law against texting while driving and require hands free cell phone use. I bet there was a lot of gnashing of teeth and requests that hubby or boyfriend pony up some cash for a hands free accessory. After all, what if there is an emergency and I have to stay in contact for the children? ROFL.

    • DC Phil on said:

      She can’t even stop the conversation for a minute to acknowledge the checkout girl and just goes through the whole transaction ignoring the world around her except to swipe the ATM card. WTF?

      Refer to my one comment to JS above. This is what I was getting at with how technology is making us oblivious to others and the outside world.

      I know that women can multitask much better than men can, but even they have limits with their short attention spans. 🙂

  15. According to this, every guy under 35 is totally fucked

    • But i also agree completely…. my generation and the one following it are totally missing out on their lives, missing the magnificent moments in order to be able to tweet about it right this moment

  16. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Support In Mala Fide and Get Free Stuff Edition

  17. Reblogged this on Errant Buckeye and commented:

    For anyone interested in living in Korea or is considering dating any girls in Korea, know this: the smart phone situation’s probably worse over here…
    One benefit to living in the country is that I don’t have to deal with the idiocy of the city. Sure, there’s plenty of idiocy in the country, but there’s a smaller amount of it thanks to a smaller population. That said, I regularly journey into Seoul to visit the girlfriend and witness the cutting edge of Korean social trends. One such trend is something engulfing the world: Smart phones and how people use them.

    Are you to talking to her or talking to her phone?

    I look around the subway, the cafe, the street, and I see everyone carrying their phones in their hands everywhere they go. The phone’s been incorporated into gestures now.

    Couples talk to each other and the girl invariably has her right hand wrapped around her iPhone. She checks this and that in between her boyfriend’ syllables and looks up at him from time to time. Sometimes the guy does the same. More often than not, I witness people having conversations that seem entirely driven by what they see on their phones. It’s as if the phone–they depend on the phone to push the Think buttons. I wonder, is he talking to her or talking to her phone. Is she talking to him or the him that’s between rounds? Private Man’s blog featured the post Constant, Unending Attention and lamented how women turn their attention over to their phones, but the problem’s more severe in Korea. Here phones are virtually glued to people’s hands because everyone thinks they’re the President or Warren Buffet.

    And, funny enough, I’m writing this on an iPad. Much as dislike aspects of technology, looking at this screen beats seeing people staring anxiously at theirs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: