The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Dating 2.0 – A Definition

When dealing with the social reality of Dating 2.0, it’s extremely important that we all have the same general understanding of what Dating 2.0 actually is:

Dating 2.0 is the contemporary reality of male-female relationships where winning a power struggle is the most important consideration when a man and a woman are attempting to determine short and long-term relationship compatibility. The person who cares the least wins this power struggle. Further elements of Dating 2.0 involve the heavy use of technology to both communicate more quickly but, ironically, more opaquely. On a shallow level, Dating 2.0 focuses far more on sexual attraction – “chemistry” – than on long-term compatibility. Lastly, Dating 2.0 assumes a dating economy where one’s dating value is based primarily on biological factors arising from a woman’s hypergamous nature and a man’s imperative to spread his DNA as widely as possible.

While this is a long definition, it takes in the major elements of Dating 2.0. Let’s break down some gender-based dating behaviors that are the direct result of Dating 2.0:

For Women:

  • Reject a man immediately for the slightest of reasons
  • Never settle
  • Chemistry trumps compatibility
  • There is always another man (online dating) right around the corner
  • Gatekeepers to sexuality

For Men:

  • Chivalry is dead (no gifts, fancy dinner dates, or compliments)
  • Soft harem
  • Pick-up artistry and learned Charisma
  • Numbers game online dating
  • Gatekeepers to commitment

I will never argue that Dating 2.0 is a good thing. It’s emotionally corrosive to individuals and extremely unhealthy for society over all. But as it’s the truth of the matter and it’s better to be realistic and deal honestly with that truth then continue with the pretty lies that are even more destructive to individuals and society than Dating 2.0 could ever be.

When men and women finally understand how Dating 2.0 works, we can then work to do some serious social rebuilding that will be far more healthy for everyone than the politically correct nonsense that is still being spread as dating advice. If it’s not Red Pill, Dating 2.0 advice, it will fail.

Note: Fundraising hasn’t stopped!

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

25 thoughts on “Dating 2.0 – A Definition

  1. Anaïs on said:

    Does this mean that Dating 1.0 is dead?
    It is still possible for a Dater 1.0 to meet another Dater 1.0 and contribute to society, right? (the Dating 2.0 has sent chills down my spine)

    • Dating 1.0 was murdered way back in the late 1960s by knife-wielding and birth control-taking women who wanted alpha fucks and beta bucks and so spawned Dating 1.5 where alpha guys had it made and beta men were kept in the dark. Until the Internet and the Manosphere, Dating 1.5 reigned supreme. But now that men are finally figuring out the score, Dating 2.0 has emerged. The only scenario by which we could return to something even vaguely resembling Dating 1.0 is when private, effective, male birth control is widely available.

      • Anaïs on said:

        Vasectomy?

      • Too permanent for younger guys. Of course, I had a vasectomy but not until my late-30s.

      • Anaïs on said:

        Dunno PM… Most of the time I agree with you, but this male contraceptive doesn’t make sense. I need to ponder on it a bit longer. I can understand Dating 2.0 in terms of women being shallow and generally crazy and men being shallow and visual but the whole kid thing… not convinced yet.

  2. Anaïs on said:

    OK. You are right. I guess I haven’t taken the pill yet. I thought I had after so many months but clearly not.

  3. PM:

    It might be beyond the scope of the post, but you might add this:

    For Women:

    –marriage is delayed as long as possible, but is still an end goal. What often frustrates this goal is women’s universal perception of the declining quality of men ready, willing and able to marry them.

    For Men:

    –legal, covenant or binding marriage is out of the question. The most commitment he will make is cohabitation or exclusive LTR.
    –women are expected to pull their own weight in all aspects of the relationship, including financially.

    • Basil Ransom on said:

      “goal is women’s universal perception of the declining quality of men ready, willing and able to marry them. ”

      For anyone who doesn’t already know, if a woman says “there are no good men left,” *do not* consider a relationship with her. Girls I’ve known who made great girlfriends, whether my own or some other man’s, would *never* say things like that, and never seemed to be without a respectable boyfriend for long.

    • just visiting on said:

      Deti, I’ve been in the sphere long enough to know why you advocate this. And it’s smart from a man’s perspective. But let’s be honest. If your daughter told you that she was going to shack up with some guy, you’d be disappointed.

      • Just visiting:

        I don’t recommend marriage to men. But that’s not why I included the section about marriage being out of the question for men. I included it because it’s a reality of today’s dating marketplace for a growing segment of men.

        IAnd yearh, I’d be disappointed if my daughter shacked up with a man who would not marry her. In a different time and place I would not have to worry about it so much. Now I do — and she will. The dwindling numbers of men willing to marry will be a fact of dating life she will have to contend with.

  4. Basil Ransom on said:

    Privateman, why would male birth control revert us to Dating 1.0?

    The core of dating 2.0 is hypergamy. To contain hypergamy, you must contain polyandry. I.e. you’d have to reduce the incidence of high value men dating multiple women, or even from having flings – because even if these men only had one girl at a time, they could just simply wait for their turn at a fling.

    Put differently, you’d have to prevent men from dating down. What we have now is a *sex* market, and ‘Dating 1.0’ is a *relationship* market. The more resources a man has to put in before he gets sex, the less willing he is to date down. If a man had to put in 6 months before he could hit it, he’d be *very* circumspect about who he dates. Bye-bye to 5s getting inflated from one night stands with cool dudes.

    Game guys don’t want absolute, Victorian style monogamy, as then they’d never get laid without getting married. But they also don’t want raging hypergamy, because then their results suffer. It’s a spectrum between value (i.e. dating in your league) on one hand and sexual variety and frequency on the other, and different guys have different preferences for what is optimum. Regardless of their preference though, they can agree that *every* man is hurt when women wreck themselves with obesity, ugly style, lack of femininity and bad attitudes.

  5. That’s a great and funny post, and sadly accurate, I suppose. I think inevitably what a man must do is (since women cannot be trusted with having the power in an LTR), a man must pick a woman where he clearly outranks her, almost to the point where he may not be that attracted to her because he outranks her so much. In this situation, if the man is responsible and has integrity, then the LTR can be successful, because he can guide it in the right direction and the chances of him being dumped are lessened due to his power relative to hers. I’m living this, in fact. Sure, I have a gf that doesn’t turn me on a whole lot, but we are compatible and I don’t have to worry about her leaving me (unless I lose my job and don’t get another).

    If you are in an LTR in your 40’s or older where the power is balanced and you’re both strongly sexually attracted to one another than you are in the 1% (think Rollo and his wife with the fake boobs). Back in 1970-80, it wasn’t this bad.

  6. Word to the wise: co-habitating is also dangerous. It can constitute common law marriage, which gives the woman just as much right to your $$ and possessions as a marriage certificate.

  7. Brendan on said:

    The male pill does have some impact here.

    Primarily, it prevents women from gotcha type imposition of child support responsibilities on men who had no intention to sire a child when they had sex, as well as reducing the idea of deliberate sperm shopping if the intention is to be a single mother to begin with. That represents a definite shift of power away from women in that specific circumstance, and that’s important enough as it is. It doesn’t automatically shift things back to the ancien regime, really, because it would likely also result in a greater emphasis on short term over long term, by removing one more “long term risk” from the equation (from the male point of view). But on the margins it means that women would be less likely to have sex for “gotcha” motivated reasons, as well as reducing the opportunistic sperm shoppers from having unprotected alpha sex to sire kids who will be raised by themselves only. Many men would not be using this, so the possibility for women to do this wouldn’t be completely eliminated. But it does impact things on the margin.

  8. DC Phil on said:

    If you want to get technical about it, this fellow wrote about the prototype of Dating 2.0:

    http://bit.ly/PKBNVw

    Worth a read, but patiently since he’s a sociologist.

    Basically, his view is that the “pure relationship” exists when there are no external validating or corrective mechanisms. In the context of modernity (or post-modernity, whichever way you look at it), this is great in that it frees up the person to pursue his or her desires within whatever limits there might or might not be. However, this comes at a price: viz., that the relationship exists “until further notice.”

    When you have the upper hand in the relationship, this might be all well and good. But, over time, it’s corrosive, just like Dating 2.0 is. Neither of them mitigate risk, which contributes to the feeling of unease and mistrust that permeates relationships.

    Back in the day, though relationships were less than perfect, they at least seemed to mitigate some societal risk. But, in the absence of strictures, it turns into a free-for-all. Dating for sport.

  9. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 8-12-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  10. You (almost) inspire me to correlate this to the various other countries I’ve been dating in. They are all so unique and different in key aspects. I much enjoy U.S. style dating (if it’s not my only outlet, and not looking for long term partnerships).

    Right now being in Cambodia, 1.0 is still alive and well (as it is in many third world countries, for all the obvious reasons). Getting to compare 1.0 and 2.0, I can’t fully get behind vilifying the new version (selfishly). There isn’t all that much fun and carefree test driving of the goods, here. Much of the manosphere likes to get a little double-standard-ey, complaining about sluts but then bragging about scoring virgins for a notch. Meh, ya know?

    A little bit of everything, I recommend. It’s a life not even kings would have enjoyed in the not so distant past, all the choices we have today. Positive thoughts!!!

  11. razoor_mx on said:

    A very concise definition of the current battlefield! I really like the analogies made in the bullet points. My favorite are the two last ones: Gatekeepers to sexuality vs. Gatekeepers to commitment.

    Men should use relationships to get sex and women should use sex to get in relationships. As a woman might use her sexuality to enforce good male bahavior in a case lopsided towards the woman, a man should be using his attention to enforce good female behavior. Of course, this dynamic should always to slightly lopsided towards the man.

  12. Pingback: If she doesn’t get you, you’re in for trouble | Rojobag

  13. Pingback: Men – The Gatekeepers To Commitment (Long Post) « The Private Man

  14. Pingback: DA GBFM rveoltoutinez da internetz woolrd with his ALPHA FUCKS BETA BUCKS POEM Zlsososlzlzl zlzlozozozooz alpha fux and beta bux poetry poeteriesz lozozozzo poem poem poem poetry lzlzlozozoz | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOK

  15. Pingback: FIVE MINUTES OF ALPHA SHAKESPEAREAN SONNETZ a peomaz poem POEM a girlz wrote aboute da GBFM!!! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  16. Pingback: lzlozoz DR> HELEN CALLS OUT TUCKER CARLSON FATASSED DOUBLE CHINND TUCKER FUCKER FUCKTARD CARLOSON | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  17. Pingback: THEY BERNANKIFIED MY SOUL AWAY & LEFT ME WITH CATSZ CATZ CATS! Bring Back Prima Noctes! Braveheart: “Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the nigh

  18. Pingback: THEY BERNANKIFIED MY SOUL AWAY & LEFT ME WITH CATSZ CATZ CATS! Bring Back Prima Noctes! Braveheart: “Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the nigh

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: